Scenario: A horny, awkward, dorky college boy wants to get laid. He sees a prospective girl at a party, approaches and talks to her, schmoozes her, and woos her. They have consensual sex, either that same night or in the coming days or weeks.
This consensual sex happens every day.
For all we know, the girl could be wanting to score with a loser boy to then brag and laugh about it with her friends.
Here is the thing, sex isn’t consensual if that consent was gotten under false pretenses. If you are a twin, and you have sex with your twin’s wife pretending to be him, you’ve raped her. If you have sex with a woman feigning respect for her, and it turns out to be a bad joke, you’ve had sex under false pretenses. Legally its nearly impossible to prove, but you don’t get to have sex with someone by lying to them and call it consensual, any more than I get to see you a house that regularly gets water in the basement and lie about it and say “well, you bought it.”
Bullitt, if that girl does humiliate that guy in front of her friends, what she did is WRONG. If he feels like he still got the better end of the deal because he got laid and that was worth the humiliation, that’s good for him, but she was still behaving in an immoral fashion.
Wait, so wearing makeup to cover up nasty skin and deceive a potential mate is rape? Driving a rented car and wearing a fake Rolex in order to portray wealth one does not have is rape? I think what you are suggesting is a minority view.
So then, your complaint shouldn’t be that the government is policing sex between adults (by virtue of punishing the organization involved): your complaint should be that the government is in the position to withhold funds from people who shouldn’t have ever gotten them in the first place.
Just to be clear, non-consensual sex is rape, correct?
This logic means that gold-diggers (or, at least, the more common dishonest variety of the species) are rapists, conditional on our agreement on the answer to my first question.
It’s their responsibility to keep the university a safe place for everyone attending – and the whole thing could be argued to be criminal, which means that not getting involved would open themselves up to an expensive lawsuit. By tolerating, they are creating an unsafe environment for all of their students.
Furthermore, schools are supposed to be educational, and not teaching people everything that is wrong with the practice would be incompetent. And it is wrong on so many levels.
Unfortunately, universities have to deal with students as they find them. When they are dangerously uneducated, to the point that they are doing crap like this, NOT getting involved would be criminally negligent.
Just to be clear, your first senario is accurate, the second one is bullshit.Consent obtained under misrepresentation or false pretenses is absolutley valid. GThe exception is when someone lies about their specific identity.
Pretending to be a woman’s husband; criminal
Pretending to like Keats to get laid, when you just read up on him on wikipedia; Not criminal.