Guilty of rape by deception
- Thread starter Ziggy Stardust
- Start date
PeteAtoms
FormulaRandom
So the next time a cougar tries to pick me up, I'll be able to sue her if she lies about her age or weight?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
If no sane man would have believed the lie but you did anyway, then it usually count as your own inexcusable error, not their deception
Rather like "He told me he was santa! It's rape!"
PeteAtoms - IF and only IF you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would never have had sex with her had you known her age/weight. Given that outside physical attractiveness, age/weight don't tend to have that much of an impact, and that you presumably got to gauge the physical attractiveness for yourself, good luck making that proof.
In both events in most legal systems you'd have to actually prove beyond reasonable doubt that she had no legitimate reason to believe you were consenting (ie, that she actually knew/should have known that you wouldn't have consented without her lie).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
"Honourable Judge.. Please check my facebook page - on it I clearly state that I only ever have sex with men who own nice looking boats."
Judge: "rape rape rape RAPE RAPE!%&*"
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Beyond reasonable doubt, Warpus. It's a pretty demanding standard (unless you run into a biased judge)
It also falls to her, should you invoke that as your defense, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you didn't have legitimate reasons to believe you actually did have consent. IE, that you knew the consent you obtained was obtained thanks to lying about the ship.
It would take some fairly formidable evidence to prove rape-by-deception, at least in Canada (depending on the exact nature of the deception, eg the aforesaid infertility/STDs examples would probably not take much by way of evidence, either to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she would not have had sex had she known, or to prove that you couldn't legitimately believe you had her honest consent, but the boat example would take something much more formidable)
It also falls to her, should you invoke that as your defense, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you didn't have legitimate reasons to believe you actually did have consent. IE, that you knew the consent you obtained was obtained thanks to lying about the ship.
It would take some fairly formidable evidence to prove rape-by-deception, at least in Canada (depending on the exact nature of the deception, eg the aforesaid infertility/STDs examples would probably not take much by way of evidence, either to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she would not have had sex had she known, or to prove that you couldn't legitimately believe you had her honest consent, but the boat example would take something much more formidable)
Mise
isle of lucy
But I could say, I wouldn't have slept with her if she wasn't Spanish, because I specifically set out that night to nail a Spanish girl. I told my friends, "hey, you know what nationality I haven't nailed yet? Spanish. I'm not gonna sleep with anyone else until I nail a Spanish girl!" Hell, I could have written that on my blog or something, as hard, factual evidence that I was not going to sleep with anyone unless they were Spanish.
Now, if a girl lied to me and said she was Spanish, but actually she was French, do you really think that that constitutes rape??? It's completely frivolous, but according to you, I have ample evidence that I would never have slept with her had she not lied about her nationality. It's a stupid, dumb, frivolous charge that I can make on her, to accuse her of rape, and pretty much ruin her life. Now, don't give me the old crap that the judge can let her off, because he thinks I'm just some douchebag who wanted to nail a Spanish girl but instead got a dirty, stinking frog. The law is the law -- I was clearly intent on sleeping with no-one unless she was a Spaniard, and the law says that this is rape. It's moronic, and the law should (and, indeed, does) distinguish between this kind of frivolous accusation, and the more serious accusations it is intended to deal with (the cases noncon brought up earlier: someone pretending to be a gynocologist, someone pretending to be a woman's husband, etc).
But how does it deal with it? Does it say, "well, this man was clearly promiscuous, has no morals, was dressing provocatively, and rather invited the woman to rape him"? No, of course not. First, loose morals are no reason to deny someone their legal rights. Second, it sets an utterly reprehensible standard for the other, more serious rape cases. For example, I think it's fair to say that the girl in the OP is a bit of a slag, and it's quite easy to claim that, since she slept with him so easily, she doesn't care at all about his background. However, what if the man indeed lied about STDs, or some other more serious lie? Would the severity of the lie somehow outweigh her promiscuity? No; that's a dangerous and stupid path to go down - how can you weigh the severity of the crime against the moral fibre of the victim? So the law makes no mention of her moral standing, because it's reprehensible to deny people legal recourse on the basis of someone's loose morals.
Does it deal with it by saying, "well, in this case, it probably didn't ruin his life - the man is probably no more or less happy than before, and indeed, she is a beautiful lady: how can any man have suffered from being raped by such a lovely girl? I would think he would be grateful for being raped by her. Afterall, she is waaaaay out of his league." Again, reprehensible precedents, and completely arbitrary determination of the amount of suffering involved. Maybe this could fly in a civil court, where the victim claims for damages, but in a criminal court? Not a chance.
