If a woman lies about being on the pill, is it rape by deception?

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Your example and even others regarding deception, male or female, should not be considered criminal but unjust. Unjust deception are civil court matters not criminal. There is no reason our society should tie up the criminal justice system due to civil matters that may not have occurred with due diligence by the victim.
...
File charges in civil court if needed, but don't try and say that you were raped!

Except no civil court would hear the matter because it's a criminal complaint as phrased by OP. OP has no choice but to go through the criminal justice system because the law that was broken was a criminal law.

Fraud is also a criminal offence, by the way.

Why should rape be a civil matter, exactly?

a reply to: CynConcepts

I will take this no further with you as you are unable to take the conept beyond violence and authority.

If that is your view on mutual consent then I will respect that but have nothing more to add to this.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: nonspecific
I stated what I thought about sex gained by deception. I said it may be unjust and civilly dishonorable, but it is not considered rape unless coerced by violence or an authoritative figure!

Unfortunately, the legislative body in OP's country disagrees with you, as laws addressing consent by deception have been around for quite a long time already.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: nonspecific
Everyone will respond from their own personal perspective, that is the only way 'personal' opinions are formed.

...


Where is the criminal manipulation in this? Please explain.

To address the first point, some of us are responding based on the letter of the law as it currently stands. There's a hell of a lot of specific discussion on this if you read the whole thread. Which people never do.

To address the second point, I'd refer you to the sentence where I addressed your first point.

a reply to: grainofsand

Interesting question, S & F for making me think

Reading through the info on Wikipedia, your situation doesn't seem to fit the "rape by impersonation" category... she didn't pretend to be someone she wasn't. She didn't sneak in while you were sleeping and pretend to be your gf/wife etc.

It could fit the "rape by fraud" scenario... she obviously did pretend to be on birth control to gain your consent. (which is absolutely hideous!!! No mistaking that).

But it technically would depend on where you were at the time, and whether that locale had a "Rape by fraud" statute in place at the time you got together.

As I understand some of the footnotes of the Wikipedia article, if the event took place 7 years ago, and laws on this issue are relatively new in most places, I would guess you aren't a victim of rape under the eyes of the law. Just as a woman would not be a victim of rape by fraud if, 7 years ago, she met a guy who pretended to be ... whatever she was looking for in a dude... and she consented to sex with him on that basis.

Just my initial reaction after reading your story and the definition.

Totally agree that if the girls can charge "rape by fraud" then the guys should be able to also if the girl is the lying, sneaking, weasel

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: CynConcepts

I will take this no further with you as you are unable to take the conept beyond violence and authority.

If that is your view on mutual consent then I will respect that but have nothing more to add to this.

Well, in fairness, there is a school of thought that there should be more clearly defined categories of "rape with violence" and "rape with coercion" - basically any situation where someone complies only because they are mislead or feel they have no choice.

I don't agree with that school of thought, but just wanted to acknowledge that it existed.

a reply to: EvillerBob
Obviously, I am missing something. I keep rereading the thread and cannot see where there is any case of rape stated. In the concept of the OPs story, he may have had a fraud charge IF he was mentally, medically or financially traumatized by this fraud...but he admits that he was not duped into raising a child that was not his. He chose to do so. The lie about pills was deceitful but I cannot see that being criminal fraud without her becoming pregnant with his child and seeking recompense for such deceitful action.

Edit add: Hoping you will enlighten me. You do not agree with me, and I am interested in learning. Others, seem to be too 'unspecific' and do not seem to really discuss anything than their own point, unspecifically.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: nonspecific
Everyone will respond from their own personal perspective, that is the only way 'personal' opinions are formed.

...


Where is the criminal manipulation in this? Please explain.

To address the first point, some of us are responding based on the letter of the law as it currently stands. There's a hell of a lot of specific discussion on this if you read the whole thread. Which people never do.

To address the second point, I'd refer you to the sentence where I addressed your first point.

I owe you some beers.

You can explain it to them but you cannot understand it for them.

a reply to: CynConcepts

What about the bit in the OP about the concept as opposed to the personal situation and the repeated comments as to this?

originally posted by: CantStandIt
a reply to: grainofsand

As I understand some of the footnotes of the Wikipedia article, if the event took place 7 years ago, and laws on this issue are relatively new in most places, I would guess you aren't a victim of rape under the eyes of the law. Just as a woman would not be a victim of rape by fraud if, 7 years ago, she met a guy who pretended to be ... whatever she was looking for in a dude... and she consented to sex with him on that basis.

The particular bit of law (this argument actually revolves around assessing OP's situation in light of the definition of consent given in s 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) came into force in May 2004 - 11 years ago!

To be honest, I really should re-read bits of the Act. I'm going from memory and have a nagging suspicion that there are some specific elements relating to consent I should double check.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I understand that we seem to be debating whether the current laws should be created to include deception. I am stating that I don't believe it is criminal in nature. It would fall into a civil matter, unless such deception caused traumatic harm, medically, financially, or mentally. It should not be considered criminal rape but fraud if victim is inflicted in that regard.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: EvillerBob
Obviously, I am missing something. I keep rereading the thread and cannot see where there is any case of rape stated. In the concept of the OPs story, he may have had a fraud charge IF he was mentally, medically or financially traumatized by this fraud...

