Should rape by deception be a crime?

[The Nihilist]

Many are commenting that the sex was consensual, even the article does, but is it truly consensual if under false pretenses? If a doctor lies or even gives misinformation accidentally to a patient and there is some misfortune connected to the treatment the patient, in a court of law, is not considered to have consented to treatment because his/her consent was not informed consent.

Or perhaps what if the man was HIV positive? But she asked and he said no, did she truly consent? I can see a case made for rape but perhaps a new designation of rape such as rape by deceit similar to theft by deceit. (fraud)

I know that someone who knowingly exposes another to an STD without disclosure is at least subject to civil penalties. I could be wrong, but I think that there are also criminal penalties in some jurisdictions, particularly for HIV.
The entirety of human mating involves deceit. Christ, women use makeup to make themselves look prettier. Do you want to throw them in jail too?

 

[underpressure]

Many are commenting that the sex was consensual, even the article does, but is it truly consensual if under false pretenses? If a doctor lies or even gives misinformation accidentally to a patient and there is some misfortune connected to the treatment the patient, in a court of law, is not considered to have consented to treatment because his/her consent was not informed consent.

Or perhaps what if the man was HIV positive? But she asked and he said no, did she truly consent? I can see a case made for rape but perhaps a new designation of rape such as rape by deceit similar to theft by deceit. (fraud)

Or why not call it what it actually was, sex by deceit.. yeah? They had sex, and he'd deceived her, he'd lied about his heritage beforehand because presumably she's a racist, instead of trying to add labels to it like rape to make it sound worse than it was.

If I had sex with a woman who'd told me she was 29 but it turned out she was 49 I could get her sent to prison? That would be acceptable? Or she told me she was English her religious views were agnostic but I later found out she was, shock horror, a die hard Christian and it gets worse... she was American*. She should go to jail for that? Or maybe if she told me she was a natural blonde, and I actually found that she was a brunette. You see how ridiculous this is getting? Or do we only send people to prison when the other half get really upset due to them having racist, prejudiced views?

And why stop at these white lies, what about when someone has an affair, destroys their family, kids have to go through a miserable custody battle, I mean that seems far more serious, lives are wrecked yet it isn't a crime, it's a reason you can give for grounds for divorce but it's not a crime.

Yes sleeping with someone when you knowingly have HIV should be a crime and is a crime in my country, as you've seriously endangered their lives, it's not really the same thing.

I can actually understand you thinking that sex by deceit should be a crime, but lets not fool ourselves that he was justly sent to prison, because if he'd been Christian, even a scientologist, he wouldn't be going to jail, it is bigotry that has got him sent there, both by the woman and the courts/government and quite frankly it is a disgrace,


*By the way, I was joking to make a point about it being a bad thing if she was American or Christian, if i like someone I like them, if I don't I don't, where they are from has no bearing and wouldn't change my opinion of them.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I think she decided to have sex before meeting his mother & got what she deserved (a valuable lesson) .. . that said, dude lied for nookie . . . shouldn't be a crime, but there should be a .com dedicated to making fun of him, maybe the Jewwish Paparazzi could hound him and try and get pics of his tiny package.

Allot of men lie to get laid, but there should be a .com for her because she was so gullible and now regrets her decision. I swear, women need to stop with the whole oppressed thing because to be honest, this is an example of why women have more power than men.

In the military, if two drunk servicemembers have consensual sex(male and female) and the woman wakes up and regrets it, all she has to do is say she was too drunk to consent and the male servicemember is charged with rape. End of discussion and 99% chance he'll be convicted of it too.

 

[Helel]

Israel is an apartheid state. If the roles were switched and it was a Jewish man who lied to a Muslim woman about his religion, then the law would be totally on his side.

The whole premise of rape by deception is, of course, wrong. The man didn't force her to have sex with him. He didn't even say that he was Jewish, the woman could have simply asked if he was an Arab or not.

This is just plain wrong.

 

[Drekkan85]

It's worth noting that in Canada you CAN be guilty of a form of rape by deception. There was a case where a woman had consumed wine at a party, went to the bed of her boyfriend and fell asleep. She awoke later, the house was quiet, and someone that looked like her boyfriend proceeded to have sex with her. During the act she called out her boyfriends name, and otherwise indicated that she thought she was having sex with her boyfriend.

She later turned on a light and discovered it wasn't her boyfriend, but rather his twin brother. The appellate court found that she had consented to sex with her boyfriend, not with his twin brother and that the twin must have known her consent was targeted at the boyfriend and not at him.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Or why not call it what it actually was, sex by deceit.. yeah? They had sex, and he'd deceived her, he'd lied about his heritage beforehand because presumably she's a racist, instead of trying to add labels to it like rape to make it sound worse than it was.

