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

a reply to: grainofsand

u are kidding the fvck out of me right now


seriously


past: u seem to be an fabulous
present: u dated a criminal
future: lay it off dude pls

who gives a fvck what these people think plenty peeps on ur side
I read yr point of view min 22x

they don't get it forget it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a reply to: grainofsand

Personal opinion here: there is no such thing as 'rape by deception'. Rape is forced either physically or by threat (implied or explicit)of physical violence. Were you deceived and lied to? Yes. Just because someone has created a definition of 'rape by deception' does not mean it is an accurate description. Deception .... yes. Rape ... no.

a reply to: Layaly

Ah thanks, but I am rather generally interested in the intricacies of law so I've enjoyed the discussion.
I spent some years as a civil servant interpreting statutory law, making and signing decisions on behalf of a Secretary of State, it's one of my geek sides.


...in retrospect my OP was perhaps lazy though because I asked the question before researching the exact legal situation in the UK first. It has been an interesting thread to me though, fast paced and full of emotions, but interesting.
'Conditional consent' is a thing in UK law, and since starting the thread I've thought more about it and support that principle.

The conviction wording I hope would reflect the obvious difference to violent sexual assault.

a reply to: grainofsand

i feel it is unlike you

too passionate to be dry like this 4 no reason

a reply to: Khaleesi

We have already established it is a rape crime in the UK when the conditions of consent to sex are willfully broken through deception.
Similar lack of legal consent (although for different legal reasons) in statutory rape, where say an 18 year old has sex with his girlfriend the day before her 18th birthday, or whatever the age of consent is where you live. It's 16 in the UK but you get the picture.

originally posted by: grainofsand

Quite similar to the charges in Sweden facing Assange for allegedly not using a condom when it was a condition for consent to sex through alleged deception.

It's not "similar", it's exactly that case. In fact, that's the case that sets out the law on the matter.

How could a prosecution for an offence in Sweden result in the UK Supreme Court making a decision? Because Sweden tried to extradite him.

As part of the extradition process, the UK had to consider whether all the conditions for extradition were met. One of those conditions for non-framework offences would be "dual criminality". This means that the offending behaviour that trigger the extradition request must also be capable of being considered an offence in the UK. So, the UK wouldn't extradite someone for wearing a blue hat on a Tuesday (which will get you 15 years in chokey if you did it in Elbonia) because it would not be an offence in the UK.

Sweden requested extradition on the basis of four offences.

Assange appealed against the decision to extradite him on a number of grounds. One of those grounds was that the behaviour described in one of the offences would not have been an offence in the UK. This is the "didn't wear a condom" incident. So, the court had to consider whether that situation would be capable of being an offence in the UK.

You can read it for yourself if you're really interested or really bored (skip to paragraph 78 for the most relevant bits, though it would be useful to read the first few paragraphs for context:

www.bailii.org...

a reply to: grainofsand

Just giving my opinion and just because they wrote a law does not mean the law is right. If that is the law, then so be it. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: grainofsand

Just giving my opinion and just because they wrote a law does not mean the law is right. If that is the law, then so be it. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Which is a perfectly valid point in a parallel discussion.

Half of the poo-flinging in the thread relates to people mixing up the two debates: (i) is it legally rape?, and (ii) is it ethically/morally/etc rape?

For those who have just jumped straight to this page in the thread instead of reading the whole thing (can't say I blame you) the following is a fairly succinct summary of the thread so far:

Side A: It's legally right!
Side B: No it isn't, it's morally wrong!
Side A: ...what? We weren't talking about the moral situation. Legally it's right.
Side B: It's wrong! It's immoral!
Side A: I don't care if it's immoral, we're talking about legality!
Side B: They'd never pass that law, it's illogical!
Side A: ...again, what? They passed the law years ago...
Side B: It's not the law! It's immoral!
Side A: Oh for the love of God...

a reply to: EvillerBob

Ah thank you, I'll look later.
I do find law deeply interesting, especially criminal case law and it's fluidity to change in interpretation.
Different laws amongst nations I also find fascinating.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: grainofsand

Just giving my opinion and just because they wrote a law does not mean the law is right. If that is the law, then so be it. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Your opinion was welcome, calm, expressed as opinion, yep, all good for interesting discourse.

a reply to: EvillerBob

That is a most excellent summary of the thread so far!
It has been interesting though and I am glad I asked the question, although it was clumsily written/structured, and in retrospect it would have been preferable if I'd researched the answer first.
All good lessons.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I appreciate what you are saying. The OP asked for opinions. and that's what I gave. I read the OP and took the title and the OP as asking for opinions. Not trying to pick any fights here, just stating what I see as factual. Opinions were solicited and I gave my opinion. Nothing more nothing less. Frankly I give the guy props for raising a child he knows is not his. The woman, IMO probably doesn't deserve him. She lied. I don't like liars.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: EvillerBob

I appreciate what you are saying. The OP asked for opinions. and that's what I gave. I read the OP and took the title and the OP as asking for opinions. Not trying to pick any fights here, just stating what I see as factual.

