you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

This seems like another lame attempt to conflate race with sex. Also, it's an attempt to conflate engaging in an act of sex involving deception with getting married. Finally, it's an attempt to make it seem like not disclosing any info about yourself or your family to someone you marry is the same as rape by deception, which has a very narrow meaning in law and has only been applied in a few cases.

When having sex with another person, information pertaining to sex is relevant: such as what sex you are; what your sexual orientation is; whether you are married, engaged, cohabitating or currently involved sexually with anyone else, and what the rules of your relationship are when it comes to having sex with others; whether you have or might have a sexually-transmitted infection; if you're HIV poz, if you've been taking your meds and your viral load is low; issues relating to contraception such as if a woman is on hormonal BC, whether a man has had a vasectomy, where a woman is in her cycle; whether you have any sexual problems or quirks that a partner might want to know about ahead of time or you might feel better about revealing beforehand (vaginismus, a genital deformity, a micro-penis, inability to orgasm); information about your past and other sexual relationships that might be relevant (if you and the potential partner had a mutual lover in the past might be relevant, and I think people would be duty-bound to let potential sex partners know that you just broke up with a crazy jealous BF with a history of violence who has promised to kill the next person you have sex with in the future).

But someone's "racial background"? Or ethnicity? - No.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sounds like rape apology to me.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How...?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't really. I'm pointing out the double standard