It is rape if you do not disclose that you are trans
>>38594677incorrecthaving sex with someone via deception is rape however
>>38594210Yes.
>>38594210If you know they wouldn't have sex with you otherwise yesIf they ask and you lie yes If they don't ask and don't express a preference then no. Anything about you could turn someone off, it's their job to express their conditions for consent not yours to give them a full background check just in case
>>38595598>If they don't ask and don't express a preference then no.This is incredibly disingenuous.
>>38595598(This is because rape by deception requires you to knowingly deceive)
>>38595598>tries to dress up as a man/woman>"NO! I wasn't trying to deceive you into thinking I was a man/woman!"hurrrrrrrrrdurrrr
>>38595601You can't do rape by deception without knowingly deceiving someone People act like being trans is a special case but it's not - if someone is upset they had sex with a Muslim or a German or a non-virgin or whatever its the same standard
>>38595598>If they don't ask and don't express a preference then no.being trans is inherently a lie. Not informing someone of the false assumptions you purposeful create yields culpability
>>38595613>wear makeup>deceive someone into thinking you're prettier than you are>this is literally rape !!!!!!If you know some trannies might look enough like cis women to confuse you and you don't screen your sexual partners that's on you
>>38595616>You can't do rape by deception without knowingly deceiving someoneYou are knowingly deceiving a cisgender heterosexual man who is expressing sexual interest in you by not disclosing the fact that you are a transwoman.If the man in question were bisexual or pansexual, I would agree with you.
>>38595623False equivalency. Having sex with someone is much more intimate than just looking at someone. Imagine if I dressed up as a police officer and tried to arrest someone, I can't say "Well I was just dressed up???? I wasn't doing anything wrong. is it a crime to dress up?"
>>38595623Yeah, fuck rape victims. They really should have asked more questions. They had it coming.
>>38595623>wear makeup>deceive someone into thinking you're prettier than you are>this is literally rape !!!!!!yes this is true
>>38595628Other people's assumptions about you isn't rape by deception. If you assume I'm a Christian because i like crosses and then have sex with me on that basis it is also not rape by deception. Its the same standard>>38595632The sex was implied genius
>>38595635Be offended all you want I didn't write the law
>>38595649>Other people's assumptions about you isn't rape by deception.Knowingly deceiving someone into having sex with you when you are not truly what they want to have sex with is rape.
>>38595668You're correct! Unfortunately people can't read minds do you can't hold people responsible for not knowing what you want without verbalising it - rape via lack of psychic powers is not a crime yet
>>38594210it is rape even if you disclose you are trans
>>38595687Getting a wider picture, the main reason why this matters beyond trannies is you can't dislike sex with Jewish people, have sex with someone because they look gentile and then later find out they're Jewish and charge them with rape. Swap jewish out for anything - if they don't know you have a problem and you make an assumption they can't be held responsible for that, It's an insane standard when you stop out the tranny hate bubble to make anyone who has any sort of ambiguous characteristic to explain themselves on the chance that the other person doesn't like it and get them on a sex offender registry
>>38595734that doesn't count because jewish people lack foreskin, so you can tell before sex. otherwise yeah you could sue him
>>38595734>Getting a wider picture, the main reason why this matters beyond trannies is you can't dislike sex with Jewish people, have sex with someone because they look gentile and then later find out they're Jewish and charge them with rapeThat actually could be rape depending on the circumstance.
>>38595747The dead foreskin has more capacity for critical thinking than you
>>38594210Rape by deception is not "rape by regret", it is rape by INDUCTIVE deception. The same tests for entrapment apply, if you’re familiar with that concept.Let’s say a woman fucks the CEO of the company she works for. She knew (he’s the ceo, duh) but the CEO had no clue. Was the CEO raped? Unlikely.- The male CEO would have had sex with the female employee even if the deception didn’t happen (she wasn’t a subordinate)- he intended to have sex, he just found himself in a regrettable situation.Now let’s say the same scenario, but in reverse. A male worker has sex with a female CEO. The female CEO tells the male worker that it is a mandatory requirement for promotions to middle management that they have sex with a C-level. Was the male employee raped? Likely:- The man had no intent to have sex; if the deception had not happened, he would not have had sex.- The female CEO willfully defrauded the male employee into thinking that sex was essentialThis is the same logic that applies to entrapment. People cannot "regret" something because of circumstances they did not know; people can only be entrapped by false circumstances that pressured them into acting
>>38595751ad hominem, not a real argument bitch
>>38595749It could be, >>38595598Same as ^^But if you have to add qualifying assumptions to make it rape then that's proving my point- the act itself is not
>>38595756You don't get big boy arguments you're a time waster sorry
>>38595752Exactly. If the Man knew the tranny were actually a Man, the sex would not have occurred - Ergo it is rape by deception.
