|
Alhazred posted:I think you can if that person actively lied about the facts. I don't follow, if you lie to someone about yourself they can't consent to sex?
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
I lied to my wife when I said I like her pancakes better than my grandma's. It'll be hard to tell my son he's a product of rape but I need to do my part to educate him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Sounds like there should be a blanket ban of police reenacting telenovela plots. Except this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj6BBcCG2zA I’d pay to see a cop get kimchi slapped, especially by another cop
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
I'd say there's maybe??? some sense in the cop thing due to them technically having a position of power, though the danger undercover cops put themselves in may negate that. The child should be their responsibility 100% but lying about who you are/big things about yourself are does not negate consent imho. Or else most people out there loving are rapists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
esperterra posted:I'd say there's maybe??? some sense in the cop thing due to them technically having a position of power, though the danger undercover cops put themselves in may negate that. Can you really not see the massive gap between someone exagerrating their characterisitics in a drunken conversation ('I pretty much invented that') and deliberately misleading someone about WHAT YOUR JOB IS and HOW YOU KNOW THEM for YEARS? I capitalised the bits that I feel are important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
Tagichatn posted:I lied to my wife when I said I like her pancakes better than my grandma's. It'll be hard to tell my son he's a product of rape but I need to do my part to educate him. Actively concealing the fact that you're a cop who's there on to spy on a person and lying about liking pancakes is not the same. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Can you really not see the massive gap between someone exagerrating their characterisitics in a drunken conversation ('I pretty much invented that') and deliberately misleading someone about WHAT YOUR JOB IS and HOW YOU KNOW THEM for YEARS? Of course I can see the difference. But it's more complicated than that. If someone went undercover and got into a relationship seriously enough to have a child, either they're already a loving sociopath or something, which is a whole diff can of worms, or they're probably letting their real feelings seep past the mask. One would hope every moment with that person isn't all a lie. And you don't need to be an undercover cop to lie about your entire life to someone you're in a relationship with fwiw, maybe just not what your job or how you met, but plenty of people can and do lie about their entire history, their family, their friends/etc. Does that count the same as the undercover cop? Less so? It's a super complicated situation and I think it boils down to something those two people need to deal with on their own, if they can. Not necessarily getting the government involved, especially if everything was consensual other than the facade. But when a child is involved the cop should 10000% be responsible for that. I guess in a situation where the undercover cop was specifically told to lie and get close to a person and form a romantic relationship with that person to get closer to w/e their target, or targets is, then I could see the argument for some kind of consent being hosed with there. But if it's just a relationship that happened because the cop was already in deep and ended up in this relationship after pretending to be someone else for however long, that's way different imo and far too complicated to just throw under whether or not it counts as consent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
What about women who find out their husband has had another wife and family this whole time? Does that then take away her years of consent? I don't think so. I think it's supremely hosed up on the part of the person who did wrong but I wouldn't say it took the woman's consent away. tbh saying a woman didn't consent just because she was deceived by an rear end in a top hat seems to be taking away her agency in a sense. I think there's 100% something more to look at when it comes to an undercover cop, compared to someone who isn't law enforcement. But the context of how the relationship began certainly must matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
esperterra posted:But the context of how the relationship began certainly must matter. With him as an undercover cop, which is why we're talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:With him as an undercover cop, which is why we're talking about it. You know exactly what I meant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
esperterra posted:You know exactly what I meant. I sincerely hope someone does. Because holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I sincerely hope someone does. Because holy poo poo. Okay, I'll tl;dr it Context matters. Does the relationship only exist as a tool specifically being used by the undercover cop, and only began as a tool to get that cop's cover in the first place or strengthen it? Or does the relationship exist because the man was already deep undercover and met her after the fact. It's not at all as simple as 'undercover cop deceives woman, this is rape'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
It's rape if a cop has sex with a suspect. How is it then not rape if he lies and says he is not a cop?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:It's rape if a cop has sex with a suspect. How is it then not rape if he lies and says he is not a cop? Is it rape if I meet a cop at a bar and they tell me a different job when I ask them what they do for a living, then go back to their place and get down? What if the woman isn't a suspect and is just someone he met through the people who are?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
