NATION

PASSWORD

Rape by Deception

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 68680
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Rape by Deception

Postby Galloism » Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:47 am

Linky to the BBC

I do encourage everyone to read the full article.

A man is challenging his conviction for raping a woman who willingly slept with him after he falsely claimed to have had a vasectomy. How can someone be guilty of rape if their partner has agreed to sex, and what implications does the case have?

"I have a confession. I'm still fertile. Sorry xxx"

Sally - not her real name - was distraught as she read the text message from Jason Lawrance, a man she had met through a dating website. "Are you serious?" she texted back. "You utter bastard. Why the hell would you do that to me?"

Before Sally had sex with Lawrance he told her he'd had "the snip" and she consented to having sex without a condom, but would never have done so if she had known Lawrance was fertile. She also had no idea he was a serial rapist.

Then 42 and already a mother, Sally did not want another child. She took the morning after pill but became pregnant, then went through the ordeal of having an abortion.

Lawrance, previously of Leicestershire, went on to be convicted of raping Sally twice - because they'd had sex two times - in a case with no known precedent in the UK.

"Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says a person consents if he or she agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice," said Sue Matthews, the senior crown prosecutor who put the case together. "By lying about the vasectomy he deprived that particular victim of making an informed choice."

"If these convictions are upheld on appeal, the concern is that members of the public, both male and female, who have never been considered criminals in the eyes of the law will be at risk of prosecution for serious sexual offences," said Lawrance's solicitor Shaun Draycott.

Lawrance is far from alone in deceiving a sexual partner to get sex. So could others who do this now face prosecution?


Good question BBC. I think so! At least in the general sense.

When you have a precondition on sex and you lie about that precondition, consent is vitiated. This woman had to either get an abortion or raise a child because of this lie, and her consent was preconditioned on this lie.

I also think lying about a condom, or the pill, or sabotaging a condom, etc, should all qualify (normal rules about proof, etc, apply).

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees:

What if a woman lies about being on the pill?
Lawrance's defence barrister David Emanuel QC compared his client's lie about the vasectomy to a woman lying about being on the contraceptive pill. He argued that if Lawrance were convicted of rape for lying about being infertile, then a woman could arguably be convicted of a sexual offence for a similar act of deceit.

Under current law in England and Wales, a woman cannot be prosecuted for raping a man because rape is defined under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as an offence of penetration committed with a penis. Legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland also specifies that rape is committed with a penis.

Why are rape prosecutions falling?
Forced penetration: If a woman forces a man to have sex, is that rape?
BBC Action Line: Information and support regarding sexual abuse and violence
Ms Russell has a problem with the vasectomy and contraceptive pill comparison. "With issues around contraception and pregnancy, it's the woman whose body and life and health is affected by that kind of lie," she said. "That is not in any way comparing like for like, because it's a woman who has to deal with the consequences of pregnancy and termination, and, in the example given, the impacts on the man are not of a comparable kind."

But Ms Paul is not so sure. "The issue is the extent to which the lie vitiates (negates) consent," she said. "If a man finds himself a father of a child under these circumstances, there are all sorts of consequences that flow from that.

"It might be argued there is a double standard. In so many walks of life we [women] have achieved equality and demand to be treated with the same level of respect as men. Where the lie deemed to create criminal liability is exactly the same, I think it is problematic to carve out areas where we are protected solely because we are women."


Good work Ms. Paul. Shame on you Ms Russel. It's not ok to rape because the hypothetical victim is a man. Unfortunately, in England, it's not rape if the victim is a man, and this should be changed, but that's for another thread.

It's also probably not even true that only women have their body, life, and health impacted - men must work much harder and in much more dangerous jobs when fatherhood is thrust upon them to support themselves and the child. This increases their risk of death every year forever more - and when fathers are young it's even worse.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html ... 4&id=24845

The study found that men who had become fathers by the age of 22 had a 26% increased risk of dying in middle age compared to those who had become fathers at 25 or 26.

Men who had become fathers between the ages of 22 and 24 also had a 14% increased risk of early death.

