I agree it's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing.
A few questions for you:
If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier?
Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine?
Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't
I hope my questions above illustrate that it's more complicated than the black-and-white views you're putting across here.
Edit: removed crappy BDSM question.
Edit II: I guess I'm just really confused that you agree with the principles of consent unless that consent involves a condom.
Personally, I find that strange, least of all over the increased STD and pregnancy risks involved.
If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier?
Then that person is an evil asshole who should go to jail for purposefully infecting others with a disease, just the same as if he were to purposefully put anthrax spores on your pillow. However, he's not a rapist. That's something completely different.
Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine?
Sure, that's a fair point. But there some might argue that that's a different kind of sex. Don't oversimplify my point: obviously agreeing to a blow job is not the same as agreeing to penetrative sex or agreeing to anal sex or agreeing to be tied up in a harness and whipped. But once it is clear that there is agreement for that kind of sex, you can't go after the fact and say "oh actually that was conditional on X and therefore you raped me".
As I said, the person who betrayed the other person's trust may still be an asshole - but a rapist, they're not. Let's reserve "rape" for what it actually is: a violent and despicable act of "taking" a form of sex that was refused.
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
Now, it could be that it ends up being called rape under definition #3 - because the statutes say it is. To me, that is a perversion of the english language, though. Rape is clearly intended to imply some kind of forcing. It's not just "I didn't consent to have sex in this specific way", it's "I either gave no consent or I asked them to stop and they still did it".
I didn't have my library card with me at the time, and whilst I have no interest in dragging up a days-old argument (I was researching the word "Easter," of all things), I thought you might find this excerpt from the Oxford English Dictionary interesting:
(first usage c. 1350)
1. The act of taking something by force; esp. the seizure of property by violent means; robbery, plundering. Also as a count noun: an instance of this, a robbery, a raid. Now rare (chiefly arch. and literary).
...
(first usage c. 1425)
2. Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault.
Subnote:
The precise legal definition of rape has varied over time and between legal systems. Historically, rape was considered to be the act of a man forcing a woman other than his wife to have intercourse against her will, but recently the definition has broadened. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in the United Kingdom the crime of rape includes the penile penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person of either sex, where consent to the act has not been given. This includes marital rape: in 1992 the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, decided that the previous understanding (i.e. that a wife had given an irrevocable consent to intercourse) was no longer part of the law. Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13 also constitutes rape irrespective of whether consent is obtained. In the United States the precise criminal definition of rape varies from state to state.
As time moves on, so do definitions and the laws that go with them.
One bit of the subnote that really sounds out for the sheer number of horrible bits in it: "an act of a man forcing a woman other than his wife..."
Thankfully we've progressed quite a bit from those dark days.
A few questions for you:
If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier?
Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine?
Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't
I hope my questions above illustrate that it's more complicated than the black-and-white views you're putting across here.
Edit: removed crappy BDSM question.
Edit II: I guess I'm just really confused that you agree with the principles of consent unless that consent involves a condom.
Personally, I find that strange, least of all over the increased STD and pregnancy risks involved.