This isn’t verbal pressure to get sex. As far as I’m concerned thats a form of rape. But there was so physical or verbal pressuring. She’s stupid, he’s evil and sly and the like. Someone that dumb and shallow deserves it.
Putting aside irony as a useful tool in this thread, I’ll agree with what pennylane said. The man did wrong but he didn’t commit rape. Rape is generally viewed as a sexual act performed without the consent of one of the participents. Fraud is generally viewed as obtaining an agreement by means of deception. What the man did here was fraud not rape.
This whole discussion is absolutely ridiculous!
Lying to get sex is rape? Are you fucking kidding me?
The woman in question was a dumb slut. Pure and simple. I don’t think our “DJ” did anything wrong. He tricked some stupid girl into thinking he was something he was not. Because this girl was an idiot who only has sex with people based on their profession, she willingly had sex with this man.
So what would have happened if the guy was a DJ? This stupid skeeze would have bragged to her friends “Hey I had sex with a DJ! YAY!” Please. The girl got used like the tramp she is. I applaud our “DJ”.
I am highly offended that the word rape is even being used in this discussion. Someone very close to me was raped. Really raped. As in violently forced into sexual intercouse. To think that what this dumb bitch went through is in any way related to what my friend has gone through is inconcieveable.
I admit right away that I am not anything remotely close to a lawyer, so please don’t blast me if I get something wrong here! 
I think that the difference between “rape” and “forcible rape” is that “rape” is sex in ANY FORM without informed consent of both parties, while “forcible rape” involves the use of physical force wielded against a victim. If I’m wrong here, please let me know, won’t you?
Rape can occur without PHYSICAL force in many ways. For example, someone being told they will lose their job if they don’t have sex with the boss. FEAR was used as the weapon rather than brute strength. Or, if a woman is pinned down by an attacker and given a choice between giving oral sex or being forced to have intercourse. If she YIELDS to the oral sex in order to prevent the other, it is still rape because she has not CONSENTED. Again, fear was the weapon.
I am a lawyer, but I do not practice criminal law.
KellyM is partially right, but partially wrong.
Consent is a defense to a rape charge and KellyM is correct that “fraud” overrides consent (as does mental incapacity and being too young to fully understand the consequences of consensual sex–i.e., the rationale for statutory rape laws).
The definition of “consent” that contains the fraud exception is used to determine the element of consent in many crimes, including kidnapping. Someone who consents to go with someone because of duress or fear or “fraud” (imagine lies about the safety or location of family members) can still be kidnapped. Similarly, the legal system wants to preserve the rape through “fraud” possibility for a particular class of cases–rapes by medical personnel who tell patients that it is “part of the procedure.” The law does not want to be so narrow that it cannot prosecute cases of this sort. Therefore, KellyM is correct that it is possible that a person who “defrauds” another into consenting to a sex act can be found guilty of rape.
However, I checked Illinois case law on this, and I did not find any rape case (other than the nasty medical personnel cases) where “fraud” in inducing a sex act was found to be the basis for rape.
Note that I also did not even locate any cases where this charge was made. This is because prosecutors are sensible. They will not bring rape charges if the “fraud” in question is mere lies, not serious, mental coercion.
Therefore, until we get more case law (which is not likely to happen because prosecutors are sensible) delineating what “fraud” means in the context of consensual sex, it is incorrect to make the general statement that “fraud,” as the term is commonly used, overrides consent. “Fraud,” but only in a limited sense as understood by the courts in context, overrides consent.
Okay, since KellyM wants to keep things legal and not “debate”:
I submit Boro v. Superior Court, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1224, from 1985. In this case, the accused pretended to be a doctor and told a woman that her blood test results were very bad indeed: she had a fatal disease. She had two options, said he: a very expensive and dangerous operation, or having sex with an anonymous donor (actually, the “doctor” himself) who had been injected with a serum that would cure the disease. She agreed to the second option, paying $1000 for the “treatment”.
So, she believed that her life was in danger, and that was the only reason she consented to this treatment. Clearly, this pack of lies goes way beyond claiming “Hey, hot stuff, I’m a DJ!” So, was this rape?
The court thought not. The court distinguished a case where a doctor’s purported treatment for menstrual cramps included bending the woman over a table and inserting first a speculum and then (unbeknownst to the woman) his penis. The difference: what happened was not that for which consent was given. In Boro, the woman knew the nature of the act to which she was consenting. A notable quote: “…consent induced by fraud is as effective as any other consent, so far as direct and immediate legal consequences are concerned, if the deception relates not to the thing done but merely to some collateral matter (fraud in the inducement).”
Admittedly, this relies upon the California statute and the way it is written. In your state, YMMV.
And this decision prompted the California legislature to pass the statute I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. The statute prohibits a person from inducing another to have sex:
So, even the legislature’s response to the Boro case falls well short of a “liars go to jail” type of law.
This sounds like a dumb blonde joke to me. Can’t believe somebody would be that stupid. Is this why there is an AIDS epidemic?
look at BLACKVOICE’s post for a definition of RAPE. this is just a definition of stupidity or morality.