No problems, I understood what you were saying and I don't think anyone takes issue with saying it. My comments were directed at the thread in general, not you in particular

a reply to: Khaleesi

Calm mature reasoned opinions are still welcome with me, certainly because ATS is international, different countries different laws, different interpretations.

a reply to: grainofsand

That's a pretty good question. I don't know about rape, but I definitely think it qualifies as a form of sexual violation. Just like poking holes in condoms and the like. I even think there is a term for it :reproductive abuser. Sabotaging birth control methods with the intent of pregnancy despite the other party clearly not wanting to have kids. It is definitely a form of sexual coercion and manipulation. But I think it depends on the circumstances of each situation, whether or not it crosses over into criminal territory. Ultimately, no birth control method is 100% foolproof, and thus, even when using protection, failures happen. So when engaging in sex, one still has to assume that despite precautions, there is still risk.

I think it should really fall to a case by case basis. There are some cases I think should count as criminal, like aggressive sabotage of contraception for the purpose of conceiving a child to get money and material support. That should at least count as fraud, which is definitely criminal.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: artnut

No, you are incorrect, in the UK rape is sex without legal consent. Lies and deception in order to obtain consent is not legal consent.
Without legal consent the sex is rape.
I am from the UK and the OP story happened in the UK.

...as I've said lots of times I'm not whining about anything here either, it was a question to inspire debate with a true story to add interest. The incident happened before the law became established, and it's fairly obvious I wouldn't have complained to the police even if it had, but it was a valid question and we know the answer now. Legally at least.

Again, you stood by the Mother and did what you thought was right, I totally respect that. Apparently you were deceived, and what she did is really horrible. A civil lawsuit in this case would be entirely appropriate. But, you were not forced, so you were not raped. The UK cheapens the word rape by associating it with this new interpretation. What would be solved by jailing the Mother, and taking her away from the children?

a reply to: grainofsand
It will get worse, and when it starts to hit some who are in the area of high profile politics, we may start to see either those laws change or a few fall from power.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Hecate666

Oh stop with the moral outrage please.
I posted links to show that it is a topical issue, even with US lawmakers and posted my own completely relevant story.
I am not feeling a victim here, just inviting debate.
Have a cup of tea.

Sorry that I have feelings towards this topic that are not the same as yours, but in all fairness you have invited my opinion by making a thread title that compares trickery to actual rape.

Have you been raped, I mean physically forced by another human to have their sexual organs painfully and against your will inserted into any of your orifices, whilst being humiliated, beaten and threatened to be killed if you resist?

I can unequivocally say you haven't, but others have. Therefore you have no right to be condescending.
You show a serious lack of empathy towards actual rape victims and the trauma it brings with it.

I am disappointed mostly at your casual flippance towards my very appropriate response. How dare you!

originally posted by: artnut
A civil lawsuit in this case would be entirely appropriate.

Even though a civil court wouldn't hear it.

originally posted by: artnut
But, you were not forced, so you were not raped. The UK cheapens the word rape by associating it with this new interpretation.

Except it's not a new interpretation; there's case law on these matters going back over a century. Not to mention that the UK were asked to consider it because it was an interpretation being used in another country, so we're not alone in this either.

In fact, California has (had) a state law dating back to 1872 that included cases of consent by deception within its definition of rape, though it was of very narrow scope - impersonating the husband, essentially.

The vast majority of jurisdictions that I have looked at (including quite a few US states) make the point that rape is about consent. Those that didn't are gradually coming into line with the rest of the world. Force is one way to overcome the lack of consent and probably the most common, but not the only way. The method used is usually reflected at the sentencing stage, which is entirely appropriate as far as I am concerned.

Nothing is being cheapened, except by you trivialising the victims that you don't seem to feel were raped hard enough to count.

originally posted by: Hecate666

You show a serious lack of empathy towards actual rape victims and the trauma it brings with it.

Yet you do exactly the same. The law says those people are also "actual" rape victims, yet you are dismissing them out of hand.

So, instead of us focusing on the fact that people have been violated (by force or by deception) and that they should have some form of legal redress, you're devolving the entire discussion into a rather disgusting game of one-upmanship.

I think I can fairly speak for both grainofsand and myself, by saying that we are both very sympathetic towards those who have suffered as victims of this crime. Incidents including force are terrible and traumatic events. We're not seeking to take anything away from those victims. So why are you trying to marginalise those who were also violated, but by difference means.

What about distraction burglaries? Some scrotes trick an old lady into letting them into her home, then one keeps her talking while the other steals her money and jewellry. Are you going to say that the old lady doesn't have a right to feel violated because they didn't beat her to the ground and grab her handbag while walking down the street? Because that's essentially what you are suggesting here.