I'll start with a bit of a broad brush response. This is actually aimed at a number of people, not just you, but I include you in it. It's useful to remind people once again that OP is based in the UK therefore we're discussing UK law. Also, the conversation has evolved a bit from a general discussion of the situation to a more specific look at the legalities of the situation.

That all said, my response is this: for the love of God, stop with the pseudo-law.

There is no point in coming up with random lists of possible injuries or traumas that need to be sustained. Phrasing them in a way that makes them sound vaguely legal does not help.

The relevant law is already written, it's been around for years, and it tells us exactly what to look for. I don't need to be told how it might possibly constitute fraud... because it's an existing criminal offence addressed in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Please do not tell me that it can't meet these criteria unless you have actually read the criteria and the supporting caselaw. The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) even have an excellent free online resource that can spoonfeed you this information.

Perhaps, though, you have a fantastic legal argument why it should be addressed through fraud - those arguments exist, some of them are very interesting and involve some rather odd caselaw that crops up in White Collar Crime discussions. Share those arguments! Unless they involve you... making up a vaguely-legal-sounding list of random criteria that you think sound like they should apply, in which case feel free to keep them to yourself.

Now, if you feel that it shouldn't be a criminal matter and should be civil - fine. That's your opinion. I think you're wrong, but that's fine too because it's my opinion. That's a bit more of a general ethical debate which is also good to have, but we all need to be clear that it's a different discussion to the legal one.

Now, to return to the CynConcept's post and the (paraphrased) question "where is the rape?"

Under UK law, sex without consent is treated as rape. Consent, under UK law, can be conditional - in other words, you can say "I only consent as long as you..." In this case, OP is saying that he only gave his consent because the woman told him he was using a contraceptive pill. OP later found out that she was lying. So, this situation - legally, under UK law, specifically the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - can be categorised as "rape" because his consent was obtained by lying. Or possibly not, depending on how you want to interpret the evidence. But, if it went to court, it would be as a criminal matter and would be prosecuted as rape.

Most of the last few pages have basically been some interesting mental exercises looking at how different elements of the situation could effect how the law is applied.

All of this can be found in the thread.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: EvillerBob

I understand that we seem to be debating whether the current laws should be created to include deception.

No. The laws already exist (as criminal laws) and have done for a long time. We're discussing different ways in which those laws could apply to the situation.

I think everything is confused by OP linking to an American article about creating new laws. OP, however, is in the UK and the story he shared happened in the UK (to the best of my knowledge) so UK law applies.

Hah. It's late and I'm getting crotchety. Well, more crotchety than usual, anyway.

Time for bed. Thank goodness I don't have an early start in the morning!

a reply to: EvillerBob
Thank you for enlightening me. I am in America, so obviously am not knowledgeable of UK legalities. I understand my confusion earlier, now. I thought this was in regard to that New Jersey article. I still stand by my opinion, but obviously it is out of context with UK. Goodnight. I will take my leave as well.

a reply to: CynConcepts
another example why the biggest farce known to human race not to mention the most corrupt field....is in dire need of worldwide gutting,deparasiting the whole elitist scene & try again ! Make logic 1st item sourced next time round instead of drafting the rules for " dress ups " ! The law is more than an ass.......it's a stinky,dirty got at ass !!!!!!!!

originally posted by: grainofsandafter more lies she moved in with me and I raised the child as my own for 7 years, even after the DNA test when he was born showed he was not mine.

You did that to yourself. I think it should nullify any parental responsibility the guy has.

Sure, it's deception and her fault. But two consenting adult actions does not make rape.

I know not in your case but doesn't the guy have the responsibility to use a condom anyway? The pill is never full proof and it doesn't prevent disease transmission.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: EvillerBob
Thank you for enlightening me. I am in America, so obviously am not knowledgeable of UK legalities. I understand my confusion earlier, now. I thought this was in regard to that New Jersey article. I still stand by my opinion, but obviously it is out of context with UK. Goodnight. I will take my leave as well.

No problems. It was late for me (gone 2am in the morning) so I was tired and being a bit sharper in my answers than necessary, my apologies for that.

I think the original post was, as you say, inviting discussion prompted by that NJ article, with OP's story there as an example. It got diverted from there into a more specific legal discussion. That was my fault!

originally posted by: fotsyfots
a reply to: CynConcepts
another example why the biggest farce known to human race not to mention the most corrupt field....is in dire need of worldwide gutting,deparasiting the whole elitist scene & try again ! Make logic 1st item sourced next time round instead of drafting the rules for " dress ups " ! The law is more than an ass.......it's a stinky,dirty got at ass !!!!!!!!

...eh? Believe it or not, most law is based in logic. Including this one. The problem with writing laws is that it's a lot like herding cats, so you need to build a framework that provides both a logical approach and scope to include illogical actions, while avoiding unintended consequences or weighing up whether those consequences are acceptable.

For example, they might pass a law that makes it illegal to smoke crack while posting on ATS. The consequences are that I wouldn't be writing this reply. Do the benefits outweigh those consequences? I would say "yes".

a reply to: grainofsand

Your OP poses a very good question and for once in my life i dont have an answer . I can see arguments both for and against . That being said , how would you prove they weren't taking the pill , how long does it stay in the system . Ok here goes , is it the same as if you had sex with someone who claimed to have had a negative std test but you caught AIDS from them . Not sure . Goeing back to my fence .