>>38595765Not true. If the tranny were a woman, the sex would have still occurred. The tranny being a man is an unfortunate circumstance but the tranny did not deceive inductively.This is why most people misunderstand entrapment, to understand rape by deception you must have a correct understanding of entrapment tests
>>38595781>unfortunate circumstancerape is an unfortunate circumstance now?
>>38595793Nta but this is exactly why you can't get it - you've started with your conclusion and worked backwards from there regardless of the legal implications or practicalities
>>38595781>If the tranny were a woman, the sex would have still occurred.If the tranny were a woman...then the tranny wouldn't be deceiving anyone. What the fuck am I reading.
That stabbing case spawns some spicy threads on this boring board, i love it >:)
>>38595808The point is that inductive deception is not deception.Let’s say an undercover cop sells you an illegal gun. You ask if they’re a cop, they say no. You take the gun, and then get arrested. Entrapment? NOPE. Why?- If the person standing there selling you the gun was not a cop, the transaction would likely have succeeded- The police officer did not induce the need to purchase an illegal firearm, you were actively intending to purchase one.Now a case of actual entrapment is: You are surrendering a gun to a police department. They inform you that you need to file the serial number off the gun before turning it in. When you do, they arrest you for owning an illegal firearm. Entrapment? YES! Why?- Had the police officer not told you that you needed to file off the serial number, you would likely not have done it.- The police officer induced the need to file the serial number off by portraying it as a requirement for surrender.Rape by deception is the same. You hook up with a chick, plap, and the next day figure out she’s trans. Deceptive? Sure. But the reality is she neither inspired the need to have sex with her and if she were someone else (say a cis woman) you would have plapped and then gone about your merry life.
>>38595781>If the tranny were a womanwoops, you accidentally stated that trans women aren't women. prepare to be cancelled
>>38595837Ehh, I would argue Entrapment and Rape By fraud are not the same. Kind of a red herring. Imagine if I lie to you saying I would fix your roof for $500, and then you give me the money and I run off. That's fraud, right? Well Rape by Deception is the same, it's just a kind of Fraud. Lying to obtain something (in this case, sex). No idea why you think it's like entrapment. Also, funnily enough people have already been convinced of rape by fraud for being transgender.https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-22078298So what exactly "Rape by Fraud" means is not universal.
>>38595687>Unfortunately people can't read mindsPeople can read social situations and body language. You're being entirely disingenuous.I'm obviously not saying that people who rape by deception deserve to get pincushioned with knives by an angry mob, but come the fuck on, anon.
>>38595598If you are legally required to inform someone you have HIV before sex you should be legally required to inform someone you are a troon
>>38594210it's not rape, but you're somewhat of an asshole for not disclosing it.
https://theintercept.com/2014/07/14/manipulating-online-polls-ways-british-spies-seek-control-internet/Glowies here pushing a narrative as they want more dead trans people
>>38596188TrueThough 99% of troons will never have to deal with this scenario since passing is a myth.
>>38594210retard
>>38595837The police are allowed to deceive others. They aren't allowed to cause crimes. The police are not arguing they didn't deceive the criminals, they are arguing they didn't cause the crime.In a fraud case, the thing under contention is whether deception took place. Regular citizens are not allowed to deceive others in order to obtain items they couldn't normally get. Totally different situation. If someone lies to you by saying they are the plumber you called to the house, that person can't then say "Well if I really WERE the plumber then you would have left me". Like, no shit. But you aren't allowed to pretend to be a plumber. That's trespassing.
>>38597100>But you aren't allowed to pretend to be a plumber. Sure you are.>source: I am a plumber
>>38597119I mean you aren't allowed to pretend to be a plumber to get access to someone's home. I was in-between goon seshes while typing this so I didn't do a proof read.
>>38594210yest. tranny
>>38594210No because by the time they're inside if your 2-inch deep hole they will be able to tell, it's on them at that point.
>>38594210Rape is a violent crime. Areas of dubious consent shouldn’t be called rape as it cheapens the word. It’s definitely immoral though, and should probably be labeled as sexual assault if some kind.
>>38597354Being a woman is a violent crime against men.
>>38594210bold of you to assume a trans person would even have sex with you
>>38597354>Areas of dubious consent shouldn’t be called rape as it cheapens the word.I think this goes far enough beyond mere "dubious consent" to constitute rape. It certainly isn't just molestation or sexual harassment.
>>38596049>you can read social situations and body language Hmm... my suitor has "does not want to fuck trannies" eyes...
>>38597359If anything it’s the opposite.
>>38597466I mean, yeah?
>>38595649your honour! he was wearing a suit I assumed he was rich!