esperterra posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:That's not what happened. I haven't been talking about a specific instance this whole time. I haven't looked into the case that started the discussion in Britain. If the woman there was a suspect then that is something that should get legal action of some form, yes. But my entire argument hasn't been for that but has been against just generalizing all undercover cops as rapists if they have sex or a relationship or a child. Context matters. Like the context of being a suspect or not, in this case. I'm just trying to say it's more complicated than 'man is automatically rapist/woman's consent is retroactively removed because he is undercover'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
Maybe you should lie less to your partners 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
Guys is this really the problem we should be debating? Like I get it’s a problem for that woman but is this an epidemic level thing that needs addressing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
esperterra posted:Is it rape if I meet a cop at a bar and they tell me a different job when I ask them what they do for a living, then go back to their place and get down? In some places it's rape to trick someone into sleeping with you by lying to them yeah Your hypothetical would certainly count if (say) the other person expressed strong anti-police values and the cop decided to lie to have a chance at getting anywhere
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 12:01
|
|
|
teacup posted:Guys is this really the problem we should be debating? Like I get it’s a problem for that woman but is this an epidemic level thing that needs addressing? If people think that actively deceiving people into having sex with them is okay then, yes we should debate this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:It's rape if a cop has sex with a suspect. How is it then not rape if he lies and says he is not a cop? A cop has a tremendous amount of power over a suspect, and the suspect knows this. You aren't freely giving your consent to have sex; you're just agreeing that being raped by a cop is preferable to being thrown in prison. If you don't know the cop is a cop, the threat of abuse of power is removed. The decision to give consent for sex can now be freely made, without other considerations. You can still argue that obtaining consent through dishonesty isn't really obtaining consent, but it's a totally different issue than abusing power structures to obtain consent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:
Having sex with the ones you're spying om while undercover is the very definition of abusing power structures to obtain consent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
Frankly cops shouldn’t be allowed to have sex at all
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Well, look at Mr "abstinence-only education" over here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Having sex with the ones you're spying om while undercover is the very definition of abusing power structures to obtain consent. How so? How is your decision on having sex with someone impacted by a police operation you have no awareness of? Not to mention that's it's probably not even an abuse of power on a professional level. Going undercover probably involves relationships, drugs and committing crimes, and so the power structures would be facilitating, not restricting this. If we as a society decide that it's super creepy to have undercover cops banging prime suspects then locking them up, and then change their codes of conduct, and then a cop does it anyway while still getting intelligence on the suspect, that would be an abuse of a power structure. But I'm guessing that's not the case here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:How so? How is your decision on having sex with someone impacted by a police operation you have no awareness of? Imagine if someone turned off the lights and switched out your husband with his brother, causing you to unknowingly have sex with someone you didn't want to. You consented, but only because of deception. You weren't even aware that you were being deceived (thanks to their unusually similar penises), but only found out later that you were tricked. Now imagine that they kept the lights on, and the thing they lied about is their identity. In fact, they used their government-granted power to craft a false identity that you would have sex with. You consented, but only because you were tricked into thinking the circumstances and identity of your partner were different. How should the second one be completely legal if the first one isn't?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Yeah, those two examples ain't even close to analogous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Yeah, those two examples ain't even close to analogous. Even though the cop used government powers to create the false identity specifically for the purposes of getting close to you and loving you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Because the cop is still in a position of power. That doesn't answer the question. How is your decision making process impacted by something you don't know about? Also it seems to imply that people who works for the federal government can't have sex with anyone. Alhazred posted:
And yet the paragraphs either side of your quote go into how the department understood and accepted that this was going on, and they are now trying to cover this up. I'm not trying to say this isn't a bad thing, but I can't follow the logic of some of the arguments here. If we don't want police operations to allow cops to sleep with suspects, fine. If we want to punish cops who break those rules, fine. If we think there should be rules or laws against obtaining consent to sex through blatant dishonesty, okay (though given that most relationships are built on monogamy, do we need to put cheaters on sex offender registries?). But how do we get to rape charges over consensual sex, or abusing a power structure by following orders? I'm 100% behind Jacqui's decision to sue the MET, but rape isn't mentioned at all in that article, and I'm not seeing the reasoning on why it should be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:Also it seems to imply that people who works for the federal government can't have sex with anyone. This is the stupidest take. "Government workers shouldn't use their power to deceive someone and have sex with them, especially for the purposes of an undercover operation" doesn't mean "NO SEX FOR FEDERAL CLERKS EVER."