I think everyone here knows she is a racist. But in the case of STDs, where someone hide the fact they have an STD to get another to consent to sex, the consent is uninformed. If it can be shown the person would not have consented if they had known about the STD, then while it might not be rape, it is something similar.

If I had sex with a woman who'd told me she was 29 but it turned out she was 49 I could get her sent to prison?

If you had sex with someone who said they were 18 and it turns out they were 17, depending upon where you live, you could get sent to prison. I think the key here is if you could prove you would not have had sex with a 49 year old, then there can be penalties. Now, proving that is going to be much harder than proving you won't have sex with someone with an STD.

That would be acceptable? Or she told me she was English her religious views were agnostic but I later found out she was, shock horror, a die hard Christian and it gets worse... she was American*. She should go to jail for that? Or maybe if she told me she was a natural blonde, and I actually found that she was a brunette. You see how ridiculous this is getting? Or do we only send people to prison when the other half get really upset due to them having racist, prejudiced views?

And why stop at these white lies, what about when someone has an affair, destroys their family, kids have to go through a miserable custody battle, I mean that seems far more serious, lives are wrecked yet it isn't a crime, it's a reason you can give for grounds for divorce but it's not a crime.

It might not be a crime, but the civil penalties (at least when it is a man who runs around and destroys the family) are actually worse than many minor crimes (child support, alimony, ect.).

Yes sleeping with someone when you knowingly have HIV should be a crime and is a crime in my country, as you've seriously endangered their lives, it's not really the same thing.

What? Are you sure it is always a crime, and not only when they lie about it?

In general, the idea of it being a crime when they lie about it is due to the essential nature of consent to sex requiring being informed, and in the case of being lied to about STDs, another person willingly made your consent uninformed.

I can actually understand you thinking that sex by deceit should be a crime, but lets not fool ourselves that he was justly sent to prison, because if he'd been Christian, even a scientologist, he wouldn't be going to jail, it is bigotry that has got him sent there, both by the woman and the courts/government and quite frankly it is a disgrace,

Cases of lying about STDs should be illegal. Cases of lying about other issues probably shouldn't be illegal (because it will be very hard to show the person wouldn't have consented otherwise). So what about the middle ground? If one can prove that the other person withheld information that they knew would make the first person not consent to sex, should there be any penalties?

*By the way, I was joking to make a point about it being a bad thing if she was American or Christian, if i like someone I like them, if I don't I don't, where they are from has no bearing and wouldn't change my opinion of them.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It's worth noting that in Canada you CAN be guilty of a form of rape by deception. There was a case where a woman had consumed wine at a party, went to the bed of her boyfriend and fell asleep. She awoke later, the house was quiet, and someone that looked like her boyfriend proceeded to have sex with her. During the act she called out her boyfriends name, and otherwise indicated that she thought she was having sex with her boyfriend.

She later turned on a light and discovered it wasn't her boyfriend, but rather his twin brother. The appellate court found that she had consented to sex with her boyfriend, not with his twin brother and that the twin must have known her consent was targeted at the boyfriend and not at him.

In this case, it seems clear she was consenting to sex with one person, when it was clearly another person. What happens when you are consenting to sex with one form of a person, but their true form (age, race, STD status, ect.) is different?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

So I dunno maybe im way off here. but since when did we decide she was racist? it has nothing to do with the guy being married already?

 

[Drekkan85]

In this case, it seems clear she was consenting to sex with one person, when it was clearly another person. What happens when you are consenting to sex with one form of a person, but their true form (age, race, STD status, ect.) is different?

It actually depends. I'm not sure about age/race (though IIRC it IS a valid defence to something like Statutory Rape [or the Canadian version] to have a mistaken belief of fact - ie you had an honest and reasonable belief that the victim was a consenting adult).

I DO know that for the lying about an STD status you can be guilty not just of sexual assault (our version of rape), but aggravated sexual assault. IIRC the main case was of someone who knew they were HIV positive but did not inform their partners before intercourse. The idea was that if the victim had known of the infection, they would not have consented to intercourse. Further, the effect of not informing the other party was grave - infection with a terminal disease.

 

[underpressure]

What? Are you sure it is always a crime, and not only when they lie about it?

Yes, sorry, if someone conceals the fact they have HIV and have sex with that person they concealed it from, then it is a crime (not sure what the specific charge is) but people have gone to prison over this

So what about the middle ground? If one can prove that the other person withheld information that they knew would make the first person not consent to sex, should there be any penalties?

