Final hour - vote now!https://twitter.com/PhilosophyExp/status/1177226506369732612 …
-
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 (I actually wrote a paper about this very issue many years ago that languishes unpublished ony hard drive like all my philosophy writing.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.
-
It would have to be knowing that he certainly would not, to make it dishonest.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is a good paper saying something like thathttps://academic.oup.com/pq/article/68/271/265/4157865 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.