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:This is the stupidest take. "Government workers shouldn't use their power to deceive someone and have sex with them, especially for the purposes of an undercover operation" doesn't mean "NO SEX FOR FEDERAL CLERKS EVER." I was responding to the following line of reasoning: Ubik_Lives posted:If you don't know the cop is a cop, the threat of abuse of power is removed. The decision to give consent for sex can now be freely made, without other considerations. Alhazred posted:Having sex with the ones you're spying om while undercover is the very definition of abusing power structures to obtain consent. Ubik_Lives posted:How is your decision on having sex with someone impacted by a police operation you have no awareness of? Alhazred posted:Because the cop is still in a position of power. The response was literally just that the other party being in an undefined position of power was sufficient to void consent, when dishonesty was removed from the equation. I can only work with what I'm given. Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:The response was literally just that the other party being in an undefined position of power was sufficient to void consent, when dishonesty was removed from the equation. I can only work with what I'm given. Are you under the assumption that all cops are undercover all of the time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
I'm under the assumption they are in a position of power all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
I just want to point out that these cases aren't about cops infiltrating criminal gangs and accidentally ending up in relationships with suspects during a lengthy undercover assignment* - they're about a deliberate tactic, employed by the state, to infiltrate political groups that threaten the status quo. As in cops going into their undercover work with the explicit intent to establish sexual relationships and even have kids, as part of their infiltration of these groups. Like, this basically comes down to where you stand on the rape by deception question, because the guy literally having the power of the state support his deception definitely satisfies the consent being based on deliberately false information. *Which is ethically fraught enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:Not to mention that's it's probably not even an abuse of power on a professional level. Going undercover probably involves relationships, drugs and committing crimes, and so the power structures would be facilitating, not restricting this. Yeah, this is another thing I wanted to mention last night before deciding this derail is mostly not worth it: in the case of a deep undercover cop that power structure isn't really there in the same way. The cop is likely in a situation where if it's found out he's a cop, he's dead. So he likely isn't using his power as a law enforcement officer to coerce someone into sex. If he's telling a woman 'I'm actually a cop and you better gently caress me and you better not tell anyone I'm a cop or you're going to jail' that is def rape. A Buttery Pastry posted:I just want to point out that these cases aren't about cops infiltrating criminal gangs and accidentally ending up in relationships with suspects during a lengthy undercover assignment* - they're about a deliberate tactic, employed by the state, to infiltrate political groups that threaten the status quo. As in cops going into their undercover work with the explicit intent to establish sexual relationships and even have kids, as part of their infiltration of these groups. Like, this basically comes down to where you stand on the rape by deception question, because the guy literally having the power of the state support his deception definitely satisfies the consent being based on deliberately false information. Like this sort of situation I am 100% for saying is hosed up and needs some kind of legal way to define it as assault or rape. Cases like that are hosed up as hell and should be dealt with accordingly. Or if it's a lengthy undercover assignment (which yeah is p hosed but its own beast to deal with) and they end up in a relationship with someone who is one of their suspects, that's something to be discussed as wrong. I still stand by it not being rape if the person they end up in a relationship with is not one of the people under surveillance for illegal activity, but is just someone tangentially related/runs with the crowd and was met through the criminals. It's a hosed up and immoral deception, but I don't think the situation automatically revokes consent if the non-cop party is not someone who is in danger of going to prison due to the operation. anyway how about that casting couch
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
wtf kind of situation is the undercover cop in where he has to have sex or his cover is blown? This isnt penthouse letters, there's a huge leadup before you gently caress someone and he can just not go down that particular path.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Keep in mind that the two prominent instances of this in the past couple years (in Oakland and NYC) are cops arresting sex workers then coercing them into sex, not deep cover James Bond poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Keep in mind that the two prominent instances of this in the past couple years (in Oakland and NYC) are cops arresting sex workers then coercing them into sex, not deep cover James Bond poo poo. Bingo, cops are rapey scumbags.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 20:59
|
|