Not to sound nasty, but:
Where in my post did I mention you?
Last I checked, this is IMHO, not GD. I gave my opinion, which I am entitled to do in this forum.
I was making a lighthearted comment which you interpreted as lying for sex. TruCelt, have you ever worn makeup when going out on a date? Then you’re just as much a liar as I am.
Yes - if I’d responded just on the OP and the article’s title then my response would have been different.
I don’t think pick-up artists should be called rapists just for claiming to be, say, richer than they are, but those two cases are people clearly obtaining sex without genuine consent, and they shouldn’t have got away with it.
Whether it needs a new law is another thing; often when people propose a new law, it turns out there’s already an old law that simply wasn’t (for some reason) used. Anyone know of one in those cases? (The doctor would have been acting illegally by pretending to be a doctor, but his actions merit a punishment beyond that).
She did - she said ‘we need a new terminology.’
Sorry about posting three times in quick succession:
You said " My stance is simply that this absolutely constitutes sex with a lack of informed consent, and the word we have for that is “rape.”"
I just noticed that you slipped the word “informed” in there. Giving consent and giving informed consent aren’t the same thing. One is much more demanding than the other. I’ve never seen a law that requires informed consent when it comes to rape, just consent. Probably because the legislators realize that requiring consent to be informed when it comes to sex would be far too demanding.
Here’s one definition of informed consent, think of what it would imply to adapt that requirement that for sex:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/patient-physician-relationship-topics/informed-consent.page
In the communications process, you, as the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure (not a delegated representative), should disclose and discuss with your patient:
The patient’s diagnosis, if known;
The nature and purpose of a proposed treatment or procedure;
The risks and benefits of a proposed treatment or procedure;
Alternatives (regardless of their cost or the extent to which the treatment options are covered by health insurance);
The risks and benefits of the alternative treatment or procedure; and
The risks and benefits of not receiving or undergoing a treatment or procedure.
SciFiSam, you’re right.
Silly AF, “to the extent that you imply . . .” does not say you mentioned me.
I will also say that while both yours and Michael’s opinions on the subject at hand are welcome, your opinions on my past and how it might be used to sully other people’s evaluation of my arguments are not.
Let me just restate my position very clearly here: I do not think that “rape by deception” should be in any way treated in the same way as “Violent Rape.” I do think it qualifies as not having received true consent, and should be punishable. In most ofthe cases mentioned here community service would be enough. But I think it needs to be actionable.
And finally, to defend my own honor, I will assure you that while I have indeed worn make-up on most of my dates, I have never, ever slept with any man who told me that he would only have sex with me if I looked the same way without it.
It’s that last bit you still seem to be missing. 
So, John meets Jack. John knows that Jack only wants to have sex with people who want to have a long term relationship wit him. John doesn’t want a long term relationship. They have sex. John should have a criminal record, right?
Martin meets Scarlett. Scarlett doesn’t want to have sex with blacks and Martin knows that. He’s a black man who can pass for white. They have sex. It’s a criminal record for Martin, right?
We already have a perfectly good word to describe lying to someone to get them to give you something they otherwise wouldn’t; that word is “fraud.” The fact that what’s being exchanged is sex doesn’t make fraud rape.
Depends on what you mean by “taking serious”.
But yes, for my money it is a form of rape. Much too complex, hazy and unprovable one to ever legislate adequately ; but still rape with the various mental fuckeries that implies long after the fact.
As for the rolleyes brigade, “come on, you know the guy is lying”, how is it any different from fraud, which is legislated against ? I think this assumption that “oh FFS, everyone does it” is very damaging to society. I don’t bloody lie. I don’t dress up. I don’t brag, I don’t pretend I was in the Marines or whatever. It’s you fuckers who ruin everything by making my honestly tremendous qualities look tame in comparison with your bullshit, and make every gal roll their eyes when I explain just how awesome I am !
:). But then again, not entirely.
It does appear to be some kind of fraud. Perhaps make it sexual assault with different consequences?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I never mentioned anything about your past.
Now this is a debate. Let me ask you a hypothetical: Say you have a 21-year-old Greenwich Village heiress who doesn’t sleep with any man worth less than seven figures. She meets a guy who claims to be multimillion-dollar hedge fund manager. He has the clothes, has the car, has the apartment, and is ready, willing, and able to immediately buy that huge diamond necklace they happened across on Fifth Avenue. After a night at his apartment, she goes through his desk and finds that his entire lifestyle is fueled by credit, and he makes, at best, $250k a year. Does he deserve to be punished?
I don’t think there’s a self-respecting woman out there who would sleep with a man stupid enough to say that to her. That’s not much of an answer.
[quote=“Agent_Foxtrot, post:49, topic:611522”]
. . . Now this is a debate. Let me ask you a hypothetical: Say you have a 21-year-old Greenwich Village heiress who doesn’t sleep with any man worth less than seven figures. She meets a guy who claims to be multimillion-dollar hedge fund manager. He has the clothes, has the car, has the apartment, and is ready, willing, and able to immediately buy that huge diamond necklace they happened across on Fifth Avenue. After a night at his apartment, she goes through his desk and finds that his entire lifestyle is fueled by credit, and he makes, at best, $250k a year. Does he deserve to be punished?
