Pants-of-dog wrote:And I do not think you should be allowed to consent to things for women when the women themselves have not consented.
Well, maybe if I can explain it this way:
I think she has some
level of rights, but those rights are greatly mitigated.
I don't think this should be viewed as a black & white thing. (But I know that's mentally hard to do)
Or think of it this way, there are TWO different perspectives here, and each one has some truth to it. So we need to be able to blend those perspectives together.
She consented to have sex, and sometimes when you have sex you get pregnant anyway, even when the woman, or the man, or both the woman and the man, did not intend for her to get pregnant.
Yes, she does have some right for a man not to go out of his way to sabotage the contraceptives, but it's not an absolute right, in the sense that you can't put all the blame on him if she ends up getting pregnant.
She chose to engage in sex, and so the blame can never be 100% the man's if she gets pregnant, even if he sabotaged the contraceptives
When she consents to sex, she does not have an absolute right not to get pregnant.
She only has reduced rights.
Which means the man might still deserve some punishment, but it should be far less than it would be if we fully blamed the pregnancy on him.
It's not like he snuck in in the middle of the night and used a turkey baster to impregnate a woman he did not know without her knowing.
If you allow a penis to go inside your vagina, you relinquish some of your consent to being impregnated.
Maybe not all of it, but I would say the majority of it.
Again, just because what the man did was despicable does not mean the legal blame should be 100% assigned to him for the woman's condition of being pregnant.
Even if her being pregnant most likely would not have happened if the man did not do what he did.
When the woman spreads her legs, she gives up some of her rights.
I just think it's ridiculous in these modern days women are saying "I consent to sex but I don't consent to this or that little detail".
It's a lump sum. When you consent to sex, you implicitly consent to a wider range of things. We make it extremely complicated, and like a man-trap, when the man can be severely prosecuted for all sorts of things in the bedroom.
Maybe let me put it to you this way. After consensual sex has begun, forcing a woman to do something in the bedroom after she is screaming "No, no!" is analogous to robbery. Yes, it's totally understandable that that should be prosecuted.
But these other situations of "doing something without her knowing" are analogous to prosecuting cases of "fraud" in the bedroom. And I think those punishments have to be much lighter, because this risks going into ridiculous territory.
We are not talking about a sex act being forced upon her because she was consenting to sexual intercourse the whole time.
It was just there was a certain element of that intercourse she hadn't knowingly consented to. But that's not rape.
"Tricking" a woman might be despicable but it's not rape.