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?
