Jeremy Stangroom

But this scenario suggests people might not agree - they think there isn't informed consent, but it's not rape. Possibly because they are interpreting the question legalistically (i.e., does it meet the legal definition of rape). Hard to know given limitations of Twitter!

I'm not sure. It feels difficult to call it rape without knowing both partners' conceptualisations of the relationship. Interesting to think about. I definitely feel different about eg one partner not informing the other that they have hepatitis.

It does get complex in the details. What about if they're both having affairs that the other doesn't know about, and would want to know about? (Not a wildly unusual situation.)

I agree. I think if you withhold any information that would be material to the other person's decision to consent, you don't have consent. And therefore it should legally be recognised as rape, even if prosecutions would be unlikely in many cases.

My view - it's not quite that. It might turn out your partner wouldn't consent to sex with anybody who has ever worn pink socks, but you can't reasonably be expected to know you have to disclose you once wore pink socks. I think there needs to be a reasonable person stipulation.

Yes, I agree with that. (I actually wrote a paper about this very issue many years ago that languishes unpublished ony hard drive like all my philosophy writing. I made that exact argument.)

Would this extend to matters that would bring about an end to sex by bringing about an end to the relationship? E.g. if the man had an undisclosed gambling problem or drug addiction?

Or was claiming he'd turn things around while knowing that, probably, he wouldn't.