So how does it deal with it? Well, lets look at the cases it was intended to deal with again: pretending to be a gynecologist, pretending to be someone's husband... what about pretending to be a police officer and perform a cavity search? Pretending to be someone's father and give them a spanking? These are all cases where someone pretends to be someone the victim can trust - a figure of authority, in whom we place implicit trust, and with whom we allow far more intimacy than is usual. Society knows and accepts these authority figures as people we all trust -- it is their authority that the perpetrator exploits to abuse the victim. And in those professions, there are clear guidelines (laws, in fact) that set out where to draw the line. So judges only tend to rule in cases where the defendant has lied about being in a position of trust that would otherwise not have been given.
Yes, it may be wrong to lie in order to get sex, and in some cases it may be illegal. But it being illegal has much more to do with what the liar has lied about, than with what standards the victim sets for themself. When you start asking things like, "well, does the victim really care about their sexual partner's religion? Would the victim really care about their sexual partner's marital status?", you do what the law should never do, and especially in rape cases -- you put the victim on trial, and let the defendant claim she was a slut and was asking for it.
It's quite true that the law says "thou shalt lot lie to sleep with a woman", but it only means it for certain lies, not for certain women.
Now, if a girl lied to me and said she was Spanish, but actually she was French, do you really think that that constitutes rape??? It's completely frivolous, but according to you, I have ample evidence that I would never have slept with her had she not lied about her nationality. It's a stupid, dumb, frivolous charge that I can make on her, to accuse her of rape, and pretty much ruin her life. Now, don't give me the old crap that the judge can let her off, because he thinks I'm just some douchebag who wanted to nail a Spanish girl but instead got a dirty, stinking frog. The law is the law -- I was clearly intent on sleeping with no-one unless she was a Spaniard, and the law says that this is rape. It's moronic, and the law should (and, indeed, does) distinguish between this kind of frivolous accusation, and the more serious accusations it is intended to deal with (the cases noncon brought up earlier: someone pretending to be a gynocologist, someone pretending to be a woman's husband, etc).
But how does it deal with it? Does it say, "well, this man was clearly promiscuous, has no morals, was dressing provocatively, and rather invited the woman to rape him"? No, of course not. First, loose morals are no reason to deny someone their legal rights. Second, it sets an utterly reprehensible standard for the other, more serious rape cases. For example, I think it's fair to say that the girl in the OP is a bit of a slag, and it's quite easy to claim that, since she slept with him so easily, she doesn't care at all about his background. However, what if the man indeed lied about STDs, or some other more serious lie? Would the severity of the lie somehow outweigh her promiscuity? No; that's a dangerous and stupid path to go down - how can you weigh the severity of the crime against the moral fibre of the victim? So the law makes no mention of her moral standing, because it's reprehensible to deny people legal recourse on the basis of someone's loose morals.
Does it deal with it by saying, "well, in this case, it probably didn't ruin his life - the man is probably no more or less happy than before, and indeed, she is a beautiful lady: how can any man have suffered from being raped by such a lovely girl? I would think he would be grateful for being raped by her. Afterall, she is waaaaay out of his league." Again, reprehensible precedents, and completely arbitrary determination of the amount of suffering involved. Maybe this could fly in a civil court, where the victim claims for damages, but in a criminal court? Not a chance.
So how does it deal with it? Well, lets look at the cases it was intended to deal with again: pretending to be a gynecologist, pretending to be someone's husband... what about pretending to be a police officer and perform a cavity search? Pretending to be someone's father and give them a spanking? These are all cases where someone pretends to be someone the victim can trust - a figure of authority, in whom we place implicit trust, and with whom we allow far more intimacy than is usual. Society knows and accepts these authority figures as people we all trust -- it is their authority that the perpetrator exploits to abuse the victim. And in those professions, there are clear guidelines (laws, in fact) that set out where to draw the line. So judges only tend to rule in cases where the defendant has lied about being in a position of trust that would otherwise not have been given.
Yes, it may be wrong to lie in order to get sex, and in some cases it may be illegal. But it being illegal has much more to do with what the liar has lied about, than with what standards the victim sets for themself. When you start asking things like, "well, does the victim really care about their sexual partner's religion? Would the victim really care about their sexual partner's marital status?", you do what the law should never do, and especially in rape cases -- you put the victim on trial, and let the defendant claim she was a slut and was asking for it.