Well, I find it a bit weird how someone can have sex with someone then for 2 or 3 weeks later be perfectly ok with that sex they had, then find out they weren't quite who they said they were and suddenly feel like they were raped. I mean I wouldn't want to have sex with a woman who held Nazi views for instance, but if I did unwittingly and found out weeks later she was a Nazi sympathiser, then I'd be just like "oh" and move on, it wouldn't really make any difference to the fact that I either did or didn't enjoy the sex, the only thing that changes is that I wouldn't have sex with them again. Maybe other people's minds work differently, and suddenly the great sex they had suddenly becomes horrible sex with this new information, I don't know why it would though, as you either liked it/consented to it or you didn't and I don't see how something in the past can change with new information in the present.

I think you make exceptions for things like concealing the fact they had HIV, because that is a crucial thing almost all people without exception would have wanted to have known before the sex, now they're going to have to go through the stress of having a test, then waiting 3 months and having another test before they can be sure they are in the clear. That's going to be a lousy 3 months whatever the outcome, and maybe even worse to come.

 

[lawtonfogle]

So I dunno maybe im way off here. but since when did we decide she was racist? it has nothing to do with the guy being married already?

Perhaps the news article I read was misleading, but it stated she claimed rape because he lied about his ethnicity (which might make her ethnicitist, not racist...).

 

[lawtonfogle]

Yes, sorry, if someone conceals the fact they have HIV and have sex with that person they concealed it from, then it is a crime (not sure what the specific charge is) but people have gone to prison over this

I wouldn't put it past some areas to be as drastic as outright outlawing having sex unless both people have the same STDs. I was hoping this wasn't the case.

Well, I find it a bit weird how someone can have sex with someone then for 2 or 3 weeks later be perfectly ok with that sex they had, then find out they weren't quite who they said they were and suddenly feel like they were raped. I mean I wouldn't want to have sex with a woman who held Nazi views for instance, but if I did unwittingly and found out weeks later she was a Nazi sympathiser, then I'd be just like "oh" and move on, it wouldn't really make any difference to the fact that I either did or didn't enjoy the sex, the only thing that changes is that I wouldn't have sex with them again. Maybe other people's minds work differently, and suddenly the great sex they had suddenly becomes horrible sex with this new information, I don't know why it would though, as you either liked it/consented to it or you didn't and I don't see how something in the past can change with new information in the present.

In most cases, I can't understand it either. But when the sex was supposed to be tied to a relationship, someone is having sex because they feel they are in a deep and trusting relationship with another person, and then find out they were being cheated on the whole time, I can understand it. It is like a lesser extent of having great sex one night, and then 3 weeks later finding out that the reason you consented and the sex was so good was because you were slipped a date rape drug.

I think you make exceptions for things like concealing the fact they had HIV, because that is a crucial thing almost all people without exception would have wanted to have known before the sex, now they're going to have to go through the stress of having a test, then waiting 3 months and having another test before they can be sure they are in the clear. That's going to be a lousy 3 months whatever the outcome, and maybe even worse to come.

And there are a few other things that are quite important for a number of people, namely knowing they were of sound mind (no date rape drugs), and being in a certain style of relationship. Granted, I still think having sex without telling them you have certain STDs is worse because those STDs will likely kill you if you get them.

 

[Uncle Tommy]

I generally distrust the Guardian, but if what they are reporting is factual, then it should not be rape. He didn't give her anything that would have clouded her judgment such as drugs, so she made a bad choice. Bad choice does not equal rape.

Yes he did, misinformation. It's illegal to base a contract upon a lie why not physical intimacy?

 

[Uncle Tommy]

Guy, you are poking the sacred cow here. People don't like asking questions about what it means to consent to something, because the effects of the answers scare them. If consent means informed consent, then how many contracts are invalid because one party didn't fully understand it? Also, as soon as you get a good definition of informed consent, suddenly you will have a 16 year old who wants a credit card (but can't have one because they are too young) arguing discrimination based on age by showing they meet the definition of informed consent dealing with credit cards. And while you could set the bar high enough that the 16 year old won't meet the definition, you will see that you have also set the bar higher than 90% of current credit card users.

It is indeed a sacred cow, however the credit card issue for the 16 year old can be solved by requiring a second responsible party.

And them comes the messy questions such as how do you prove you were lied to. Of course, we have some system in place for proving someone was conned as is, but will it really apply without major problems to sexual consent as well? And as someone has pointed out, you will have to found up quite a few guys, would make a significant dent in the population.

Actually most cases rely on he said/ she said. No difference the jury would be forced to decide who they believe more just as they do now and then they would have to decide if that belief was beyond a reasonable doubt.

And finally, what do you do about it once caught? With money, it can be repaid. You can't exactly take sex back, especially if a guy lied to girl to take her virginity. That one isn't something that can be returned (well, you can get a surgery, but that is at best faking it).

Right that's why rapists go to jail.

 

[Uncle Tommy]

I know that someone who knowingly exposes another to an STD without disclosure is at least subject to civil penalties. I could be wrong, but I think that there are also criminal penalties in some jurisdictions, particularly for HIV.