[quote]
Did he claim to be a hedge-fund manager with a many-million$ personal net worth? Did she fully exclose to him that she would not be having sex with him unless that was the case? Did he knowingly and purposefully lead her to believe that it was the case? Then yes.
And also, she’s an a-hole. But she’s an a-hole with the right to decide who she wants to have sex with by any criteria she names.
She may have a personal right, but not one that should be enforced by the law. People don’t have a general right for the government to ensure that they are not lied to regarding mundane day-to-day personal interactions.
Fraud laws require that you be induced by a material misrepresentation to take action that results in harm. And “harm” generally means physical harm or monetary harm and that creates a material benefit on the part of the fraudster. Emotional harm doesn’t come into play, nor should it. And having snowed a woman into sex is not a material benefit, nor should it be.
Hey, you’d call that rape? We already have a perfectly good, if somewhat antique, term for that. Seduction. Which people have been charged with and found guilty of.
It seems like almost everything covered by “lying to get sex” is covered already by something other than the big R. For instance if a guy wants to get a girl in bed and pretends he’s going to marry her, when he has no intention of it: Seduction. If he actually marries her then no problem (well, problems, probably, but not legal ones). If he pretends to marry her when he’s not free to marry due to being already married to someone else: Bigamy.
If someone lies about how much money he has to get somebody into bed who has a specific value as a criterion? Nothing legally enforceable. There are some words to describe a person like that. Some words to describe the seducee (seductee?) also.
I think you misread my post.
Fraud laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I dunno why sex cannot be considered something of value as much as any “material benefit”. Generally “harm” isn’t a component of the test - it is more like obtaining something from someone by decet. Admittedly that “something” is usually something of tangible financial worth. But I see no reason why it has to be so.
The problem here is that you are not articulating exactly why sex ought to be treated differently than other goods or services exchanged by people. Perhaps a good case can be made that fraud ought to be limited to obtaining services that are actually supposed to be paid for (though that would create the odd situation that a prostitute could be defrauded if sex is obtained by deceit, but a non-prostitute could not!).
The reason why the analysis is difficult is that having sex is generally considered a valuable thing, very valuable indeed, but not (generally) valuable in the sense of having a price. It isn’t simply an incident of mundane social interaction, like shaking hands (well, not generally 
). It seems to me a tough argument to make that because something is not paid for, or intended to be paid for, it has no value.
Therefore, the analysis goes something like this: a person who obtains sex by deceit is obtaining something of value from another person through lying, which is generally punishable.
No, it’s normal human relations. People don’t want to constantly be told the absolute truth. I doubt that someone under some magical curse to only speak the absolute truth would get ever sex again short of hiring a prostitute. Or for that matter that they’d have any friends at all for very long. Yes, a lot of lying is predatory in nature and some at least verges on rape; but a lot of lying is just social lubricant for dealing with a species that doesn’t handle the unvarnished truth very well; the term “little white lie” exists for a reason.
In other words, if a girl asks you if you think she’s pretty, she’s probably not asking for a cold-blooded critique of her looks.
It’s not at all odd. If you’re in a place where sexual services are legal, then you might be liable for theft of services if you fail to pay the agreed price for the sex.
But if someone is voluntarily having sex with you, with no prior understanding of payment, then there is no exchange of value. It’s no different than having a conversation with a friend, or watching a movie together, or cooking someone a meal. There is no understanding that there is an exchange for value.
If you go to a restaurant, eat, and then leave without paying, you’ve taken a benefit without the understood payment. But if you are invited to someone’s house for a meal and then turn out to be bad company because you’re an asshole, there’s no loss of value, because there was no understanding of an exchange of value.
Having sex is something that people voluntarily do that’s not really any different from being friends or sweethearts. When your friend or sweetheart disappoints you, you don’t get compensated for everything you gave voluntarily in terms of sharing your company, nor does the government impose criminal penalties.
Being lied to and treated shitty is just life.
Malthus,
I think the distinction is between transactional interaction and relational interaction. Transactional interactions tend to be cut and dried and about exchange; I’ll give you X if you give me Y. Having the State enforce the terms is crucial to any economic system.
Relational interactions (like friendship, dating) are often open ended and indeterminate in terms of what they require of participants. Often, they simply can’t have as much certainty about what their relationship implies as people do in transactional interactions.
I don’t think you could really want relational interactions to work like transactional ones, considering the formality of transactional interactions.
Let’s take a non-sex example: You have a big screen TV and a friend often comes over. You think it’s because he really likes you. As it turns out, he likes you a little but mainly he wants to watch the big screen TV. That should get him convicted of fraud? Friendship is also valuable.
There’s any number of such examples that can be given but you can probably see why the State doesn’t try to treat relational matters in the same way it does transactional matters.
So you think these things are generally explicitly discussed?
Really? Is it* really necessary* to this discussion to dig at Trucelt’s character in such a personal way? You seem to be trying to find a way to discount her opinion on this subject because of a supposed character map you’ve drawn of her by this comment. That’s a shitty thing to do.
Stuff like this makes me focus less on Trucelt’s potential bias and more on your bias.
I’m saying that if it is explicitly discussed, and one party lies to get sex with the other, then it’s rape. I’m not sure how many different ways I can say the same thing.
ETA: Thank you Lady!