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

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Woodcarver

I refuse to discuss this with you as your condescending attitude prevents me from remaining civil.

What? I was agreeing with you. I was not being condescending.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Woodcarver

I didn't make the case that it should be a crime, I asked a question.
Are you just looking for stuff to argue about?
I was lied and I believed the liar, yes foolish, but the only person who is in the wrong is the one who lied. Which bit of that do you disagree with? lol

You are asking if it would be rape. Which is a crime.

a reply to: Woodcarver

From a technical legal standpoint regarding informed consent then yes, it appears so, judging from this informative reply in the thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Aleister
Rape by deception, even if it is discussed and consensual? Never heard of this concept, and it seems like an odd logic. And this is proposed to become a law? An odd duck of a law concept, this.

Not a new concept at all. Speaking from a UK perspective, "rape by deception" - well, now they would refer to it as a "conditional consent" case in relation to the scenario in the original post - has been around for a while in various guises and with differing rules.

www.cps.gov.uk...

Cases which have been held to be rape include (i) failing to use a condom, which the victim had said was a condition of having sex, and (ii) ejaculating inside the vagina, where the victim had stipulated that withdrawal prior to this point was a condition of having sex.

On that basis, certainly in the UK now, the woman in the original post could be charged with (and face a realistic prospect of conviction of) rape. Proving it to the criminal standard would probably be the difficult part unless she admitted it.

There's certainly nothing odd about the idea. "I consent as long as..." means that consent only exists where the condition is met. I'll add a caveat of "reasonableness", even if it's not mentioned anywhere, but I'm sure there are situations where a court would find a condition unreasonable to enforce ("you must bring me to orgasm in 3.14 minutes" etc).

My personal consent that day depended on the answer to the question "Are you on the pill?" she lied so there was no legal consent.
Arguments about if it could be a successful legal case is a different matter of course, but the principle of informed consent remains an interesting debate question if a female lies about being on the pill when it is a condition of the males consent to sex.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Woodcarver

From a technical legal standpoint regarding informed consent then yes, it appears so, judging from this informative reply in the thread:

Now, you say that, but I was just sitting in the garden with a cup of tea and my pipe, mulling this over. I'm wondering if it would actually be attempted rape. Assuming for the sake of argument that they accepted your question to her as being capable of establishing a condition.

There is possibly an argument about the meaning attributed to the question from both sides. It could be argued that what you were essentially asking (and what she was essentially answering) is "are you able to get pregnant?" That was, after all, the actual concern you had - and that would appear to have been her goal, based on the story as you present it. Think of it this way - if she had said "No, but I'm using [insert alternative contraceptive method here]" or "I can't get pregnant because [insert medical condition/surgery here]", would you have still continued? I suspect you would, if you believed her. Therefore the matter is not specifically the contraceptive pill, your condition was actually relating to the risk of conceiving.

If that argument is accepted, then what you actually have is a situation where the "lie" centres around her ability to conceive. If she was able to conceive then the matter is straightforward and I would be arguing rape. However, if it was impossible for her to conceive, then the essence of your condition would be met whether she knew it or not - in fact, whether she wanted it or not. In other words, it became impossible for her to breach your condition, therefore it became impossible for her to commit the offence she was actually trying to commit. The Shivpuri case cited previously is actually centred around an attempt, so it is more closely in line with an inchoate offence anyway. That would lead us to conclude that it was an attempted rape, rather than rape, because it was physically impossible for her to breach the condition on which your consent was based.

Just to turn everything on its head, of course, we have superfetation - the (incredibly rare) situation where someone can conceive another child while already pregnant. There are reports of second children being conceived up to two months after the first. So, even though the woman was pregnant, there was a theoretical argument that she could still potentially conceive. You would then end up arguing whether the exceedingly rare potential is capable of being considered a possibility suitable to consider your conditions to have been breached. If so, we're back to "rape".

This just gets more fascinating by the second.