It's quite true that the law says "thou shalt lot lie to sleep with a woman", but it only means it for certain lies, not for certain women.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yet you make it sound like the standards of proof in such a case should be fairly low.
Do you know how much lying goes on during the courtship/flirting phase? Most of it is harmless. "Oh yeah, I'm 26 (actually 27), I won a golf tournament once (actually placed 2nd), yeah I read the lord of the rings (actually didn't get fully through it)"
I think you get the point.. I agree that lying about STDs is another issue entirely and *should* not be something you can lie about legally, but the rest? That's just crazyness
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Mise - for the Nth time, there are TWO important aspects to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
1. That you really would not have slept with her had you known.
Note here: beyond reasonable doubt. If all you can prove is a claim that you won't sleep with a non-spanish person until you have slept with a spanish person, the likely outcome is to be that this isn't good enough, evidence-wise - there remains a very large doubt as to whether or not you changed your mind since then. If you can't put that doubt away, then you fail.
2. That she could not legitimately believe she had your genuine consent.
This is the more important one that both you and Warpus keep skipping over. If there exist a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person, in her position, with the information she had,, would not be aware that your consent was dependent on some falsehood on her part, then she isn't guilty.
Basically, you would have to tell her point-blank "I only want to screw a spanish lady" for her lying to actually count as rape, because that is NOT a reasonable assumption to make about any Joe Random you meet in the street.
However, if she lied about STD, or about being your husband, or about being infertile, or about being a gyn, THEN she wouldn't get to use this defense, because a reasonable person would know the lie was absolutely fundamental in the sex-getting.
Yeekim - not quite. The fundamental question is "Would a reasonable person legitimately believe that they had their partner's consent." (Which is why I said from the start that based on the fact we know either this case got a bad juge, or the Israeli law lack some critical safeguards, or we're missing important facts about the case. Based on later information from the appeal process, "bad judge" seems a good possibility)
Legitimately meaning that if a reasonable person would know they only got the consent because of a fundamental lie (pretending to be the husband, pretending to be HIV-free, pretending to be infertile, etc, or lying about something he/she told you was fundamental), then they cannot legitimately believe they had the consent.
1. That you really would not have slept with her had you known.
Note here: beyond reasonable doubt. If all you can prove is a claim that you won't sleep with a non-spanish person until you have slept with a spanish person, the likely outcome is to be that this isn't good enough, evidence-wise - there remains a very large doubt as to whether or not you changed your mind since then. If you can't put that doubt away, then you fail.
2. That she could not legitimately believe she had your genuine consent.
This is the more important one that both you and Warpus keep skipping over. If there exist a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person, in her position, with the information she had,, would not be aware that your consent was dependent on some falsehood on her part, then she isn't guilty.
Basically, you would have to tell her point-blank "I only want to screw a spanish lady" for her lying to actually count as rape, because that is NOT a reasonable assumption to make about any Joe Random you meet in the street.
However, if she lied about STD, or about being your husband, or about being infertile, or about being a gyn, THEN she wouldn't get to use this defense, because a reasonable person would know the lie was absolutely fundamental in the sex-getting.
Yeekim - not quite. The fundamental question is "Would a reasonable person legitimately believe that they had their partner's consent." (Which is why I said from the start that based on the fact we know either this case got a bad juge, or the Israeli law lack some critical safeguards, or we're missing important facts about the case. Based on later information from the appeal process, "bad judge" seems a good possibility)
Legitimately meaning that if a reasonable person would know they only got the consent because of a fundamental lie (pretending to be the husband, pretending to be HIV-free, pretending to be infertile, etc, or lying about something he/she told you was fundamental), then they cannot legitimately believe they had the consent.
Cheetah
Deity
My biology is hard-wired to be able to pick out young, healthy girls without diseases and with good genes. I only wish to have sex with such women, because the risk of fathering a child through sex is not zero, and having a child with an old, unhealthy woman with bad genes gives my offspring a statistically higher chance of being born with complications.
This choice I think is a fairly reasonable assumption to make of me and all other men.
Thus, all women using push-up bras, make-up and plastic surgery which they know will make them look younger, healthier and prettier, and then having sex with guys are committing rape?
