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

a reply to: grainofsand

In this case I would have to say yes. We as people need to learn how to make better choices, not let our passions over ride our common sense etc. we all do it. We all take unnecessary risks and are only angry when we've been caught out by taking those risks.

I fully understand you being pissed because the girl lied to you. I am a woman. I would never dream of doing something so dirty to anyone, but there are many who do it daily and many more who do it daily hoping to snag someone who can pay enough support that they can retire off of it. It's sickening so I get it.

We just need to make better decisions when it comes to who we give our bodies to. Literally. Times have changed and the thoughts on sex, free love, etc. have changed with it but we threw out some of the common sense when we "revolutionized" the whole free love thing.

As with lunch... It's rarely if ever free. Many go a lifetime without getting their ticket punched, but many more experience something similar to you so maybe in that area we do need to get back to basics so to speak.

Sorry, but if any of you ever catch the AIDS from someone who deceived you, you'll soon be screaming rape by deception.

It's a real thing.

Your moral outrage at the word is dispicable seeing as how many people say "the government are raping us", they're "raping the land"... Etc

It's certainly a tricky one.

Do you believe that she knowingly slept with you so as to use you as support for her and the child?

If so I think your question has merit, at least it is fraud or obtaining money by deception.

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).

a reply to: grainofsand

I do not support women who claim rape by deception, so I cannot support men who do.

I would consider this parenthood by deception, paternal fraud. But not rape.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The point is, what if she was telling the truth, and for whatever reason she still got pregnant?

If she had been telling the truth then my consent would stand.
...risks and consequences regarding pregnancy would then be the same as any other consensual sex.

Ok, so now you need to prove that a lie transpired in order to determine if it is an arrestable offense. The longer it takes you to find out about the lie, the harder it is going to be to determine the lie. She could just as easily say that she threw the script away in the interim (you know, since she's pregnant?). Again, just leave this issue in the civil courts for now. Why do you want to rip a child away from its parent over a lie told to the other parent? Just leave the issue be. If YOU wouldn't pursue criminal action against the woman who did this to you, then there is no point endorsing it so that it becomes a REQUIREMENT to pursue criminal action for this.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I'm not pissed off about any of it, I wasn't at the time, and I raised the child for 7 years.
Sheesh, ATS is a #ing nightmare with people assuming emotions when someone just wants an interesting adult debate.

...so that's you as a confirmed member that 'rape by deception' is not a thing then. Interesting.

a reply to: grainofsand

By definition that would be deceptive or misleading conduct and although really geared towards corporations, in my opinion, this could possibly be tried in a court of law, here in Australia anyway, and I suspect the same elsewhere.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why do you want to rip a child away from its parent over a lie told to the other parent?

You invent much to argue about.
Do you agree with 'rape by deception' as a concept?
Personally I don't, but using the definitions from the links I quoted then my situation would qualify.

a reply to: nonspecific

She knowingly lied so I would consent to sex, that's for sure, she admitted it lol

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: ketsuko

Behave, my consent was solely on the use of contraceptives. She lied.
Had she told the truth I would not have consented.
The reliability of the particular contraception is irrelevant, my consent was based on her statement that she was using a contraceptive. It was deception.

It may have been deception, but the fact remains, if you were only willing to be with her if she was using contraception, then you didn't want to be there if a pregnancy resulted. And if is a fact that most people are not willing to acknowledge that no contraception is 100%. Therefore, the chance of pregnancy is always there, even if you yourself had bought and used the condom to be sure.

So if you were only willing to have sex with her IF there was no chance of pregnancy, why were you willing to risk it at all?

I know in today's society, we have trained ourselves to divorce sex and pregnancy, but the dirty little secret is that you still can't. There is no method that truly does with 100% certainty. So don't consent to be with someone you can't deal with all the potential consequences with.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Sorry, but if any of you ever catch the AIDS from someone who deceived you, you'll soon be screaming rape by deception.

You do realize it's becoming illegal to tell your partner you're clean when you have serious STDs like AIDS, right?

I don't understand how someone could not think this is a criminally offensive act.

Though, of course, you were being manipulative and giving a false equivalent.

I've fixed that for you.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why do you want to rip a child away from its parent over a lie told to the other parent?

You invent much to argue about.
Do you agree with 'rape by deception' as a concept?
Personally I don't, but using the definitions from the links I quoted then my situation would qualify.

I'm not inventing anything. If rape by deception becomes a thing, do you think any other situation would happen? Rape by itself or by anything involves jail time. I see no reason to say that rape by deception would end differently. This is why I've been saying it should be a civil matter and just STAY a civil matter. Lost money is much easier to re-obtain than lost time...

If you don't agree that rape by deception is a thing, then why are you being so contrary with me? You should see that the consequences of this politician getting his way would be disastrous.

a reply to: ketsuko

Surely the particular reasons a person may or may consent to sex are not determined by your particular moral standpoint?
No means no, regardless of the reasons why.
I would have said no had she told the truth. Pretty simple concept as far as I see it.

a reply to: grainofsand

i wouldn't say rape but the man should not be held responsible for the care of the child.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I'm not pissed off about any of it, I wasn't at the time, and I raised the child for 7 years.
Sheesh, ATS is a #ing nightmare with people assuming emotions when someone just wants an interesting adult debate.

...so that's you as a confirmed member that 'rape by deception' is not a thing then. Interesting.

No... That's me just trying to show the other side of the issue like debates often do.

I assumed you were pissed since you were saying it could qualify as rape by deception. I apologize for assuming that may be something you would be emotional about.

I'll leave you to it then.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This is why I've been saying it should be a civil matter and just STAY a civil matter. Lost money is much easier to re-obtain than lost time...

...but that's in effect what would happen in becoming a father. You lose a great deal of time. No monies can make up for what results. It's far too emotional and serious at the same time to boil it down to a dollar amount. It deserves a serious offense.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This is why I've been saying it should be a civil matter and just STAY a civil matter. Lost money is much easier to re-obtain than lost time...

...but that's in effect what would happen in becoming a father. You lose a great deal of time. No monies can make up for what results. It's far too emotional and serious at the same time to boil it down to a dollar amount. It deserves a serious offense.

Let me see if I'm reading this right. Did you just compare fatherhood to prison time?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. You did.

smh

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You should see that the consequences of this politician getting his way would be disastrous.

I do, it would be a can of worms for sure.