The answer to “Is it okay to record sexual encounters without the consent of your sexual partners?” is “No.” Full stop. It’s not “No, unless…” There is no wiggle room here, because obtaining consent is not a matter to be left to your discretion.
The *consent *is the issue here. It doesn’t matter what your plans for the video are. Planning to distribute the video would certainly be a worse offense than the situation you describe, but that doesn’t make the situation you describe okay.
Filming a unsuspecting person in a very private act is sick. Any attempt to justify such behavior, for whatever reason, is simply wrong.
I"d suggest the following document if guys are worried about a false rape charge.
The undersigned parties agree to fornicate on (date) at (location) a total of (number of times).
Signed -( party 1)
Signed - (party 2)
Notarized by:
Perhaps as a child, Der Trihs was bullied daily by conservative Christian girls who threatened to accuse him of rape when he got older?
Slapping on simplistic labels (even if accurate, and these aren’t) doesn’t clarify matters. I guess you and I (and Diane and I) will just have to disagree.
I guess, because I really don’t see what’s complicated about it.
It is not okay to violate the trust of a person who has done you no harm, and whom you have no evidence means you harm. People who do that are not nice people, so I suppose it’s not surprising that they expect other people to be as rotten as they are.
Be that as it may, I can probably construct a hypothetical in which the homeowner’s actions are less and less unreasonable, but if the response is always going to be “It’s sick/sleazy/wrong/rotten”, then there’s not much point.
As a minor aside, leaving a thread while claiming concern over implied threats of violence is one serious act of passive-aggressive pussification.
You could, but they’d get more and more contrived. I just can’t see how one forgets that they have cameras in their bedroom.
And, well, that’s our Der Trihs.
Thats called debate rape. Nothing funny at all about it Mr. Ekers (if that is your real name that is).
The base situation is pretty out there to begin with. How many people actually videotape everything in their homes in case of false accusation? I can imagine an observer (who wouldn’t bother taking such actions for himself) who doesn’t instantly and irrevocably conclude the choice is sick or immoral or whatever, depending on how well the homeowner can justify the decision.
It is, I can prove it, I have video.
Maybe, but then you wouldn’t be talking about the same hypothetical **ZZZ *came up with. His hypothetical, and the sleaziness/ickiness/moral reprehensibility, call it what you like, are predicated on: the man knowing, the woman not knowing, the man knowing she doesn’t know, the man not telling her and having sex with her in front of a camera the man knows is recording. That’s ick. Contrive a hypothetical that doesn’t include all of those (“After he installed the video camera, he got hit on the head falling off the ladder in his bedroom and forgot all about the installation of the camera!”), and you’ve got a different hypothetical.
*Der Trihs was the one, I believe, who added on the lovely bit specifically about not telling her *because *he knows she wouldn’t consent, and that, to me, takes it beyond sleazy and into rape. Videotaping oneself or someone else during masturbation and/or sex is *itself *a sexual act. Der Trihs is saying that he would force a woman to perform a sexual act that he knows she would not consent to. That’s rape, in my book, and may very well be legally sexual assault, to boot.
Yes, but I figure that ZZZ was, at least in part, being crude and contrary just to annoy Diane. And Der Trihs was being contrary just because, well… he’s Der Trihs, and he has a reputation to uphold.
If that video has some bow chicka chicka music in it, I might be interested in subscribing to your online newsletter…I’ll pay extra if it has a live feed…
I wonder what folks position on women doing “background checks” on their new boyfriends/potential boyfriends is? I get the impression this is almost standard operating procedure these days for the dating/internet savy crowd. Do they get written consent first? Because I know as a guy, if some chick did that, implying that I wasnt trustworthy, well, I’d just feel all dirty and violated. She violated my trust.
I think Google and Facebook are fair game. Actually hiring an agency to do an official background check without consent? Wrong. Not *as *wrong as videotaping someone during sex without their consent because you know they won’t consent, but still wrong.
I don’t think you should be showing up here to cast stones at someone else’s social inadequacy, toots, even if you have decided the consensus opinion is overwhelming enough for you to pop your head out.
Look, i would never videotape someone having sex without their consent, but you’re way off base here.
While taping someone like that might be sleazy and immoral, and in some jurisdictions is probably illegal, it’s not rape. If she consents to the sex act and he films her without her knowledge, it’s not rape, any more than if she sleeps with him because he tells her he’s a stockbroker when he’s actually a stockboy. Calling it rape is immature and stupid.
I’m not the one constantly making outrageous, exaggerated claims about those whose viewpoints I disagree with. :rolleyes:
We’re talking about a guy who has said in the past that Christians would put atheists in concentration camps if they choose, and that pro-lifers are gleeful when women die in childbirth. The guy’s a walking nutbar.
I wouldn’t call it rape either, but you’re off base as well. Its more akin to neglecting to tell her he has herpes. No matter whether he’s a stockbroker or a stockboy, she agreed to sex. She did not agree to herpes. Or video.
And yet you already did. You said:
By your own admission, all he was saying was that he would tape her without consent, not that he would force her to commit an act that she didn’t want to do.
Never suggested otherwise. But, while sleeping with someone while withholding the fact that you have herpes makes you an immoral asshole, it also is not rape, which was the part of your post that i was responding to.