Now it's your turn! [kinda NSFW] (self.pettyrevenge)

pettyrevenge

386 ups - 288 downs = 98 votes

135 comments submitted at 14:52:15 on Feb 10, 2013 by BritBodatious

  • [-]
  • r00x
  • 100 Points
  • 16:05:07, 10 February

Ok, I'm gonna be 'that guy' - not only was that distinctly not petty, I'm fairly sure it's tantamount to rape (by omission - he never would have consented to sex if he knew his partner had a penis).

I'm sure he was a douche bag, but this revenge I just can't get behind.

  • [-]
  • eljefffe
  • -13 Points
  • 16:25:56, 10 February

Yeah, that's definitely not rape. The guy consented to the sex.

It would be like saying that it's rape if you have an STD (not that I'm saying being a tranny is like having an STD, that's not the same thing at all. But leaving something out is my point.) but don't tell the person, even though they consent to it. If the guy is oblivious enough to have sex with someone with a penis, then it is his fault, not theirs.

  • [-]
  • r00x
  • 6 Points
  • 16:36:38, 10 February

Yeah, its not rape, but he consented to sex under deception. I'm fairly sure there is something very wrong about that, both in OP's example and the example you point out with STDs. People have gone to prison for the latter, definitely.

I'm fairly sure people have done time for having sex with a partner who did not know their true identity as well, so I'm quite sure I'm onto something here.

Seriously though, how do you not notice your partner has a penis during sexytimes? Just... how?

  • [-]
  • 5b3ll
  • 1 Points
  • 20:36:43, 10 February

It definitely is rape.

  • [-]
  • jazersed
  • 2 Points
  • 16:35:34, 10 February

FYI: the term "tranny" is offensive.

  • [-]
  • flantaclause
  • 4 Points
  • 17:15:40, 10 February

it's only offensive to those who are offended by it. people are way too PC, just stop being offended by words, OP obviously wasn't being hateful in any way, so you should quit being such a ~~little pansy queer~~ whiny baby.

before you downvote, that was a joke

  • [-]
  • prototype137
  • 4 Points
  • 17:23:58, 10 February

Hey, it seems to be a joke after I downvote too!

  • [-]
  • flantaclause
  • 3 Points
  • 17:24:30, 10 February

now that's just offensive!

  • [-]
  • eljefffe
  • -1 Points
  • 18:50:15, 10 February

FYI: people get offended about stupid stuff. I'm not degrading transgendered people when I say that. I have no problem with them. If they're happy, I'm happy for them. But I have every right to use whatever word or phrase I want.

It would be understandable if I was using it as an insult, but I'm not. Just because I'm too lazy to type out transgendered every time doesn't mean people need to get upset about it.

  • [-]
  • SayceGards
  • 1 Points
  • 20:09:16, 10 February

trans*, or even trans is an acceptable form. And it's shorter than tranny!

  • [-]
  • eljefffe
  • 1 Points
  • 20:18:55, 10 February

And that's fine, I just used a different abbreviation and people are getting upset about it unnecessarily.

  • [-]
  • evercharmer
  • 2 Points
  • 20:09:57, 10 February

Sure, you do have the right to use whatever word or phrase you want. Doesn't mean you don't look like an asshole when doing so.

  • [-]
  • eljefffe
  • 2 Points
  • 20:23:01, 10 February

I only look like an asshole when people unnecessarily get upset about something that they took out of context. People were assuming that I was using that word to degrade someone, but I wasn't.

People use the term "white people" as a derogatory term from time to time. Does this mean if I say I'm white that I'm degrading myself? Of course not. Just because something is used to degrade in some instances doesn't mean it is in every instance.

Just because you have negative associations for the word tranny doesn't mean everyone does, so get off of my back.

