That sounds rather dangerous. There seems to be a not-insignificant number of people who would get irrationally angry at being tricked into having “gay sex” and thus being turned gay, and the only way they know to ungay themselves is through violence.
I dont understand how you guys think its okay to trick someone like that. How can you not respect a partner like that? How would it be irrational to be very upset by that?
I say irrational to describe the degree of anger. Being upset about it? Sure. I don’t expect to understand it, but I can accept that it’s upsetting to some people.
Of course. There’s the obvious requirement of consent before the act and continuous consent throughout the course of the act. Things become a lot less straightforward when it comes to revoking consent after the fact. I’m not convinced that violence is ever warranted in these scenarios.
Violence is never warranted but theres no confusion about consent. You cant get consent if you arent giving the terms to consent to. Consent means an understanding. This isnt iTunes terms and conditions.
The part that isn’t straightforward is what information is needed in order to make an informed decision and what is reasonable to provide to a sexual partner. It’s not something I’ve thought about before so I don’t have an answer to this, but the fact that I have to put more than a few minutes of thought into it is why I qualify as non-straightforward.
That sounds rather dangerous. There seems to be a not-insignificant number of people who would get irrationally angry at being tricked into having “gay sex” and thus being turned gay, and the only way they know to ungay themselves is through violence.
I dont understand how you guys think its okay to trick someone like that. How can you not respect a partner like that? How would it be irrational to be very upset by that?
I say irrational to describe the degree of anger. Being upset about it? Sure. I don’t expect to understand it, but I can accept that it’s upsetting to some people.
Non-consensual sex is pretty egregious… I hope you understand that.
Of course. There’s the obvious requirement of consent before the act and continuous consent throughout the course of the act. Things become a lot less straightforward when it comes to revoking consent after the fact. I’m not convinced that violence is ever warranted in these scenarios.
Violence is never warranted but theres no confusion about consent. You cant get consent if you arent giving the terms to consent to. Consent means an understanding. This isnt iTunes terms and conditions.
The part that isn’t straightforward is what information is needed in order to make an informed decision and what is reasonable to provide to a sexual partner. It’s not something I’ve thought about before so I don’t have an answer to this, but the fact that I have to put more than a few minutes of thought into it is why I qualify as non-straightforward.
Angrily revoking consent after the fact is very common and understandable when STDs are involved and undisclosed.
There aren’t a lot of other examples I know of, maybe if one party know they were related and didn’t say anything.
But do you see the issue now?