Meanwhile, those who had become fathers between the ages of 30 and 44 had a 25% reduced risk of dying when middle aged compared to those who became fathers at 25 or 26.

In a further sample of over 1,100 siblings, the researchers found that men who had become fathers by the age of 22 were 73% more likely to die early than their brothers who had become fathers for the first time at ages 25 or 26.

These results stood even when other factors were taken into account such as shared early life experiences, education and marital status.

"The findings of our study suggest that the association between young fatherhood and mid-life mortality is likely to be causal. The association was not explained by early life characteristics shared by brothers, or by certain adult characteristics known to be associated both with fertility timing and mortality," the researchers from the University of Helsinki said.


Obligatory what say ye, NSG?
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Andsed
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12341
Founded: Aug 24, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Andsed » Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:58 am

Interesting question. I would consider lying to someone to get them to have sex with you is a form of rape or very similar to it. If someone agrees to having sex under certain conditions(such as either using a condom or birth control) and someone lies about meeting those conditions then I think consent in that case has not really been given as the person who was lied to did not agree to have sex before those conditions have been met.
Last edited by Andsed on Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
A tired leftist here to scream into the void

LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 34480
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Katganistan » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:05 am

If either lies about their fertility/birth control status, and one falls pregnant, the one who lied should be convicted.

Certainly if the male was lied to and became a father subsequently, he should not have to pay for child support unless he also lied (they both claimed to be 'safe'' from a reproductive point of view) or he chooses to be part of the child's life (in which case he should, if he desires it, co-parent and have a right to see the child half the time, or make a case that the mother is unfit and gain custody.)

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 113352
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:05 am

I dunno about rape, but Fraud certainly. The victim is entitled to damages from the harm caused by the fraud.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60885
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Liriena » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:06 am

I kind of lean towards thinking that that sort of thing should be penalized under its own specific category, rather than being immediately lumped into the category of rape. I don't know, I feel like treating deception about the use of contraception as legally equivalent to rape kind of plays into the traditional logic that can't separate sex from reproduction.

But this is far from a belief I'd call "deeply held".
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33958
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:07 am

When one consents to sex, it is consent only so far as it is what the consenting person is consenting to. Consent isn't carte blanche for anything to happen, it is an ongoing process which can be withdrawn at any time and adjusted if required. For example, if the consenting party was tricked into believing something to be the case when it actually wasn't, for example the consenting party was assured or it was reasonable to assume that they were just going to have sex with one person, but all along the other person was intending to bring their friends around to join in, and tries to do that, then consent is null and void; as the situation is novel enough to warrant the consent process de novo.

However, in this situation the consenting person was only made aware of the situation not being what they intended after the consent had been given and after the deed had been done. However, the consent is still rendered null and void regardless, as the situation was still novel enough that they wouldn't have consented to it but for the lie of the other party. So yes, it would be rape.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16699
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cekoviu » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:16 am

If infertility or birth control is a precondition for sex that is said by a person to be fulfilled when it isn't (and the person is aware of that), it's no longer informed consent. Ergo, rape.
RWDT - REST IN POWER
David Hume fangirl, massive Tuvaboo, anti-imperialist, and Castroist socialist. Also a sex-negative SWERF, traditionalist SJW, and Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian.
/tʃɛ'koʊ.vi:.ju:/ (check-OH-vee-you)

User avatar
Chan Island
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5495
Founded: Nov 26, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Chan Island » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:29 am

I'd agree that this situation should be classed as rape. Because if the lie hadn't been told, then the clear implication here is that 'Sally' wouldn't have gone ahead with the sex.

This is definitely a novel situation for the legal system, but there may be parallels. The precedent I can think of that would be closest to this would be some kind of physical agent that impairs judgement, like alcohol- and in that case, the system clearly interprets that as rape, even if the drunken party consented to it in that state.

