@hawkeye10,
Quote:of greater concern is the government removing the right to consent to sex from the citizens, especially after the fact with no clear guidance before the fact as if the intent is to be deliberately vague
Pretty much the government removes the right to consent before the fact. That is certainly true with those below the age of consent, and the various individuals (the mentally impaired, mentally retarded, physically helpless, unconscious, etc.) most states list as non consenting individuals. There is nothing deliberately vague about it. The kinds of people they are describing, and why they would be considered non consenting, is fairly clear and logical.
Quote:We see on multiple rape feminist sites something to the effect "if you are in doubt about the legality of the sex then certainly dont do it" as if this is an answer to men who want to know what is allowed and what is not. It is pure bullshit, it is clearly a calculated attempt to keep men guessing so that they will error on the side of caution so as to stay out of jail... as a way to keep sex sedate with a built in deniability when guys like me come claiming that sex is overly criminalized. This is abuse of the citizens, no doubt about it.
Well, I don't frequent "feminist rape sites", whatever those are, so I don't know what they say. But the advice, "if you are in doubt about the legality of the sex then certainly dont do it" sounds like good advice to me. If you are in doubt about the legality of
anything, and not just sex, it's probably a good idea not to do it. It's better to err on the side of caution if you want to avoid legal difficulties. That has nothing to do with keeping sex "sedate", but it might have a lot to do with avoiding a sexual assault charge. If you are unsure of consent, and you can't clarify it by communicating with your partner, you are better off stopping. That's common sense. And, realistically, that's most liable to happen with someone you don't know very well, in a casual encounter, and, in those situations, people should act with caution and err on the side of caution, for the protection of all parties.
I can't see this as an "abuse of citizens" by government--that is ridiculous. Requiring consent to a sexual act is exactly the same as requiring consent before someone can take your personal property. The government isn't criminalizing sex--it criminalizes non consenting sex. Just as the government doesn't criminalize philanthropy, but it does criminalize someone stealing your money.
We have laws governing all sorts of behavior in our daily lives, not just sexual assaults. And people are expected to be aware of those laws and abide by them. If you choose to drive above the speed limit, is the government trying to entrap you into breaking the traffic laws? If you don't declare your entire income on your tax return, has the government entrapped you into breaking the tax evasion laws? And the tax laws are a hell of a lot more complex and complicated than the sexual assault laws, and people are still expected to obey the tax laws.
Sex is not criminalized. Non consenting sex is criminalized--it is rape.
Most people understand that and have no problem with that.
