Others should not discount her opinions on this matter because of what I’ve said, she should engage in introspection about hers. When I see posters want to criminalize such behavior, I think it’s because they’ve experienced/fear manipulation by men like that and would love to get back at them. The State is not a personal revenge service for hurt feelings.
OP here and I restricted my question because there is no doubt in my mind impersonating a doctor in a professional capacity or a specific person should be illegal(and probably already are). There are already even laws about giving someone an STD knowingly.
Thank you for your concern. It may relieve you to know that I believe in practising positive arrogance. For instance, I choose to believe that removing myself from someone’s life is the ultimate revenge. I have a desire for additional revenge against only one of my former partners, and that’s because of something he did to someone else.
You require an explicit discussion. Yet your rationale is “I do think it qualifies as not having received true consent”. Not having received true consent doesn’t require an explicit discussion. You can fail to have what you call true consent without an explicit discussion.
Suppose a woman is more likely to have sex with me if I like children but does not say so explicitely, although I do suspect it. If I say I like children when it isn’t the case and this contributes to her having sex with me, it was not done with, as you would put it, true consent, even though her preference was not made explicit. Why the requirement for expliciteness if it’s about having received true consent?
When you say “true consent”, aren’t you just rephrasing your earlier “informed consent”? Because if so, then we’d have to treat everytime people have sex in the same way we treat surgery. Can you consult the AMA link I posted earlier? That’s what we’d have to do if we require informed consent.
I guess the thing I’m latching onto is that everyone is dishonest to some extent or another when it comes to sex. Makeup masks certain facial characteristics and embellishes others. Heavy clothes hide winter weight. Someone may agree to go to a pizza joint on a date, even though they hate pizza. How many guys have feigned enjoyment of Fried Green Tomatoes or The English Patient? How many women have sat through a NASCAR race, bored to tears? If she asks her date if she’s pretty, does she really want a factual answer?
Where do we draw the line? “She lied about her age!” doesn’t get an adult out of a statutory rape charge… it doesn’t work the other way.
TruCelt, I want to be clear that I’m not picking on you. I’m just engaging you because we seem to have very contrasting opinions on this.
That’s a reasonable rule-of-thumb distinction. However, I do not think the dividing line is formality. A guy pulling some kind of streetcorner scam is still committing fraud despite the lack of formality of the scam.
I agree that often such relational matters are based on too many subjective factors to be rightly the subject of fraud. I disagree that this should be a bright-line rule. Rather, as suggested upthread, I think such cases would be rather rare - that they would have to be based on a sort of deceit that an objective, reasonable person would consider deceptive, and that this deception would have to pass the “but for” test (that is, “but for” this deception, a reasonable, objective person would conclude that the sex would not have happened). The onus would be on the complainant.
Sex is righty treated as different from mere friendship in many ways. A person is not prosecuted for being friends with someone under the age of consent, for example. While financial transactions may be an unsatisfactory analogy for sex, so is friendship. Other than fear of the slippery slope, I do not see a sound policy reason for a bright-line exclusion of sex from consideration (though I agree as stated that as a rule of thumb, such cases would not be suitable except in unusual circumstances).
I think YOU misread MY post. I meant: I would be okay with calling that “seduction.” I would not be okay with calling that “rape.” Whether to criminalize seduction, now that is ia different question, because it’s become quite legitimate to seduce someone, whereas it used to be considered immoral.
Then you think incorrectly. There are many reasons to have a differing opinion. You do other posters a disservice to assume this.
Let’s do the same thing to men, shall we? We have a man with a ‘men’s rights’ issue he is concerned about. Should I assume all men concerned with that issue are misogynists who’ve been burned by women? He can’t be arguing it for other reasons, nope it’s all due to him having been burned by women…
Then I don’t have to listen to what he’s saying, right? That’s what you are doing when you switch from the discussion at hand to a personal jab.
