| Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Woman ‘tricked into sex’ by penis cream treatment; Schoolteacher, eh? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 29 2007, 09:58 AM (929 Views) | |
| Pestiferous | Apr 30 2007, 06:09 PM Post #21 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
You have it backwards - the definition of prostitution is to engage in sexual acts for hire. The man, under your terms, would be the prostitute - not the woman. If we were to assign a monetary value to the deposit, it would be the depositer (not the depositee) that would be engaging in sexual acts for hire ie. to engage in sex to deposit sperm for financial benefit. She would be in trouble for soliciting. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 06:18 PM Post #22 |
|
Unregistered
|
No, he would be paying in the form of sperm instead of money. That is, assuming the woman makes a condition of her consent the depositing of viable sperm, then he is paying in barter rather than cash. Let's turn it around. Let's say the agreement is struck, and the man does not reveal that he is infertile. Would that be "rape by deception"? If it is, then that is explicitly acknowledging that the woman had a material condition for her consent. A condition that can relatively easily be assigned a monetary value. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 30 2007, 08:04 PM Post #23 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Nope - you're looking at it backwards. The woman was soliciting a service from the man - his penis as the application tube for her cream. If a woman is looking to get pregnant through sexual intercourse, she is soliciting the man for his sperm. The man isn't "paying" with his sperm - she is paying him with sex in exchange for his sperm. He is engaging in a sexual act for hire. Now, if we were to go on your reasoning (if a person could even call it that at this point) then sperm banks would be on the hook for pimping. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ConfusedMonkey | Apr 30 2007, 08:08 PM Post #24 |
|
Satan Valid
|
Jesus - you two will argue about anything.
|
| There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 08:10 PM Post #25 |
|
Unregistered
|
Just like a prostitute "pays" with sex for money, in this case the exchange is made via the bartered commodity sperm. |
|
|
| ConfusedMonkey | Apr 30 2007, 08:15 PM Post #26 |
|
Satan Valid
|
YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. She is paying him with sex. He is paying her with sperm. They are paying each other. She gives him fifty quid (in the form of sex), and he gives her fifty quid (in the form of sperm). They are 'even stevens'.
|
| There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 30 2007, 08:16 PM Post #27 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Nope - a prostitute exchanges sex for money, it is not considered "payment" of any sort for money. Hence the definition of prostitution...which I suggest you google sometime today. To clarify, I don't believe what she did can be termed as prostitution in any sense of the word. If anything, she was soliciting. However, if the man received money for his "services" then he could be termed as a prostitute. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 08:53 PM Post #28 |
|
Unregistered
|
In the posited scenario (i.e. material conditions put on consent by the woman), the man is making a payment in exchange for sexual favors. Whether that is money or sperm makes no difference. In either case, the woman is exchanging sex for something of material value, which is the definition of prostitution. Consider, the man may be perfectly happy to wear a condom. He would still be having sex, but this would not meet the material conditions placed by the woman (i.e. viable sperm deposited in the proper orifice). |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 30 2007, 09:33 PM Post #29 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Ah, but she wasn't exchanging sex - that was her point. She wasn't giving him sex, hence the rape charge. She claims at no time did she give consent for sex. So, again, your point is moot. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 09:54 PM Post #30 |
|
Unregistered
|
We've been discussing the scenario you proposed:
To which I responded:
Notice my conditional: IF that were a condition of consenting to sex. In the present story, the woman consented to sex in exchange for application of a special cream. Her whole claim is that she was deceived, and the payment she received for her consent was fraudulent. Hence "rape by deceit". It's really very simple: exchanging sex for something and as a necessary condition for consent, whether it is money, or goods, or even special cream, is prostitution. |
|
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 10:58 PM Post #31 |
|
Unregistered
|
Well said, and I concur. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | May 1 2007, 02:17 AM Post #32 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
No, Plague - again, you're wrong. She's claiming rape by deception BECAUSE it wasn't sex she consented to - it was the application of the cream simply using his penis. Then she found out that's not how you need to apply the cream - thus turning it into HIM having sex (as the cream theory was null and void) which she DID NOT CONSENT TO - sex as payment was not her terms. She didn't pay him back in sex...because it wasn't sex under her terms. God, I'm so fucking bored of this. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | May 1 2007, 12:03 PM Post #33 |
|
Unregistered
|
She didn't consent to sex, she consented to having him insert his penis into her vagina?
|
|
|
| Pestiferous | May 1 2007, 01:02 PM Post #34 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
There you go. Finally. You've caught on to why we've been calling her stupid. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | May 1 2007, 02:09 PM Post #35 |
|
Unregistered
|
Except, that is consenting to sex, as I've maintained throughout. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | May 1 2007, 03:18 PM Post #36 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
For christ's sake, Plague. You're wrong. It would be preferable if you could get over it sometime today. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | May 1 2007, 04:07 PM Post #37 |
|
Unregistered
|
So, you think she's right? I'm confused. You argue that she did not consent to sex, merely to having a penis inserted into her vagina. That in itself is an amazing convolution. Then, somehow, new knowledge magically transformed this act into a nullification of consent for the insertion which has now been magically transformed into sex, which she didn't consent to. That's an interesting viewpoint. Makes transubstantiation look straightforward. |
|
|
| Evil_Henry | May 1 2007, 04:13 PM Post #38 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
It's a bit of a nonsense. If you could claim rape so easily, you'd be able to have ex-boyfriends sent to prison with little to no effort. "Those nine months of sex, your honour, really pretty depressing. I'd probably call it rape, at a push." Also, allowing someone to insert their penis into you is sex (or a sexual act for pedants). Plain and simple - and enjoying it has never been a factor. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | May 1 2007, 04:29 PM Post #39 |
|
Unregistered
|
Exactly. She may have had a reason other than desire, but retroactively revoking consent doesn't even make sense. |
|
|
| Evil_Henry | May 1 2007, 04:43 PM Post #40 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
I think this exchange is quite amusing: Doctor: Under no circumstances should any cream be applied with a penis Patient: You're sure? Doctor: I couldn't be more sure. Absolutely positive. Patient: Then that means... oh my God! Doctor: Yes. Patient: We had sex? Doctor: You see now how the two acts are identical? Patient: I knew I recognised that action from somewhere. Silly me, eh? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General · Next Topic » |








7:15 PM Jul 11