Of course, where that parallel breaks apart is in the hypothetical situation where both parties lie before sex. With alcohol, when both are blacked out, we take an attitude of 'it happens', but in this case... certainly a story worth keeping tabs on.
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 13886
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:35 am

If use of a condom is a precondition for consent, then violating that consent is rape. Consent to sex does not mean "consent to whatever, however, wherever". Actually removing condoms without consent has already been prosecuted as sexual assault in both Germany and Canada, and as rape in Switzerland.

If one party lies to obtain sex, then that party should be tried and punished appropriately.

And, if fatherhood should result from rape, the father should not be liable for child support.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65075
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:43 am

The Free Joy State wrote:If use of a condom is a precondition for consent, then violating that consent is rape. Consent to sex does not mean "consent to whatever, however, wherever". Actually removing condoms without consent has already been prosecuted as sexual assault in both Germany and Canada, and as rape in Switzerland.

If one party lies to obtain sex, then that party should be tried and punished appropriately.

And, if fatherhood should result from rape, the father should not be liable for child support.

But are we talking about any lie? As in would it be considered rape if you lied about what you did for a living or whatever? Because to me that doesn’t seem like rape at all.
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY! US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA: Senior Eve Šanœ, Junior Jon Æthr

RIP Dya

User avatar
Andsed
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12341
Founded: Aug 24, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Andsed » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:46 am

Thermodolia wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:If use of a condom is a precondition for consent, then violating that consent is rape. Consent to sex does not mean "consent to whatever, however, wherever". Actually removing condoms without consent has already been prosecuted as sexual assault in both Germany and Canada, and as rape in Switzerland.

If one party lies to obtain sex, then that party should be tried and punished appropriately.

And, if fatherhood should result from rape, the father should not be liable for child support.

But are we talking about any lie? As in would it be considered rape if you lied about what you did for a living or whatever? Because to me that doesn’t seem like rape at all.

No as your living is not really a “condition” of sex. We are more talking about lying about the actual aspects of the sex such as if your wearing a condom or on birth control.
A tired leftist here to scream into the void

LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33958
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:46 am

Thermodolia wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:If use of a condom is a precondition for consent, then violating that consent is rape. Consent to sex does not mean "consent to whatever, however, wherever". Actually removing condoms without consent has already been prosecuted as sexual assault in both Germany and Canada, and as rape in Switzerland.

If one party lies to obtain sex, then that party should be tried and punished appropriately.

And, if fatherhood should result from rape, the father should not be liable for child support.

But are we talking about any lie? As in would it be considered rape if you lied about what you did for a living or whatever? Because to me that doesn’t seem like rape at all.

Well the limit would be that it'd need to be directly related to the sex. If he lied about having a house next to Lake Lucerne in Switzerland for instance, then that wouldn't be relevant, unless the consent to sex could be proved to be directly conditional on it being true.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65075
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:49 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:But are we talking about any lie? As in would it be considered rape if you lied about what you did for a living or whatever? Because to me that doesn’t seem like rape at all.

Well the limit would be that it'd need to be directly related to the sex. If he lied about having a house next to Lake Lucerne in Switzerland for instance, then that wouldn't be relevant, unless the consent to sex could be proved to be directly conditional on it being true.

But one of the parties could definitely claim that they wouldn’t have had sex with said individual if they had known they didn’t have a house on the lake. So under your own logic that’s rape.

Which I quite frankly think is utterly bonkers
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY! US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA: Senior Eve Šanœ, Junior Jon Æthr

RIP Dya

User avatar
Andsed
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12341
Founded: Aug 24, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Andsed » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:52 am

Thermodolia wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Well the limit would be that it'd need to be directly related to the sex. If he lied about having a house next to Lake Lucerne in Switzerland for instance, then that wouldn't be relevant, unless the consent to sex could be proved to be directly conditional on it being true.

But one of the parties could definitely claim that they wouldn’t have had sex with said individual if they had known they didn’t have a house on the lake. So under your own logic that’s rape.