Edited to add: I chopped and changed a bit before posting and just realised I'd removed the bit that explains what an inchoate offence is - it's a posh way of saying that someone attempted to commit an offence but failed. There's a few more bells and whistles to the definition, but that's a good enough definition for here and now.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Ooh thanks for the extremely interesting legal questions, this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for.
I have to nip to the shop but to recount the facts (as I am stating for the OP premise) I only consented to sex if she was using chemical contraception, she lied "No" and admitted it to me when she confirmed she was pregnant, and she did not know she was pregnant until she took a test maybe 4 or 5 weeks after the day I asked "Are you on the pill?".

Any questions for clarity please ask as I live 100m above sea level and my local shop is just shy of 350 stone steps down the cliff and it takes a while usually, but keeps me fit so all good.

originally posted by: grainofsand

...I only consented to sex if she was using chemical contraception...

If she said she was using a coil, would you have given consent?

If she said she had undergone a surgical procedure (ie hysterectomy) that left her unable to conceive, would you have given her consent?

Not asking if you would have believed her. Assume you believed her. In that case, would you have given consent?

a reply to: EvillerBob

Both questions, yes I would probably have consented at the time.
Sex with no attempt at birth control except chance I would not have consented. It is why I asked, to be in an informed position to consent.
The understanding was very basic and clearly understood between myself and the woman concerned. I did not want sex without attempts at contraception, namely the pill which I specifically asked, and she lied to me.

This is exactly what i was getting at. Thank you for your concise explanation.

This specific scenario is not the same as if the guy asked her if she was on BC and she lied, then became pregnant by that man.

And i still would not call that rape. Maybe some kind of fraud, but the judge is still going to find that guy responsible for the child. It is going to come down to personal responsibility and the courts will rule in favor of the child. I know you said you don't want to hear "it takes two to tango. " but that is exactly what it comes down to. If two people consent to having sex, and a child is born, the court will not choose a side. It will rule in favor of the child

The judge will ask, "what did you do to help prevent a pregnancy? Did you use a condom? Or did you just believe someone else's word?"

And if you say yes or no, he will still find you responsible for that child and the mother will not get in any "trouble". He won't care what your conditions were in the heat of the moment. You agreed to have sex. And in your case, you didn't even get her pregnant.

To allow a loophole which absolves a man or a woman to shrug off their responsibility for their child based on the idea that they lied in order to get consent for sex would be catastrophic to parenthood and therefor society as a whole. Every guy and girl who doesn't want to be bothered with parenthood could just find one of the many lies told throughout a relationship and say. "They raped me cuz they lied"

Which would get out of hand pretty quick.

As far as i know, It is not illegal to lie to people in order to get them to consent to having sex. I am sure someone in your life told you not to trust everything you hear. That was your warning. Sometimes you only get one. Sometimes you don't get any. Find out who people are before you have sex with them.

a reply to: EvillerBob

a reply to: grainofsand

I think what bob is getting at is that her current state of being pregnant would have met your conditions that she would not get pregnant if you had sex with her.

Also, since she did not get pregnant by you that those conditions were still met and fulfilled. Therefor, no harm, no foul.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Is that not irrelevant when the woman did not know she was pregnant?
At the moment she lied about contraception to obtain consent she did not know anything about her fertility status, but knew that statements of contraception were lies.
I see a difference there, perhaps Bob can assist with a legal perspective?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: EvillerBob

Both questions, yes I would probably have consented at the time.
Sex with no attempt at birth control except chance I would not have consented. It is why I asked, to be in an informed position to consent.
The understanding was very basic and clearly understood between myself and the woman concerned. I did not want sex without attempts at contraception, namely the pill which I specifically asked, and she lied to me.

Well here's the thing. The other person could say "Yes, they used those exact words, but I took it to mean if I was using contraception in general." The phrase "the pill" is in common use as a shorthand for "contraception". That might even be a fairly reasonable thing for that person to conclude - especially as you've already stood up in court and said, under cross-examination, that you didn't actually care what kind of contraception she was using, as long as she was using it. Being mistaken as to meaning is a big shift from purposefully lying, and I would argue it was perfectly reasonable for her to believe you meant it in more general terms.