Or from another angle:
-Lots of people are against abortion. Lots of people are for it.
-The risk of having a pregnancy because of sex, even with protection, is not zero.
If a man has sex with a woman, and she becomes pregnant:
-Can the guy accuse her of rape if she wants to take an abortion, as he would only consent to having sex if the potential fetus (however unwanted) was not aborted?
-Can the woman counter-accuse the guy of rape, as she would only consent to having sex if the guy was okay with aborting a potential fetus?
-Does people have to ask every person they sleep with whether they are okay with an abortion or not if the sex results in a pregnancy?
Or is it not a reasonable assumption to make that people have strong opinions about abortion?
-----------------
My opinion:
The only lies that should be punishable are lies that cause physical, economical or social harm to the other individual. And I don't like calling those lies 'rape'.
That would not be such a bad idea, actually.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That's actually one of the pickup lines I use
"Hey baby, want an abortion?"
Works every time
"Hey baby, want an abortion?"
Works every time
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
For the Nth time, in most cases it boils down to: DID YOU TELL HER? If you did tell her (and can prove that beyond reasonable doubt) that you would never have sex in certain conditions, and she lied to make you think everything was fine and it wasn't one of those "certain conditions", then yes, it is rape.
If on the other hand you did not tell her, and kept the whole thing secret, then no, there's nothing rape-ish about it, because she did honestly believe it was consensual. Unless the problem was so obvious that no reasonable person would ever assume you'd be "fine with it" (eg, HIV, pretending to be your wife, etc).
No, "pretending to be more healthy and fit" doesn't work because likely the vast majority of men will, in fact, have sex with women who have had plastic surgery/wear make up/wear push up bras. It's not a reasonable assumption to make that YOU won't, unless you actually say so.
Also in some case the idea of inexcusable error comes into play - if the "lie" was a lie no reasonable person would ever believe ("He told me he was Santa! LIAR!"), then it can't count.
If on the other hand you did not tell her, and kept the whole thing secret, then no, there's nothing rape-ish about it, because she did honestly believe it was consensual. Unless the problem was so obvious that no reasonable person would ever assume you'd be "fine with it" (eg, HIV, pretending to be your wife, etc).
No, "pretending to be more healthy and fit" doesn't work because likely the vast majority of men will, in fact, have sex with women who have had plastic surgery/wear make up/wear push up bras. It's not a reasonable assumption to make that YOU won't, unless you actually say so.
Also in some case the idea of inexcusable error comes into play - if the "lie" was a lie no reasonable person would ever believe ("He told me he was Santa! LIAR!"), then it can't count.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Of course man, if a girl says "I don't sleep with white people" and I convince her that I'm black, and she bites, that's obviously some criminal sex there..
My objection is the 99.99% other types of lies that go on during the pre-coital stage of intercourse.
My objection is the 99.99% other types of lies that go on during the pre-coital stage of intercourse.
Bad Player
Deity
A German singer was in the news for not stating that she was HIV+ and got GBH orsomething.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Inexcusable error coming into play - unless she's blind (then frankly, you deserve to rot), she's expected to be able to conclude for herself that you're not black.
The overwhelming majority of which falls under one of the three protection ("Nobody reasonable would have believed that lie", "The lie was not a deciding factor in having sex, just a very incidental one" or "A reasonable person would not have known the lie made the difference between sex and no sex".
I don't know where you keep getting the idea that there's some kind of witch hunt against anyone who lie during the pre-coital stage of a relationship. There isn't, and the law has a trio of safeguard (on top of the most basic of all safeguards - innocent until proven guilty) to make sure it stays that way. What the law is for is to catch the occasional A-hole (and make sure they can't go around the law by virtue of the law being too specific), and that's what it does 99.9% of the time.
Mise
isle of lucy
So if I tell her, "you know, I'm only sleeping with you cos you're Spanish," right before she agrees to go home with me, it's rape?
Cheetah
Deity
Is there anyone in this world that has not got the message that men are looking to have sex with young, healthy women?
But would the vast majority of men have sex with those women WITHOUT plastic surgery, makeup and push up bras? If not, then you are actually arguing that those women rape the men by having sex with them?!
Lying to somebody in order to have sex is no doubt a d**k move, but it's not criminal IMO (ok depends on host country's laws). If partner's religion/boat/whatever really is that big of a deal, ask proof before having sex with them.
Similar threads
