Rape by Deception

[Alvecia]

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.

Could you be more specific?

What if I meet a girl who will only have sex with me if I’m over 6 feet, so I tell her I’m 6”2, when in fact I’m 5”11.

Have I raped her?

[The Grims]

So is it deception if I neglect to mention I wear contacts?

[Thermodolia]

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.

Prosecution doesn’t really matter. All one party has to do is claim rape and then tell the press. The court of public opinion will do the rest.

The other party would be fired from their job, kicked off of shows, barred from places amongst other things. And the law would technically back the accusation up.

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.

Someone stating that they don’t have sex with people who don’t make under a million dollars is pretty easy to prove and is enforceable. According to your logic lying about what you make to have sex with this individual would be considered rape as the individual would have not had sex with this person otherwise.

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.

And I’m taking your and others logic to it’s natural conclusion. Years ago many people would not have considered not using birth control to be considered rape yet here we are. With this precedent set who’s to say that lying about anything to obtain sex won’t end up as a rape charge?

This case shouldn’t have been charged as rape. Fraud of a sexual nature is much much more fitting

[Andsed]

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.

Could you be more specific?

What if I meet a girl who will only have sex with me if I’m over 6 feet, so I tell her I’m 6”2, when in fact I’m 5”11.

Have I raped her?

I mean physical conditions that can effect the risks of sex. Such as condoms or birth control pills. Maybe rape is not the right charge for what I am referring to but I think it still should be a legally punishable offense.

[Thermodolia]

Could you be more specific?

What if I meet a girl who will only have sex with me if I’m over 6 feet, so I tell her I’m 6”2, when in fact I’m 5”11.

Have I raped her?

I mean physical conditions that can effect the risks of sex. Such as condoms or birth control pills. Maybe rape is not the right charge for what I am referring to but I think it still should be a legally punishable offense.

So fraud? Which is what me and Alvecia both think this should be charged as.

[The New California Republic]

Prosecution doesn’t really matter. All one party has to do is claim rape and then tell the press. The court of public opinion will do the rest.

The other party would be fired from their job, kicked off of shows, barred from places amongst other things. And the law would technically back the accusation up.

To be fair if a condition of sex was having a house in Switzerland then the accuser would probably get roundly mocked...

Someone stating that they don’t have sex with people who don’t make under a million dollars is pretty easy to prove and is enforceable. According to your logic lying about what you make to have sex with this individual would be considered rape as the individual would have not had sex with this person otherwise.

Again it can be argued that it is too distant from the act itself.

Years ago many people would not have considered not using birth control to be considered rape yet here we are.

No, you are misrepresenting what is being said. It isn't as simple as "not using birth control being considered rape", it's that there was an intentional deception at work in this case, there was mens rea present.

[Andsed]

I mean physical conditions that can effect the risks of sex. Such as condoms or birth control pills. Maybe rape is not the right charge for what I am referring to but I think it still should be a legally punishable offense.

So fraud? Which is what me and Alvecia both think this should be charged as.

Sure. Ideally something that forces the guilty to provide compensation to their victim.

[Heloin]

So is it deception if I neglect to mention I wear contacts?

If you got a job as a pilot and actively didn't tell the anyone during hiring that you wear contacts, yes.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Agree that it's rape, disagree that a man shouldn't have to pay child support for a kid if it's his rapist's.

[Andsed]

Agree that it's rape, disagree that a man shouldn't have to pay child support for a kid if it's his rapist's.

So if a guy who is raped should have to pay child support? That is a pretty messed up idea.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Agree that it's rape, disagree that a man shouldn't have to pay child support for a kid if it's his rapist's.

So if a guy who is raped should have to pay child support? That is a pretty messed up idea.

It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

[The Emerald Legion]

So if a guy who is raped should have to pay child support? That is a pretty messed up idea.

It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

Is it his child though?

[Proctopeo]

I'd say it straddles the line of rape but I'm not 100% sold on it being sufficiently of the same form to fully qualify.

So if a guy who is raped should have to pay child support? That is a pretty messed up idea.

It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

Why?

[The New California Republic]

So if a guy who is raped should have to pay child support? That is a pretty messed up idea.

It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

No he doesn't.

[Andsed]

So if a guy who is raped should have to pay child support? That is a pretty messed up idea.

It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

Nope. He did not consent to have that child and was instead forced into it. The child is not his responsibility. That falls to the women who raped him.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

Is it his child though?

Yes, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

Nope. He did not consent to have that child and was instead forced into it. The child is not his responsibility. That falls to the women who raped him.

Moral responsibility is not entirely dependent on consent. Sometimes we are forced into situations where we must make the moral decision.

[Andsed]

Nope. He did not consent to have that child and was instead forced into it. The child is not his responsibility. That falls to the women who raped him.

Moral responsibility is not entirely dependent on consent. Sometimes we are forced into situations where we must make the moral decision.

Bullshit. That child is not his. Biology does not equal parenthood. He should in no way be forced to care for a child that is not his that was forced to have. It is in no way immoral for him not to say pay for a child that he did not consent to have and was forced into by someone else.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'd say it straddles the line of rape but I'm not 100% sold on it being sufficiently of the same form to fully qualify.

It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

Why?

Because all parents have a duty to care for their children to the best of their ability.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Moral responsibility is not entirely dependent on consent. Sometimes we are forced into situations where we must make the moral decision.

Bullshit. That child is not his. Biology does not equal parenthood. He should in no way be forced to care for a child that is not his that was forced to have.

In this case, biology absolutely does equal parenthood. By this logic if you simply accidentally get a girl pregnant, you shouldn't have to get child support. Moreover, you could even use it as an argument to give men abortion rights over the mothers of their children (to prevent them from being "forced" to have children).

[Proctopeo]

I'd say it straddles the line of rape but I'm not 100% sold on it being sufficiently of the same form to fully qualify.


Why?

Because all parents have a duty to care for their children to the best of their ability.

He should not have parenthood, legal and social, forced upon him because he was raped. That's disgusting.

[Andsed]

Bullshit. That child is not his. Biology does not equal parenthood. He should in no way be forced to care for a child that is not his that was forced to have.

In this case, biology absolutely does equal parenthood. By this logic if you simply accidentally get a girl pregnant, you shouldn't have to get child support. Moreover, you could even use it as an argument to give men abortion rights over the mothers of their children (to prevent them from being "forced" to have children).

Bullshit. Getting someone is pregnant by accident through consensual sex is in no way similar to being raped and the woman who raped you getting pregnant.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because all parents have a duty to care for their children to the best of their ability.

He should not have parenthood, legal and social, forced upon him because he was raped. That's disgusting.

The man's consent or lack thereof doesn't abrogate the right of his child to be cared for.

[United Muscovite Nations]

In this case, biology absolutely does equal parenthood. By this logic if you simply accidentally get a girl pregnant, you shouldn't have to get child support. Moreover, you could even use it as an argument to give men abortion rights over the mothers of their children (to prevent them from being "forced" to have children).

Bullshit. Getting someone is pregnant by accident through consensual sex is in no way similar to being raped and the woman who raped you getting pregnant.

For years we've listened to people tell us that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy to justify abortion. Some consistency would be nice.

[The Emerald Legion]

Is it his child though?

Yes, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Nonsense. People will always make up arbitrary standards. I would say that consenting to sex on the condition that contraception be used, followed by the woman not using that contraception, means the child isn't his. He disowned it before it existed. And thereby has no rights as a father, nor duties as a father.

Much like a Sperm donor is not considered the father of a child legally.

Perhaps even open up to charges of theft? Intellectual property violations? Not sure. She's using material she has no right to to create something she shouldn't be.