  • [-]
  • evercharmer
  • 1 Points
  • 20:32:22, 10 February

The thing about that is, some words are used more often to degrade than others. Tranny is usually used as a hate word, so yeah, people are inclined to assume you're being a bigoted asshole when you use it whether or not that's the case. Only in very specific instances would someone find reason to assume differently, and in the case of the word tranny that would probably be when transgender individuals are using it themselves. Plenty are still offended when that happens, but it's seen as a valid interpretation for them to be reclaiming the word as well.

When you're using the word tranny online, we have nothing to go by other than your username. Nothing about it implies you might be trans*, so we're all going to assume you're using it out of hate and that's just how language works. So you can get all flustered over the fact that people aren't okay when you're using a slur if you want, but it isn't going to change and you'd probably be much better off if you just came to understand that we're not living in your world and hearing your thoughts. We can't know your intent behind using it and can only assume what you might mean, and even after clarifying, it still brings to mind the usual context the word is used in. As it turns out, that isn't a very nice context.

  • [-]
  • LightninLew
  • 1 Points
  • 17:27:06, 10 February

But he didn't consent to sex with a man, he consented to sex with what he thought was a woman. I'm pretty sure this is still illegal, whether it's called rape or not. It is definitely illegal to knowingly pass STDs to people without telling them.

  • [-]
  • eljefffe
  • -1 Points
  • 18:57:40, 10 February

I never said it was legal to pass STD's without the partner knowing about it. I said it wasn't rape, which it's not. There's a big difference there.

The gender of the person doesn't matter. The guy consented to have sex with JOEsephine, but they didn't say "but only if you are a woman." (At least, we aren't told if they did, but I doubt that added that at the end).

Having an STD and not telling your partner is reckless endangerment. This is the case because you pose a risk to that person's health when you have sex with them. The person being a different gender than you thought poses no such risk, however.

  • [-]
  • AimForTheHead
  • 1 Points
  • 19:09:21, 10 February

So it is totally ok to pose a risk to someone's mental health?

  • [-]
  • eljefffe
  • 0 Points
  • 19:21:52, 10 February

First of all, there is definitive proof that unknowingly catching an STD does pose a risk to your health. There is no such proof, however, that having sex with someone who is a different gender than you thought poses a risk to your mental health, which is, by definition, your "psychological well-being". Being upset about something is not a risk to your mental health. If someone can no longer psychologically function because they accidentally had sex with someone that was a different gender than they thought, then homophobia, not the sex, is their biggest issue.

Second, don't try to use homophobia (which yes, is what you just did, don't try to deny it) to put words into my mouth. I never said it was ok to pose a risk to someone's mental health. But as I addressed, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this would pose that risk, so your point is irrelevant.

  • [-]
  • LightninLew
  • 1 Points
  • 19:13:39, 10 February

Then why did you draw the parallel between STDs if you understand that that is nothing alike? It makes no sense at all.

My point isn't whether he consented to sex at all, it's that he didn't consent to to having sex with the person he thought he did. So in effect he didn't consent to sex with this person at all.

>If the guy is oblivious enough to have sex with someone with a penis, then it is his fault, not theirs.

I didn't even notice how absurd this was until just now. That's effectively saying "if she was too oblivious to say no, that's her fault, not mine." He literally couldn't say no, because he didn't know what was happening.

This is all assuming this ever happened though, which I find extremely unlikely.

  • [-]
  • eljefffe
  • 1 Points
  • 19:33:24, 10 February

You're not understanding what I, and others, said. I drew the parallel because saying something is rape because you didn't know they were the gender they are is flawed, as is saying that it is rape if you later find out that they have an STD. Someone had said that it was rape to be of a different gender than your partner thought you were, but it is not.

>My point isn't whether he consented to sex at all, it's that he didn't consent to to having sex with the person he thought he did. So in effect he didn't consent to sex with this person at all.

If you give consent to a person, then you gave consent to them. There is nothing saying that consent is invalid if you later find out something you didn't know about them. By that logic, I could say I didn't know someone had X political view before I had sex with them, so it was rape because I know that now and don't like it. That entire argument is ridiculous. If you give consent, you give consent to that person, regardless of things you find out later, and it is therefore not rape. >>If the guy is oblivious enough to have sex with someone with a penis, then it is his fault, not theirs.