Which I quite frankly think is utterly bonkers

Except no that’s not what the logic is. The logic is that the lie has to have direct effect on the sex and it’s consequences. Someone have a lake house does not effect either.
Last edited by Andsed on Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
A tired leftist here to scream into the void

LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 13886
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:52 am

Thermodolia wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Well the limit would be that it'd need to be directly related to the sex. If he lied about having a house next to Lake Lucerne in Switzerland for instance, then that wouldn't be relevant, unless the consent to sex could be proved to be directly conditional on it being true.

But one of the parties could definitely claim that they wouldn’t have had sex with said individual if they had known they didn’t have a house on the lake. So under your own logic that’s rape.

Which I quite frankly think is utterly bonkers

Okay, when you (general "you") consent to a sexual act with a partner, it's possible to consent to only one sexual act (which we're not going to be too specific due to the PG-13 rules). Perhaps you don't like others. Maybe they're uncomfortable or they don't do it for you. If the partner did them anyway against their partner's will, would that be rape?

Here, someone consented to sex with a condom. They didn't want sex without a condom. Perhaps they feared disease or didn't want to get pregnant. Their partner had sex with them, unprotected and against their will. Is that rape?
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:55 am, edited 4 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65075
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:53 am

Andsed wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:But are we talking about any lie? As in would it be considered rape if you lied about what you did for a living or whatever? Because to me that doesn’t seem like rape at all.

No as your living is not really a “condition” of sex. We are more talking about lying about the actual aspects of the sex such as if your wearing a condom or on birth control.

Are you sure about that? There’s a lot of shallow people who would definitely consider what you do for a living as contingent for sex. Then there are those who wish to lie about rape because either the sexual experience was bad or they don’t want people to find out that they did it so they decide to use what the other party does as a living as a condition for sex.

At which point they can then claim rape
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY! US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA: Senior Eve Šanœ, Junior Jon Æthr

RIP Dya

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65075
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:55 am

Andsed wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:But one of the parties could definitely claim that they wouldn’t have had sex with said individual if they had known they didn’t have a house on the lake. So under your own logic that’s rape.

Which I quite frankly think is utterly bonkers

Except no that’s not what the logic is. The logic is that the lie has to have direct effect on the sex and it’s consequences. Someone have a lake house does not effect either.

But what if one of the parties sincerely believes that having a Lake house has a direct effect on sex? At that point the individual could definitely claim it was rape as they wouldn’t have had sex otherwise
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY! US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA: Senior Eve Šanœ, Junior Jon Æthr

RIP Dya

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19774
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Alvecia » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:56 am

Ethel mermania wrote:I dunno about rape, but Fraud certainly. The victim is entitled to damages from the harm caused by the fraud.

I was thinking the same actually. Rape as a term has a lot of connotations that come with it that seem unsuited for this kind of “offence”. Fraud seems more appropriate.

“Fraud of a sexual nature”?
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65075
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:57 am

The Free Joy State wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:But one of the parties could definitely claim that they wouldn’t have had sex with said individual if they had known they didn’t have a house on the lake. So under your own logic that’s rape.

Which I quite frankly think is utterly bonkers

Okay, when you (general "you") consent to a sexual act with a partner, it's possible to consent to only one sexual act (which we're not going to be too specific due to the PG-13 rules). Perhaps you don't like others. Maybe they're uncomfortable or they don't do it for you. If the partner did them anyway against their partner's will, would that be rape?

No. Fraud maybe but not rape.

Here, someone consented to sex with a condom. They didn't want sex without a condom. Perhaps they feared disease or didn't want to get pregnant. Their partner had sex with them, unprotected and against their will. Is that rape?

No it’s not rape. At the most it’s sexual assault, and even then I think that is too far. Fraud would be a far better charge
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY! US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA: Senior Eve Šanœ, Junior Jon Æthr

RIP Dya

User avatar
Andsed
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12341
Founded: Aug 24, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Andsed » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:57 am

Thermodolia wrote:
Andsed wrote:Except no that’s not what the logic is. The logic is that the lie has to have direct effect on the sex and it’s consequences. Someone have a lake house does not effect either.

