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

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
If I am responsible for having sex with someone, I'm responsible for the resulting pregnancy, whether I'm a man or woman or whether there was a claim of contraception or not.

If consent was obtained solely from a lie about contraception then the responsibility lays with the liar alone.
Or are you saying we should all require verification for every aspect of life and dealings with other people or it is our own stupid fault for trusting others?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: grainofsand

Rape involves some form of sexual assault. Men lie to get there end away all the time, it not rape just poor form. So i dont see how woman doing the same could somehow be interpreted as rape. Its Deception yes, but not rape.

As society evolves so do the laws that govern it.

It was not too long ago that rape within marrage was not an offence.

It is the same with assault, you no longer need to cause physical harm to someone to commit assault in the UK.

If the wording is wrong that is different from it being offence to gain sexual consent via deception.(IMO)

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

No, it's naiveté on your part--you claim that the premise of this thread is that you wouldn't have had sex if you knew she wasn't on the pill, but at the same time, you had zero proof other than a statement by a random girl (at the time) that she was (and by extension, you were) protected from pregnancy. If you wouldn't have sexed her up without protection, you should have treated that scenario as a lack of protection.

As for your question, I was a paralegal for long enough to have seen many rape cases come through the prosecutors' and defense attorneys' desks, and all I can tell you is that it's hard enough to get a true rape case through to a conviction, let alone a 'rape by deception' case. The problem lies in the reality that most rape cases occur without witnesses, and by the time the investigation of the rape begins, there is no physical evidence left to recover, thereby making it a he-said-she-said case, especially when no violence occurred.

Your case would be hard to prove, because even if it were reported the following day, it's still a case based on hearsay alone--you admit to consensual sex at the time, so your DNA would be expected to be present. No violent marks on you or her would be present on either of your bodies (I assume...I don't know what you're into), and I also assume that no video or audio recording of the stated deception exists.

All of that said, it also depends on your state (or wherever you live) as to how the elements of rape are written--not all, apparently, include language that deals with fraud/deception during intercourse. Here's a very small article that cites a few states and cases, but the take-away from it is what I just said--it depends on the state in which said rape occurs as to whether or not it's even a crime.

Aside from all of that, I want to commend you on raising that child for seven years as your own, even knowing he wasn't your biological son. I don't know if you're still a part of his life, but that's a commendable thing to do, and I would like to think I'd do the same thing if I were in that situation.

It's really disappointing that, when the OP specifically states that he doesn't want preached to about morals and sex with people he doesn't know, some people on here still think it's their responsibility to preach to him.

Get a life, people--respect his thread enough not to pretend you live on some moral high ground.

a reply to: nonspecific

I agree.
If somebody lies to gain consent for sex then it is the liar who is at fault, not the person who trusted them.
It is interesting to see people claiming mutual responsibility when only one party has been dishonest.

The whole 'rape by deception' thing is clearly over the top terminology, but I'm surprised by those who appear to lay blame at the feet of people who have been lied to in order to obtain consent for sex.
Interesting, I'm glad I started the thread now

originally posted by: grainofsand
If consent was obtained solely from a lie about contraception then the responsibility lays with the liar alone.

If that's how you see it, that's fine. TO ME, giving consent (trusting someone) comes with responsibility. I can't lay that on the liar. (I do hope you saw my last post on the previous page.) If I give consent, I am responsible for the outcome, regardless. That's just how I see it.

Or are you saying we should all require verification for every aspect of life and dealings with other people or it is our own stupid fault for trusting others?

Kind of. Look, I've lost a LOT from trusting other people. It takes time and investment to get to know someone well enough to really trust them. And even then, you can't always. We can't always blame others because we believed them.

I don't lay ALL the blame on the one who trusted. In a situation where consensual sex is involved, BOTH are responsible.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Cheers for the objective reply, I was looking for interesting debate and I certainly found it lol
...oh, and I still see the now 'not so little guy' every so often, he hasn't forgotten me

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude. You do this far too often. Why should I buy into your nonsense, and why should I explain myself when you care not to listen?

Buy into my nonsense? So you don't think this matter should just remain a civil matter? Because that's what nonsense I'VE been saying the whole thread.

I'm in no way comparing the two. It's just not what the word means. Do you know what compare means? Do you realize that assigning an offense should in no way be considered a comparison for the act itself?

Oh grow up! I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here and you keep trying to be as confrontational as possible. Maybe we SHOULD end our conversation if you are just going to throw a temper tantrum because I misunderstood you.