>That's effectively saying "if she was too oblivious to say no, that's her fault, not mine." He literally couldn't say no, because he didn't know what was happening.

That is not even remotely the same thing as what I said and you fucking know it. There is a legal and moral obligation for consent for sex to be legal. There is no such obligation for the person to explicitly say what type of genitalia they have for sex to be legal.

The guy didn't even realize this person had a penis when he was talking to him or even while he was literally having sex with him, but this is somehow JOEsephine's fault? Are you kidding me? All that time and the guy is that oblivious, and you have the audacity to falsely liken that to rape? You're ridiculous.

  • [-]
  • LightninLew
  • 1 Points
  • 19:53:38, 10 February

I understand what you are saying about the STD, but it is totally irrelevant and it is an act that is illegal. You are trying to draw parallels between something you are defending and something that is illegal. This is totally illogical and is not in any way helping you make your point.

You're still using the argument that it is his fault because he was oblivious, which is totally ridiculous. In this story it is made quite clear that the transsexual friend purposefully tricked a guy into having sex with them under the impression that they were a woman for sadistic revenge. And you're telling me that the person doing this isn't at fault? It's not like they met at a bar, and then had sex, this was a planned trick.

Also, there is the fact that this happened at a party. Where it's a safe bet there is alcohol involved. I cannot think of any way that someone could have sex with a man without knowing without being blindingly drunk. It seems to me that they planned to get him drunk enough to fuck a guy. If this is true then there is no question that it's rape, but obviously OP isn't about to admit this now, and the whole thing probably never happened anyway, so speculation is kind of pointless.

  • [-]
  • eljefffe
  • 1 Points
  • 20:17:53, 10 February

>I understand what you are saying about the STD, but it is totally irrelevant and it is an act that is illegal.

You just proved yourself wrong. What I'm saying is that, despite what someone else said, it is not rape to not tell someone you have an STD. It is illegal, but it is not rape.

>You are trying to draw parallels between something you are defending and something that is illegal. This is totally illogical and is not in any way helping you make your point.

It is not illogical because while it is illegal to not tell someone you have an STD before you have sex with them, it is not rape. Noe explicitly telling someone what kind of genitalia you have is also not rape, as someone tried to claim it was.

>You're still using the argument that it is his fault because he was oblivious, which is totally ridiculous.

I never said anyone was at fault, you did. I just said that JOEsephine wasn't at fault for not explicitly stating that they had a penis.

>In this story it is made quite clear that the transsexual friend purposefully tricked a guy into having sex with them under the impression that they were a woman for sadistic revenge. And you're telling me that the person doing this isn't at fault? It's not like they met at a bar, and then had sex, this was a planned trick.

No, they're not at fault. There is nothing at all that says someone has to come out and say "I have a penis" or "I have a vagina" before they can have sex with someone. This guy spends all of this time with this person, including when they are both stripping down before they actually have sex, and he never notices that this person has a penis? But suddenly JOEsephine is at fault because they didn't make a point of saying it? That's ridiculous.

>Also, there is the fact that this happened at a party. Where it's a safe bet there is alcohol involved. I cannot think of any way that someone could have sex with a man without knowing without being blindingly drunk. It seems to me that they planned to get him drunk enough to fuck a guy.

This is a very big assumption that is entirely baseless. Alcohol is not at any point mentioned in the story, we have no reason to believe Jeff was drunk when this happened. I agree that if he was drunk that it was rape, but we have no reason to believe he was. Saying someone was drunk based entirely on that they were at a party is like saying someone was drunk because they were at a restaurant that sells alcohol. Just because someone may have had the opportunity to get drunk does not mean that they took that opportunity.

You make assumptions that you can't back up, you put words in to my mouth, and you falsely accuse me of comparing two unlike things when you did it yourself, which is why I'm not going to continue arguing this. Have fun living in your own little world where you can make up whatever sad excuse for logic you want.