Please. So someone hiding the fact that they are an alcoholic in order to have sex with someone who wouldn’t get involved with a alcoholic is rape? That’s ridiculous.
Even concealing a potentially lethal STD isn’t rape. It IS legally actionable for certain, but the name of the crime is not rape.
Informed consent is serious business, but it is also a two-way street - with all the mitigating factors that implies. Both parties are responsible for a reasonable amount of due diligence. If a woman tries to pick me up at a club down in old Soho, I am responsible for providing my own good judgement as to whether or not I take her at her word. If I choose to not understand why she walks like a woman and talks like a man, I am a partial party to my own deception.
Due diligence is your own personal responsibility. If you don’t have enough self-control to hold off on sex until you are certain this person is what and who they say they are, then you have to accept the consequences of your actions. Don’t drop your panties until you know exactly who and what you are about to let enter your body.
Look, rape is a crime, not a tort. It’s about the criminal, not the victim, and in the scenario you describe, the victim gave consent. Rape is sex without consent. There’s no “Yeah, but if I’d only known, I would not have given consent.” because the law doesn’t care why she gave consent. The fact is, she did.
If you want to have a law against willfully spreading STDs, fine. We already have those. If you want to outlaw gaining consent by threat, fine. We have those, too. But lying is not illegal, nor should it be. And we shouldn’t be outlawing things just because we can dream up a worst-case scenario for it.
Again, it’s important who you give consent to, not why you gave it.
I agree that lying per se isn’t illegal, but lying to obtain an advantage from someone is illegal in some cases.
Such lying is known as “fraud”. The exact ambit of what is criminal “fraud” varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but at base it is all about lying to someone to get some advantage from them.
The issue, to my mind, is whether sex is a “personal gain” to which the concept of fraud ought to be applied, or whether it is not.
A person who hands over money to a three-card-monte fraudster does so willingly. He or she “consents” to giving the fraudster money …
You are skipping the part about “knows for certain they they would not be. . .”
If I said - I will have sex with you, but only if you are a truly dedicated vegan, then yes, your scenario would be rape. Nothign compared to violent rape, but rape nonetheless. You have not received consent, you’ve been told that I would not sleep with you under the conditions that, in fact, prevail.
Likewise, a woman who has told her husband she would never consent to sex again if he cheated, is being raped if he cheats and then has sex with her again. He knows full well that she would not be doing this if she knew the truth.
Look, at some point, you can’t look at the criminal law to punish someone for being a jerk. The law is not there to make sure that men don’t behave as cads and bounders. If you enter into a sexual act, you have to accept the risk that you might be lied to, and deal with the consequences without the majesty of the law there to enact your vengeance.
I think the OP asked a very narrow question that asks people to comment only on one small part of the real issue. It could be like asking for people’s thoughts on pollution from cars but not wanting to debate the utility of automobiles. Like I said before, I don’t think someone lying about their wealth or family would seem to be committing a crime, but someone pretending to be a doctor to sexually assault women is a pretty serious matter, IMHO.
I’m not 100% sure, but my guess would be that the penalties for rape would be much tougher than penalties for fraud or practicing medicine without a license. The latter offenses may mean a couple-few years in prison, I would be surprised if rape would mean decades in prison. The gynecologist guy ought to be locked up for a long time, IMHO.
I’m not sure how to describe the line between, “Hey baby, let’s get out of this crowded bar so you can learn what a doctor knows about the female anatomy” and “Miss Brown, I am now going to proceed with the exam, don’t be alarmed if things feel different, as I use the most modern diagnostic techniques.”
In the first instance, baby knows that what’s being proposed is sex and agrees to it.
In the latter instance, Miss Brown agrees to a medical examnination, not sex.
Now you’ll likely come up with the “I’m my twin brother, your husband, so you can have sex with me” example. For this one, let’s look at two sentences:
John is not the same person as Jack.
John is not the same person as he was when he drank.
In both cases, I am saying “John is not the same person as…” yet the meaning of the word “person” is quite different. One is about identity, the other contingent characteristics.
If you agree to sex with a particular individual (rather than their contingent characteristics which are liable to change), then I see no rape.
The courts and legislators have often been very conservative in applying contractual concepts stricly to normal social relations, this is an example of why. This is an illustration of why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-gu6s0eGOk
But if I fully stated that my agreement was predicated upon the contingent characteristics, and you knowingly went forward despite the criteria being deficient, then you truly are not the “person” I agreed to have sex with.
I am youtube deficient (blocked by firewall) so if there’s helpful content there please enlighten me.
You are confusing the meanings of the word “person”.
Since you would be ready to send someone to prison for several years and wreck their life for having had sex with and hidden meat eating from a vegetarian who makes vegetarianism a criterion of having sex, I do not believe I can convince you.
You seem to have had bad experiences with men and not want much to do with them now. There’s nothing wrong with that outlook as a way to lead your life but it doesn’t make good policy.
No, that is the same person, under any legally recognized definition of “person.” The law doesn’t protect your misconceptions about a person’s character, only his identity.
If it’s rape, then I’m definitely a rapist. I’m nowhere near as funny or charming or sensitive or as good at guitar as I make myself out to be.
C’mon, are you serious? This sounds like one of those feminazis (yes, I just used that word) who think that men should sit down while peeing because standing displays the “violent and domineering” male nature.
Sounds like someone’s butthurt because the guy she just boned turned out not to be Chief Flight Surgeon for Air Force One.
No, rape by deception is not rape. There used to be a crime called “seduction”–I think Frank Sinatra was once arrested for this, in his youth–and I would be okay with that if, for instance, the person who was lying was lying about something really big, like being married when he said he was single. Or maybe if he said he was a big Hollywood producer and he wanted to put you in a movie when in fact he worked in a car wash.
When in fact it turned out to be really small.
Sorry, I had to.
I get that some women are very bitter about these types of situations but having the State take revenge for you by wrecking someone’s life because he fibbed and you were naive is a little much.
Nonsense. I have stated that it needs a different word than violent rape does, and the punishment should also be different. My stance is simply that this absolutely constitutes sex with a lack of informed consent, and the word we have for that is “rape.”
You have both created ridiculous arguments and then declared them to be ridiculous. To the extent that you imply they are* my* arguments; I object.
As for the comments on my personal experience; you have no idea. I could, however, as easily conclude from your arguments that you are in the habit of lying for sex; and could as easily be wrong. So let’s stick to the debate, shall we?
You didn’t say it needed a different word than violent rape, you said: “Nothign compared to violent rape, but rape nonetheless” and “It’s not the same as violent rape, but it’s rape.” You did say it was rape, no getting around it.
Non-violent rape (which is still rape) can send you to prison for several years adn wreck your life (sex offender registry, criminal record). What do you think the punishment should be?
Personal experience; I am not basing it only on what you said in this thread but also comments about the fact that a lot of men were interested in you because you are blonde and blue eyed, that you’re glad both that you’ve gained weight and that men are not as interested in you as they used to be. Sounds like you’ve been burned.
Just to make it explicit, I think that having sex with someone by lying to them about something they’ve made explicit it a dealbreaker to them is (in the vast majority of cases) a Major Dick Move and a sign that that person should be avoided. But I don’t think it should trigger civil or criminal liability (except in very narrow circumstances like those I’ve talked about above).