No, not at all.
Perhaps you have heard of “No means no”.
Maybe the guy wants to, maybe he doesn’t.
Under “No means No” he can change his mind at any time, for any reason, including if he finds out he was mistaken. What, you think that if he finds out he is mistaken he is obligated to continue if the target didn’t say anything?
Since the supposition is fallacious, there is no question to answer here.
You may be perfectly capable but so far you haven’t said it. You’re premise is that it’s ok to trick someone.
I am perfectly capable of saying if that is my premise also.
It is not my premise.
Are you capable of understanding that or are you going to persist in putting words in my mouth?
So then you think it’s OK to trick someone.
So English is not your first language is it?
If you want to know the answer to that question, then pose it in a new thread, it is not germane here. And if I happen to notice the new thread and find it worth paying attention to, I will answer you then.
In the meantime, I repeat for the umpteenth time:
If you care about what happens to your dick, then pay attention to where it finds itself. No one else can possibly for that for you.
If you wish to debate the specifics about whether or not each of us should be responsible for our own dicks (or their pleasurable equivalents such as we may have), then have at it.
Don’t play word games though. The OP asked specifically if certain people have an ethical obligation is some situation.
If you answer is YES, then, please, at least, 4 pages into this thread, someone please point to a specific ethics system that would obligate someone to do some such thing, and explain why.
If you can do that, and that is a big if, then we will ask if the people mentioned in the OP are obligated to that particular ethics system or not.
My answer to the OP is that there is no such ethical system that anyone is bound to, other than a professional one, and there is no reason to believe that all TG people are bound to any ethical system at all, let alone one with the results that the OP asks about.
It is really simple logic.
You could easily demonstrate me wrong with a single counter-example: Show me the ethics system that contains the matter asked about, and is bound to all TGs, and we are done. I will gladly admit I am wrong if you can do that.
Word games or tricks have nothing to do with it, just that no one here can assail even the simplest explanation I provide, can not provide even a single counter example. Instead we get increasingly contorted “what-ifs”. So why not admit you are all wrong, and move on? Or just move on and live to debate another day after gathering more research on the matter?
It’s not a word game. You either think its OK to trick someone or you don’t.
But under the scenario I am postulating*, you believe the man is only trying to have sex with you because he thinks you’re his wife. And even if he cuts it off at some point, he’s still, what, invited a stranger into his house? Kissed a stranger? All because he thought you were someone else.
It seems to me you’re arguing that it’s ethical to let someone make a mistake that you believe will upset them, just for your own selfish reasons. Saying “Well, I don’t know for sure how he feels about it” is a cop out. If you strongly suspect that he’s making a mistake and doing something he wouldn’t really want, then that’s enough basis to act.
We make moral decisions based on suspicions all the time. If I find someone’s cell phone on the floor of a movie theater, I shouldn’t say “Sweet, new cell phone for me!” and pocket it just because I don’t know for sure that they didn’t leave it there on purpose for someone else to have. The fact that I suspect they dropped it by accident needs to be the basis of my action.
Adding to what tim314 said (well stated) I would put forth that a negative reaction is highly likely and at best will be a bad experience for both parties. Finding out someone is not what you thought they were would be disturbing. At best, being admonished for the deception would be psychologically damaging for the TG person. It could also bring down physical harm.
Yeah, from a practical standpoint, why would you want to initiate a sexual encounter if you have strong reason to suspect it will end badly? Even from a selfish “what’s in my own best interest” standpoint, that doesn’t make much sense.
What is so hard to understand? I have written precisely what I thnk about the OP many times in thi thread, most recently in post 205.
If you want to discuss the substance of what I said, at least refer to what I said iinstead of what you think you heard while you thought you were inside my head 
Tip: In post 205, I tell you precisely what it will take to convince me, and it is not hard to understand.
Maybe you do. Maybe you don’t. But either way, this is not a thread about morals, it is a thread about ethics.
You do know they are not the same, right?
It does mean precisely that.
Read Post # 205 to see how to argue your position if you want to answer the OP.
It is not like bookstores and libraries are not full of philosophers positing ethical codes.
Find one that addresses the situation in the OP, and then show that the people in the OP are bound by that ethical code, and voila, you are done! Perfect persuasion!
Still, 200 posts+ into this thread, no one has mentioned a single specific identifiable ethical code, while presumably insisting there is one and I and everyone else ought to know what it is and feel bound by it.
I find that remarkable beyond words.
Ah, the ol’ theoretical homohobic panic defense threat :rolleyes:
I’m not not_alice, but that’s exactly what I’ve been saying in answering the hypothetical. It is not my ethical responsibility to correct the mistakes in choices of another adult. If directly asked, I wouldn’t lie, but until then, my own desires rule - my ethics don’t give much weight to committing so-called “lies of omission” .(I’m assuming I really want to bang the husband, here, not just mess with his head, although that’s cool too)
Maybe you can ask a certain ex-Governor of New York. People do what people do, and not everyone does what I do or what you do, and that is OK. That’s what makes sexual behavior interesting.