Is a two year sentence for rape a comparison for the rape? How the hell does your mind make up this nonsense?

No way, I'm not going to follow you on this crazy train of thought. Lay off the pipe.

I already explained how I came to the conclusion I did. You just seem hellbent on being an ass this morning.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: nonspecific

I agree.
If somebody lies to gain consent for sex then it is the liar who is at fault, not the person who trusted them.
It is interesting to see people claiming mutual responsibility when only one party has been dishonest.

The whole 'rape by deception' thing is clearly over the top terminology, but I'm surprised by those who appear to lay blame at the feet of people who have been lied to in order to obtain consent for sex.
Interesting, I'm glad I started the thread now

If you got into a car and the driver said they had insurance you would trust them right?

So if an accident occured and you were injured who would be at fault? would you be responisible for not checking the policy before getting in the car?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
It's really disappointing that, when the OP specifically states that he doesn't want preached to about morals and sex with people he doesn't know, some people on here still think it's their responsibility to preach to him.

I don't know if you're talking to me or not... It certainly wasn't my intent to preach to anyone. I have NO ROOM to preach to someone about sexual morals and I wouldn't do that.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
In a situation where consensual sex is involved, BOTH are responsible.

How so? Consent was only granted because one party lied.

By your reasoning then every crime of dishonesty is the responsibility of both parties?
Or are you saying consent to sex is a unique case so if someone lies then it is equally the fault of the person who trusted?

a reply to: nonspecific

"As society evolves so do the laws that govern it."

The laws certainly seem to evolve to suit the privileged few. As to society's evolution, well you know a lot of aspects regrading our society and our way of life seem to be devolving as opposed to evolving these days.

"It was not too long ago that rape within marrage was not an offence."

Sad fact is that law still applies to rather a few Sharia law following nations. But credit where credit's due, said law certainly a requirement regarding our own nation.

"It is the same with assault, you no longer need to cause physical harm to someone to commit assault in the UK."

The difference being verbal assault as opposed to actual assault to bodily harm. Our own Police force attempt to pervert our assault laws throughout our courts on a daily basis. If they cant get it right what chance is there really?

"If the wording is wrong that is different from it being offence to gain sexual consent via deception.(IMO)"

Well they do say the devil is in the detail.

originally posted by: nonspecific
If you got into a car and the driver said they had insurance you would trust them right?

So if an accident occured and you were injured who would be at fault? would you be responisible for not checking the policy before getting in the car?

A few folk in this thread seem to think so.
The trusting are as guilty as the liars apparently.

a reply to: grainofsand

That goes into the "crap, I made a bad choice" category.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

This is the kind of thing I was getting at and was why I was saying it should just remain a civil matter, where he said she said disputes are normally settled.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: grainofsand

That goes into the "crap, I made a bad choice" category.

Not the "Somebody was deceitful" category no?

I'm going to say this last bit and bow out of this thread. Obviously a very sticky subject, and we all know what the stickies can do.

The reason I think it should be criminally offensive is the severity of the act. Is it mere lie? Come on now, it's not about a lie. It's about the results of the lie.

You're not properly disincentiving a woman from the act with a mere fine and custody charge. Thing this through. Run through all the possible outcomes. The woman has an edge to take the risk if this is all there was.

If you throw a sentence in, yes per case, the results could cause damage to the child. Guess what? That's already a risk if he finds out the circumstances of his existence. It's already a risk if you go through custody battles. You don't jail people merely to make up for the act, it's in no way a comparison for the act, it's to disincentivize future behavior of the individual, and society at large from the act.

If we think of this as anything remotely close to casual activity that is a simple lie, then we are not properly weighing the severity of the repercussions. We are divorcing the outcome from the process. You don't jail liars, you imprison life ruiners through means of deceit. I sure as hell would.

a reply to: grainofsand

too much testosterone here..
what made u write the thread
u already talked about it and u seemed fine
I thought u separed from all of them
1 child is urs 1 not.. are u still paying the 2 one off?
(wrong terms but u get it)

a reply to: grainofsand

If I was a young man today, I wouldn't take the chance and always protect myself. How many incidents do you hear of women entrapping a guy into marrying them by doing this?

Incredibly vague definition of what rape by deception is. Under that definition you can't say I love you when you don't, can't say she's beautiful if she is not, any lie whether it be occupation, hobbies, interests that when compounded contribute to the act of sex, would be criminal.

Yes I feel you were a victim under that definition.

But they will have to review the definition and implications if making it into law for it to be appropriate