But what if one of the parties sincerely believes that having a Lake house has a direct effect on sex? At that point the individual could definitely claim it was rape as they wouldn’t have had sex otherwise

Then that partner would be wrong as I am talking about the actual physical effects. A lake house has no direct physical effect on the sex. Not wearing a condom does.
A tired leftist here to scream into the void

LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65075
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:58 am

Alvecia wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:I dunno about rape, but Fraud certainly. The victim is entitled to damages from the harm caused by the fraud.

I was thinking the same actually. Rape as a term has a lot of connotations that come with it that seem unsuited for this kind of “offence”. Fraud seems more appropriate.

“Fraud of a sexual nature”?

I agree. Rape carries far too many connotations that are far from appropriate in this case. Fraud of a sexual nature would be more fitting
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY! US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA: Senior Eve Šanœ, Junior Jon Æthr

RIP Dya

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33958
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:59 am

Thermodolia wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Well the limit would be that it'd need to be directly related to the sex. If he lied about having a house next to Lake Lucerne in Switzerland for instance, then that wouldn't be relevant, unless the consent to sex could be proved to be directly conditional on it being true.

But one of the parties could definitely claim that they wouldn’t have had sex with said individual if they had known they didn’t have a house on the lake. So under your own logic that’s rape.

Which I quite frankly think is utterly bonkers

Claiming it and proving it are two different things. It likely wouldn't lead to a prosecution as it'd be almost impossible to prove it.

This area of law is still quite new relatively speaking, but I think the argument that this specific condition for consenting to sex is "too distant" from the actual act itself (i.e. unrelated to it but for the relation between the two things that is formed as a result of the agreement) may hold. There are some contracts in law that can be deemed to be unenforceable as a result, and this may be one of them.

Without a test case involving a condition for sex being broken that is not directly related to the sex itself, we can only speculate on how such a thing would pan out.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65075
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:01 am

Andsed wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:But what if one of the parties sincerely believes that having a Lake house has a direct effect on sex? At that point the individual could definitely claim it was rape as they wouldn’t have had sex otherwise

Then that partner would be wrong as I am talking about the actual physical effects. A lake house has no direct physical effect on the sex. Not wearing a condom does.

How are they wrong? They sincerely believe that having a Lake house has an effect on sex. Someone lied to them about having a Lake house and they wouldn’t have had sex with that person if they knew before hand that said individual did not have a Lake house. That would be considered rape because one party lied to obtain sex, as you said yourself
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY! US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA: Senior Eve Šanœ, Junior Jon Æthr

RIP Dya

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 113352
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:01 am

Andsed wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:But one of the parties could definitely claim that they wouldn’t have had sex with said individual if they had known they didn’t have a house on the lake. So under your own logic that’s rape.

Which I quite frankly think is utterly bonkers

Except no that’s not what the logic is. The logic is that the lie has to have direct effect on the sex and it’s consequences. Someone have a lake house does not effect either.


That's not for you to say. The only people who know what the consent agreement is, are the parties involved. For example person A pretends to be ernest borgnine and person b has sex because they thought person A was a star?
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Andsed
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12341
Founded: Aug 24, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Andsed » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:05 am

Thermodolia wrote:
Andsed wrote:Then that partner would be wrong as I am talking about the actual physical effects. A lake house has no direct physical effect on the sex. Not wearing a condom does.

How are they wrong? They sincerely believe that having a Lake house has an effect on sex. Someone lied to them about having a Lake house and they wouldn’t have had sex with that person if they knew before hand that said individual did not have a Lake house. That would be considered rape because one party lied to obtain sex, as you said yourself

Fine let me rephrase then. If one lies about the physical conditions of the sex and if they have been met then the sex is no longer consensual as the other person did not consent to the risk those conditions not being met pose.
A tired leftist here to scream into the void

LOVEWHOYOUARE~

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Andsed, Arcturus Novus, Bienenhalde, Conservative Republic Of Huang, Dejado Atras, Escalia, Ethel mermania, Fahran, Fleshbird, Forest Republic, Galloism, Google [Bot], New haven america, Picairn, Southern Xenick, Sungoldy-China, The Lone Alliance

Advertisement

Remove ads