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

Looks like we also have have proponent and mom-turned-activist Mischele Lewis to thank for this iteration in Jersey. Apparently she fell for the old "I'm a secret agent" spiel by a con artist/bigamist, and she wants revenge! 'Hell hath no fury', eh?

Gotta say... I'm a bit torn on this. Legally, I think Jed Rubenfield has a pretty valid argument.

"If rape is sex without the victim’s consent—as many courts, state statutes and scholars say it is—then sex-by-deception ought to be rape, because as courts have held for a hundred years in virtually every area of the law outside of rape, a consent procured through deception is no consent at all." ~ Jed Rubenfield, 2013 Yale Law Review

The real question is, where to draw the line? Under the 14th Amendment such laws should have equal protection for both men and women, and I don't think a "millionaire helicopter pilot", on eHarmony, should be on a sex offender registry any more than a woman who dyes her hair, wears a push-up bra, high heels, makeup, or spanx. It would seem both sexes are often quite "deceptive" when trying to attract a partner.

I think the crux of it comes down to the use of that inflammatory four letter "r" word. Society doesn't recognize men as victims of such unless a man was also the perpetrator, so clearly this will be used pretty solely in defense of women. T'would seem to be another notch supporting the MGTOW movement.

originally posted by: redmage

The real question is, where to draw the line?

Absolutely! This is the next logical step in the debate, and a very interesting one as well.

In most (if not all that I am aware of) cases where rape by deceit is involved, the deceit is closely tied to the act itself. With Assange it was about wearing a condom during sex, with OP it was using contraception, with ...err... Jeetra, I think it was called... it was about somebody impersonating a police office and convincing the victim that they had to have sex with a particular person.

I would suggest there is a distinction between a deceit specifically related to the act, and a deceit about a "general" trait of a person that is not, in and of itself, directly related to the act. So, telling someone that you're a billionaire fighterpilot is a "general trait"; telling someone that you're using contraceptives is a "specific trait".

There may well be case law on the matter. Might investigate further if the opportunity presents.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
I would suggest there is a distinction between a deceit specifically related to the act, and a deceit about a "general" trait of a person that is not, in and of itself, directly related to the act.

I would agree; however, being considered "specifically related to the act" seems almost absurdly subjective. Someone simply claiming they "have standards, and would never sleep with anyone making less than seven figures a year" could be interpreted as specifically related to their consent, and thus, "the act".

As we see in the statements of proponent Mischele Lewis,

“I think it’s important because trying to deceive anyone for the purpose of sexual gratification is just wrong,” Lewis told reporters. “Whether it’s as simple as… they slip off their wedding ring and then engage in a relationship with someone, but the man or woman has no idea that the person they are with is married. Lying to someone else for any reason is never OK.”"

Bolded by me.

Not sleeping with someone who is married could easily be seen as a matter of personal/subjective standards. By her interpretation this is specifically related to this bill, one's consent, and thus, the act.

Furthermore, the bill itself defines the crime by “an act of sexual penetration to which a person has given consent because the actor has misrepresented the purpose of the act or has represented he is someone he is not.”

Is lying about a bank balance representing yourself as someone you are not (i.e. not really a millionaire)? How about dying one's hair (i.e. not really a redhead, blonde, or brunette)?

As it stands, and is written, this bill is very vague in its definition, and could open a serious can of worms.

Edit to add: Just realized how slanted the wording in this bill's definition really is... "has represented he is someone he is not.". "He"? Would this wording even be constitutionally valid under the 14th amendment, or would the eventual law automatically apply to women misrepresenting themselves as well?

originally posted by: EvillerBob
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.

Absolutely, and nowhere have I attempted to compare the situation I experienced in the OP to the horror of violent rape for example.
I was looking at it in a technical sense based on consent gained solely through a direct lie.

I'll throw another personal true story in the ring here as well, just to see the thoughts of others.

I was a homeless runaway at 16, and by the time I finally got a room and a job, aged 17, I was mixing with the local criminal gang world. One female in the large group of violent offenders and drug dealers was the sister of the 'head guy' or leader.

She was violent, unstable, fat, and I was not sexually attracted to her in any way at all. She focused on me one night and wanted me to have sex with her. I said "No, I'm not into you that way" or words to that effect. She exploded in fury and threatened to tell her brother, the leader of the group that I'd assaulted her, if I didn't have sex with her.

I was terrified at the thought because it would have been multiple beatings and a real risk of me being stabbed, so I complied, and by shutting my eyes and pretending to my mind that I was in a different situation I was able to physically respond to her stimulation and we had sex.

I complied solely through fear of a very real threat of violence, so there was no legal consent in that case either, but I assume many folk here will say that was not rape either.
To those types I say switch the genders around in the story and consider it again.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Don't get me started on that, that's a whole different argument. Under UK law, you don't need to intend to kill someone for it to be murder.

DIdnt know that..

thank you

a reply to: purplemer

His legal information contributions have been excellent here, and gratefully received in a thread of angry emotions.
It was interesting to learn that in certain circumstances of conditional consent when a woman straight out lies to a man to gain consent then it is in the rape category of crimes.
No legal consent? ...then it is legally rape in the UK, It is good that UK law recognises such a crime.