Because a lot of sexual encounters aren’t about the end, they’re about the middle bit.
This is interesting. Tim’s hypothetical is similar to a central scene from The Three Musketeers (spoilers ahead for the book, don’t say I didn’t warn you).
One of the villains of the story is Milady de Winters. One of the protagonists tricks her into sleeping with him, essentially by never denying that he’s Count de Wardes, her lover, in a darkened room. When she finds out, she’s so upset that she tries to kill the musketeer, and the enmity between them forms the backbone of the story (or at least one of the backbones, to ruin the metaphor).
It’s a great book, but I always thought Dumas was deliberately giving her an excellent reason for her enmity: what that musketeer did to her was repellent, one step (if that) removed from raping her. The musketeers in the book come across as pretty horrible people, with this incident one of their low points.
It sounds as though some of you have no problem with what he did.
tricking people into sexual liaisons they would find repellent will certainly create a negative reaction. All I’ve pointed out is the obvious hazards involved when one person doesn’t treat another in an ethical manner.
Tricking someone for personal sexual gratification is unethical.
Gosh, what this thread really needed was MORE analogies. :rolleyes: But since everyone seems to like them so much, here’s one I made up just now.
A woman with small breasts gets breast implants. She’s heard that while many men like women with large breasts they don’t necessarily like breast implants, and that some men find the very idea of silicone breasts totally creepy and disgusting. What with this knowledge and her belief that her choice to have cosmetic surgery is her own private business, she decides to refrain from announcing to people that she has had a boob job. If anyone asks if her breasts are real then she’ll answer truthfully that they have been surgically enhanced, but she never brings this fact up on her own. Since few people think to ask, she winds up having sex with men who don’t realize she has implants and wouldn’t have been attracted to her if they’d known.
It sounds as though some of you consider this woman to be not only horribly unethical, but essentially a rapist as well.
Maybe some of you don’t feel this is a very good analogy. Well, I don’t feel the costume party, married person, broken car, smelly house, or bed pooping analogies were very good either. Mine strikes me as being a lot closer to the original situation presented in this thread, but I’m not particularly inclined to defend it because even if we all agreed which analogy was best I don’t see why they should be necessary here at all. The situation presented by the OP is not so far-fetched or abstract that it cannot be discussed directly, but hardly anyone seems to want to do that.
Of course, it might have helped if astro had not totally abandoned his own thread after writing the OP. He could at least have clarified what he meant by “ethical duty”, that would have saved everybody else a lot of time. As things are, we’ve essentially gone in circles for over four pages now. Maybe someone should start a new thread on the nature of ethics and morality or what it means to have an ethical duty to do something. I don’t think the current discussion is fair to actual transgendered people, who surely have enough problems and are often enough hated and misunderstood without being compared to all kinds of nasty things just for the sake of argument.
For the umpteenth+1 time, I ask you to point me to the specific ethical system that you refer to, and to demonstrate it applies universally, since that is what you are asserting.
Not that this thread has anything to do with trickery except that you seem to insist on using that word repeatedly.
But arguing by assertion is not fighting ignorance despite what you may think. It is fallacious to the extreme on the face of it.
Tricking someone for personal sexual gratification is unethical. The reality that it would be perceived as objectionable makes it an ethics issue.
I like the costume party analogy better than your analogy. What would you say is the percentage of men who (a) like big breasts but (b) don’t like fake big breasts? I actually happen to qualify, but I imagine that there are a not-insignificant number of men who like big breasts and don’t care if they’re fake. [We can disregard the men who don’t like big breasts, because they wouldn’t be hitting on this woman in the first place]. My WAG for the “people like me” (i.e., men who like big breasts but don’t like fake big breasts) here is… I’m not sure. 30-40% . I’d be willing to say it’s as low as 20% and as high as 60%, but I’m pegging it at 30-40%.
Now, what would you say is the percentage of men who are all right getting sexually involved with a transgendered person? I’d peg it at 1, maybe 2%. It’s probably near the percent chance that the man in tim314’s example actually wants to cheat and isn’t just confused. In any case, the percentage of interest in his analogy is closer to the percentage of interest in the OP, and that’s why I think his analogy is better than yours.
Re the rest of this thread: alls I know is that the following are just some of the romantic “deal-breakers” for me: (a) a woman is transgendered, (b) a woman is in al-Qaeda, and (c) a woman is a Born-Again Christian. They’re all equally important to me, insofar as they’re utterly non-negotiable (wrt romance, at least). But even though they’re all of equal importance, I’d never ask about (a) or (b), only (c), because there’s an order of magnitude difference between the probability that (c) is true and the probability that (a) or (b) is true.
So I don’t think I have to “interview” every potential partner about the unlikely dealbreakers in the same histogram bin as (a) and (b). It’s incumbent upon them to let me know if they’re interested in me, or else they’re being dishonest. Lying by omission, so to speak.
Or, to put it another way, what Left Hand of Dorkness (and others) said.