I agree.

The entirety of human mating involves deceit. Christ, women use makeup to make themselves look prettier. Do you want to throw them in jail too?

The use of make up is not deceit, make up is visual and is displayed upon the face, it is not hidden nor is it a misrepresentation because everyone knows why makeup is worn. We're not talking about a situation in which one wants to put their best impression forward, we are discussing someone who blatantly lies in order to have sex. These are two different issues. One involves deceit the other does not.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It is indeed a sacred cow, however the credit card issue for the 16 year old can be solved by requiring a second responsible party.

Perhaps, but it is still a question of discrimination. If the 16 year old fits the bill for 'able to consent to owning a credit card', then merely setting different standards based on age seems discriminatory.

P.S. This is based off a real life example of me trying to get a DEBIT card at the age of 16. Most people know that a debit card uses money you have, and is not based on credit. Yet, most banks would not issue me a debit card without my mothers approval. Finally found one which would (it is a much more local bank than the bigger ones which wouldn't) and I have been with them for the last 5 years. Honestly, I haven't yet figured out why I couldn't have a debit card to access my own money (they were fine letting me have checks* though).

Actually most cases rely on he said/ she said. No difference the jury would be forced to decide who they believe more just as they do now and then they would have to decide if that belief was beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wonder if con men is there a lot of 'he said/she said' involved?

Right that's why rapists go to jail.

So do we punished conned sex the same as rape?


*I have since found out, by going with a friend who was making a $400 dollar purchase, that one can be discriminated on based upon age when using checks as well. He was attempting to pay in one check, but the business said that his credit history did not allow them to accept his check. His credit history? A bunch of small (less than $100) dollar checks, NONE of which bounced. Basically, they didn't want to accept a check from someone who was too young.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I agree.



The use of make up is not deceit, make up is visual and is displayed upon the face, it is not hidden

It is not hidden in the same way HIV is not hidden. But it is possible to not notice makeup being worn, especially when expertly applied.

nor is it a misrepresentation because everyone knows why makeup is worn.

It is a misrepresentation if you have reason to think they are not wearing makeup. For example, is not saying you have HIV, if you are never asked, a misrepresentation? In the same way, not saying you have makeup should be similar.

We're not talking about a situation in which one wants to put their best impression forward, we are discussing someone who blatantly lies in order to have sex. These are two different issues. One involves deceit the other does not.

Ok, so if someone never ask if you have HIV, and you never tell, even though you know you have HIV, then it is not deception, because you never told an actual lie?

 

[Uncle Tommy]

Perhaps, but it is still a question of discrimination. If the 16 year old fits the bill for 'able to consent to owning a credit card', then merely setting different standards based on age seems discriminatory.

There of course has to be a line. Those lines are drawn based upon statistics usually. If the line is 16 then it is probable that most 15 year olds would understand and give informed consent and the extra year is to insure a higher than mean (I think that's the right term) average that will understand. (mind you this is only one theory of age based consent)

P.S. This is based off a real life example of me trying to get a DEBIT card at the age of 16. Most people know that a debit card uses money you have, and is not based on credit. Yet, most banks would not issue me a debit card without my mothers approval. Finally found one which would (it is a much more local bank than the bigger ones which wouldn't) and I have been with them for the last 5 years. Honestly, I haven't yet figured out why I couldn't have a debit card to access my own money (they were fine letting me have checks* though).

Doesn't make sense to me, I don't think either of my children were refused a debit card. Sounds like you live in a really uptight town.

I wonder if con men is there a lot of 'he said/she said' involved?

That depends upon the con. Some con men leave no paper trail of their cons, others leave volumes full (mostly fraudulent of course)

So do we punished conned sex the same as rape?

I think we should in the same way ie prison, I'm still hesitant to comment upon whether rape sentences should be applied. In most rapes force is used and an assault occurs. In such a situation one cannot truly say that she consented however it is unlikely that an assault occurred.

*I have since found out, by going with a friend who was making a $400 dollar purchase, that one can be discriminated on based upon age when using checks as well. He was attempting to pay in one check, but the business said that his credit history did not allow them to accept his check. His credit history? A bunch of small (less than $100) dollar checks, NONE of which bounced. Basically, they didn't want to accept a check from someone who was too young.

Wow that is really odd too.

 

[The Nihilist]

I agree.



The use of make up is not deceit, make up is visual and is displayed upon the face, it is not hidden nor is it a misrepresentation because everyone knows why makeup is worn. We're not talking about a situation in which one wants to put their best impression forward, we are discussing someone who blatantly lies in order to have sex. These are two different issues. One involves deceit the other does not.

What about fake knockers?

 

[lawtonfogle]

What about fake knockers?

Should I be scared to google that term?