If I was pushing things, under cross I might have put the following scenario: if she had come to you two weeks later and said - "when you asked if I was on the pill, I said yes because I was using [alternative contraceptive method] and didn't think you'd mind as long as it works" - you wouldn't feel like your consent had been compromised, would you?

So we've disposed of the tricky issue of the specific wording used, which takes the slam-dunk conditional consent "I specifically asked about the pill" argument off the table.

Of course, her actual defence would probably be "I never said that, he's making it up", but I'm pretending she's trying to argue the point because it's more interesting.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: grainofsand

I think what bob is getting at is that her current state of being pregnant would have met your conditions that she would not get pregnant if you had sex with her.

Also, since she did not get pregnant by you that those conditions were still met and fulfilled. Therefor, no harm, no foul.

No, that's not what I said. I said that even if she couldn't get pregnant, she could still be guilty of attempted rape. In fact, depending on how you view the consent issue, she could still potentially be guilty of rape.

I definitely did not say "no harm, no foul".

a reply to: EvillerBob

Yeah it's a good argument.
If I was being cross examined I would repeat the point that consent was only granted while some attempt was made at contraception and prevention of pregnancy.
In this case no attempt was made by the female regarding contraception and clear lies were told when the male asked questions to clarify his informed consent in an effort to establish the efforts of the female to avoid pregnancy.
Does that make a difference legally?
It would seem sensible, but I'm not a lawyer.

if a man questions whether he is committing rape, he shouldn't be having sex with that woman in the first place. the pill has nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Woodcarver

Is that not irrelevant when the woman did not know she was pregnant?
At the moment she lied about contraception to obtain consent she did not know anything about her fertility status, but knew that statements of contraception were lies.
I see a difference there, perhaps Bob can assist with a legal perspective?

It can have an impact. It depends on where you hang your case.

If you are saying that the implied question/answer was "are you using contraceptives", then you can argue that the offence is complete.

If you are saying that the implied question/answer was "can you conceive", then your arguments move into the "impossiblity" and "attempt" arena. Which is much more fun!

a reply to: jimmyx

Sorry man, not interested, start your own thread, this is looking at the legal status of informed consent, not how wise it is, or not, to shag with whoever.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Okay, fair one, for the record, when I asked "are you on the pill?" she knew totally that I didn't want any more kids. That had been discussed in a prior situation.
I was also clear that I did not consent to sex if it was without any protection.
She lied to me when she said "yes".
She was not on the pill or any other contraceptive method.
I made reasonable efforts to check and received lies in return. I struggle to see how such a course of action could be lawful?

*Edit*
The implied question was clear, are you making any attempt to avoid pregnancy while we are in a situation where we enjoy recreational sex but do not have condoms?
When I asked "Are you on the pill? ...and she said yes, that was where law breaking started happening in my mind.
Clear deception.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Woodcarver

I refuse to discuss this with you as your condescending attitude prevents me from remaining civil.

What? I was agreeing with you. I was not being condescending.

When you open your reply with a statment with,

"Ok. One more time. "

I take that to be an insult.

I am not a simpleton or small child and suggesting such makes your argument void.

Good day.

a reply to: jimmyx

Sorry I must have missed a large part of this thread and was only away for a short while.

Which man was questioning if he was commiting rape?

I am bemused?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: EvillerBob

Yeah it's a good argument.
If I was being cross examined I would repeat the point that consent was only granted while some attempt was made at contraception and prevention of pregnancy.
In this case no attempt was made by the female regarding contraception and clear lies were told when the male asked questions to clarify his informed consent in an effort to establish the efforts of the female to avoid pregnancy.
Does that make a difference legally?
It would seem sensible, but I'm not a lawyer.

Repeat it as much as you like. The point of cross-examination is for me to put the questions to you; quite often the answer is irrelevant because the damage is already done by that point. This is veering off into discussion of advocacy techniques so I'll not delve deeper into that particular rabbit hole!

The reason for shifting the debate from "specifically the pill" to "contraception in general" is actually damage limitation. If she hasn't done the sensible thing of claiming you never asked and she never said (because let's face it, you'll have a hard job proving it happened and you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt), the next step is to drive wedges everywhere you can.