Feminism thread

[harsh.ag]

I disagree.

I mean obviously I agree that women can incur a high cost of a failed engagement and bear the brunt of the smearing that happens afterwards. That has to change in and of itself. But if you continue the precedent of court cases for broken engagements you're introducing a legal/financial coercion on someone to get married, which is insane.

I'm not talking about broken engagements. Talking about cases where the guy wilfully lies about getting married just to get laid. Ideally it shouldn't be a problem. But given the knowledge that it can cause huge harm given the culture, it should be open to civil claims imo.

Not that such cases will ever be brought before the court. The bar of proof is just too damn high. More importantly, no woman would be willing to subject herself to that. Would increase her costs substantially by itself, the court case.

So, in a practical sense, it doesn't really matter if it exists or not.

 

[hendrix]

I'm not talking about broken engagements. Talking about cases where the guy wilfully lies about getting married just to get laid. Ideally it shouldn't be a problem. But given the knowledge that it can cause huge harm given the culture, it should be open to civil claims imo.

Not that such cases will ever be brought before the court. The bar of proof is just too damn high. More importantly, no woman would be willing to subject herself to that. Would increase her costs substantially by itself, the court case.

So, in a practical sense, it doesn't really matter if it exists or not.

I still don't agree. I accept that every human action in some respect is transactional, but this is a way too transactional take on consent that would lead us down a very dangerous road.

If she's working as a prostitute then he's committed fraud. Otherwise he's just been dick.

 

[ankitj]

I'm not talking about broken engagements. Talking about cases where the guy wilfully lies about getting married just to get laid. Ideally it shouldn't be a problem. But given the knowledge that it can cause huge harm given the culture, it should be open to civil claims imo.

Not that such cases will ever be brought before the court. The bar of proof is just too damn high. More importantly, no woman would be willing to subject herself to that. Would increase her costs substantially by itself, the court case.

So, in a practical sense, it doesn't really matter if it exists or not.

This goes down the path of "yes can mean no" retrospectively. I think the rules of consent must not be applied retrospectively because then basically anyone who hooked up ever can be accused of assault/rape. I know that's not what you are saying, but that's where this line of thinking leads to.

 

[harsh.ag]

Think we can all agree that it's not practical, yes.

 

[Prince EWS]

I still don't agree. I accept that every human action in some respect is transactional, but this is a way too transactional take on consent that would lead us down a very dangerous road.

If she's working as a prostitute then he's committed fraud. Otherwise he's just been dick.

I think it's fraud either way.

I certainly agree that lumping it in as some form as "rape" diminishes actual cases of people forcing themselves on others and we should stay away from that -- I think if someone consents in the moment then it categorically should not be considered rape in any manner -- but I think if you lie to get someone to perform some action for you, it should be regarded as fraudulent and open to civil claims.

 

[hendrix]

but I think if you lie to get someone to perform some action for you, it should be regarded as fraudulent and open to civil claims.

People lie all the time in a social context. How do you establish that they made a decision based on that lie? With a prostitute you know she's doing it for money. How do we know that the girl you're sleeping with is sleeping with you solely because she wants to marry you? How do we know that the guy she's sleeping with is only sleeping with her because of her blue contact lenses? what's a lie?

It's way too nebulous and opens up way too many opportunities for people to unfairly game things.

 

[Uppercut]

Surely civil lawsuits are completely inappropriate for correcting injustices in romantic relationships.

 

[Prince EWS]

People lie all the time in a social context. How do you establish that they made a decision based on that lie? With a prostitute you know she's doing it for money. How do we know that the girl you're sleeping with is sleeping with you solely because she wants to marry you? How do we know that the guy she's sleeping with is only sleeping with her because of her blue contact lenses? what's a lie?

It's way too nebulous and opens up way too many opportunities for people to unfairly game things.

Certainly it'd be hard to prove in practice, but I think if you could it'd qualify as fraud in my mind (even if not legally in whichever jurisdiction the next lawyer who replies to my post is determined to tell me my ideas haven't taken hold in). Burden of proof on the plaintiff obviously, but if they could prove on the balance of probabilities that they did it under false pretences then it should be regarded fraudulent IMO, and I'd believe the same thing about getting someone to paint your chicken coop or whatever else.

Crucially I don't think this is anything like rape and as such I'd think the damages would be pretty small even if it could be proven (ie. probably not a lot of point in taking many of these cases to court), but from the philosophical perspective I think it's still fraudulent .

 

[ankitj]

How will you prove that the promise was not genuine at the time even if they failed to keep the promise later?

 

[Uppercut]

Certainly it'd be hard to prove in practice, but I think if you could it'd qualify as fraud in my mind (even if not legally in whichever jurisdiction the next lawyer who replies to my post is determined to tell me my ideas haven't taken hold in). Burden of proof on the plaintiff obviously, but if they could prove on the balance of probabilities that they did it under false pretences then it should be regarded fraudulent IMO, and I'd believe the same thing about getting someone to paint your chicken coop or whatever else.

Crucially I don't think this is anything like rape and as such I'd think the damages would be pretty small even if it could be proven (ie. probably not a lot of point in taking many of these cases to court), but from the philosophical perspective I think it's still fraudulent .

It's only fraudulent if you view consensual *** within a relationship as something of economic value that one party conditionally provides to another party. Which I guess is how a lot of people implicitly feel, but it's terrible, and the courts shouldn't endorse it.

 

[sledger]

Making misrepresentations to someone to obtain *** certainly isn't rape in English law.

If I go out and lie to someone about being a footballer or movie star or something and they agree to have *** with me on this basis it would not be rape. Unethical sure, but not rape.

 

[harsh.ag]

We weren't talking about rape at all, you filthy lawyers.

If you know your fraudulent action will lead to great social and economic harm to someone (only true for some cultures in this case of course) and you still take that action, then theoretically it should be open to a civil claim imo.

How will you prove that the promise was not genuine at the time even if they failed to keep the promise later?

This is the problem, of course. Extremely difficult to prove. Something like a pattern of behaviour could get you there perhaps.

 

[GIMH]

Making misrepresentations to someone to obtain *** certainly isn't rape in English law.

If I go out and lie to someone about being a footballer or movie star or something and they agree to have *** with me on this basis it would not be rape. Unethical sure, but not rape.

Julius

 

[sledger]

Yeah thank **** hey?

 

[Victor Ian]

I'm glad the idea of fraud was raised. While I agree that this is not rape and also that this should not be something that compensation is drawn from like fraud, I do think that losses should be equalised, and this is doable with education and logic. The problem in many cultures of *** for marriage that doesn't result is one of shame. It is unfair that the woman bears all the shame. These men need to be outed and shamed so that they are as undesirable as the women. It's better that the women are not shamed, outed and deemed undesirable, but failing that, if people are going to shame, it needs to fall equally and the fraudsters should be outed and ridiculed.

 

[ankitj]

No one should be "outed" or shamed for having *** without marriage.

 

[Victor Ian]

Yes. That is that part of its better to not shame. But consider what I said noticing the word 'if'.

 

[Dan]

In a similar vein to the previous discussion, just saw this:
When *** Workers are conned

 

[Spark]

good old link-killing filter

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, just gotta type in *** on the browser address bar where the *** show up