Damn 5 minute rule
Celt,
You keep distinguishing the “fibbing rape” with violent rape. I agree that it’s not as severe as a violent rape. But it doesn’t need to be violent to be a rape. I don’t know what it’s like in your jurisdiction, but over here (Canada), the actus reus (forbidden act) of sexual assualt (which includes rape) is sexual contact without consent. There is no requirement of violence.
If rape is sex without consent, then even a complete absence of violence does not prevent it from being rape. If you truly believe that such lies vitiate consent, then it should be treated just like rape and have the same penalties.
Either consent is there or it isn’t. If it’s there, no crime. If it isn’t (and the accused performed the actus reus in a way that was intentional, reckless or willfully blind), it’s rape.
If your response to my post is “Hey, you’d call that rape?” then I still think you misread my post.
It quite depends on the men’s rights issue and how ungenerous those men are being toward women.
If, for example, a man proposed that when someone accepts dinner and does not put out after a few dates, that person is guilty of fraud (since some sexual activity is usually an obvious implication in dating) and a number of men agreed with him, I would think very little of all of them and I would think they adopt this opinion because they have issues.
But, you’re right, I tried to combine discussion of the topic and personal discussion and shouldn’t have mixed the two.
If the information is sexual, i.e. gender, infection, history, etc. then yes, in my opinion.
If it is racial, theological, philosophical, then I can understand how a person can feel very burned by the experience, but I would not classify that as rape. I would say, my condolences as well as caveat emptor.
I say this from having suffered what could be called by some ‘rape by deception.’
I wouldn’t be comfortable going that far. I slept with a woman with whom I’d had many conversations about racism and tolerance, who said all the things she perceived she was supposed to say. She certainly knew I wouldn’t have anything to do with her if I knew her true feelings, which were shockingly racist. This became abundantly clear after the relationship started to get serious, after months of hooking up.
Does she belong on the sex offenders’ registry, or is she still just a bitch?
Every person is completely within their rights to refuse sexual contact for whatever reason. Part of that deal is the understanding that if someone overrides that refusal, it is a crime: rape. We have as a society determined that consent is the most important thing. Everyone is free to withhold that consent until they feel they know their partner well enough to have sex with them. Don’t want to get burned? Don’t hook up. Don’t have casual sex, and wait until you have a full picture of your partner.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. If you’re afraid of some guy “deceiving” you about details of his life in order to fuck you, then don’t hook up with guys just because they tell you they’re some or other impressive thing. Would you rather go through a year of “courtship” and then marriage before finally “going all the way”? Then do that. Or accept that a few guys will exaggerate themselves in order to pick you up, and that it’s part of the game of casual sex. I think it’s a small price to pay for the fact that we live in a post-sexual-revolution society.
…and going the other way, I recall a very nice lady (sister of a co-worker) that I hooked up with for a while many years back. When we first met, it was clear that she was a) a devout Christian and b)* very *anti-drug.
At the time I smoked marijuana on a regular basis, and I was at pains to conceal this from her. (Particularly when it became evident that she believed that marijuana use created an opportunity for actual, literal demons to enter a person.) In spite of the fact that she was clearly bananas in some regards, I was genuinely interested in her and had contemplated the possibility of changing my habits altogether if it became very serious.
In the end, though, I broke it off when we had a talk about contraception and reproduction and I had to face the fact that the possibility that she might become pregnant was something that was simply not comfortable with.
Should that be criminal?
Yes! Thank you. This is a spot on rebuttal to the “deception rape” nonsense.
I think women who pressure men to get married before they are ready should be charged with criminal confinement.
Asking a friend of someone you are attracted to what they like so you can make yourself more attractive? Insider trading!
They need to label women who wear make up and push up bras, or women who post pictures of themselves from 10+ years ago on dating sites rapists too. That is deception. The whole thing is stupid. If you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car you are responsible. But with these issues the rule of personal accountability doesn’t apply.
Aside from authoritarian prosecutors I don’t know who would support this law.