Rape by deception, real or not?

[anika99]

Ok let's say she can sue him for being a fraud. But what exactly has she lost? In terms of lost, how is this any different than a single guy who sleeps with a woman and then ghosts her afterward?

 

Yeah, what if a guy tells a woman he loves her to get into her pants? Is that rape?

 

I don't think anyone thinks that it's okay to mislead or lie to person to get that person to consent to sex, but calling it rape is ridiculous. How many people here have discovered someone they have gotten involved with turned out not to be the person they initially presented themselves as? My guess would be a lot. Pretty much all domestic abusers put on a act when they are trying to charm a new victim. I have never heard of anyone charging their abuser with rape because they didn't know their abuser was an abuser at the time they got involved.

[King Me]

It's a risk to have sex with a person. If I'm not ready for the risk, I'm not going to have sex. If I have sex then I am accepting a certain amount of risk. She didn't rape me if she turned out to have a boyfriend for Heaven's sake.

[katiegrl]

To me this is about as ludicrous as a man being able to sue a woman if he spends a ton of money on her while she knowingly leads him on knowing it's not going anywhere just because she wants the free stuff. Can you imagine the outcry if that were legal? At least in that case, you can come up with a firm dollar amount in damages. Bottom line, OP just needs to make better decisions and do your diligence.

 

I would agree but the definition of fraud is...

 

"Intentional deception of a person or entity for financial or personal gain."

 

So yeah in the scenario you describe above, THAT would be considered fraud as well!

 

Both involve "personal gain" by the person who committed the fraud.

 

Would it fly in a court of law?

 

Again depends on the damages the person sufferrd due to being defrauded.

 

There are cases of woman suing their husbands and winning because he led her to believe he wanted kids so she married him .... as having kids was important to her.

 

She would not have married him otherwise.....

 

Then after they are married, he announced he does not want kids leaving her devastated as divorce is against her religion ....

 

No joke she sure and won!

 

Marriage was eventually annulled ....

[Gloria25]

To me this is about as ludicrous as a man being able to sue a woman if he spends a ton of money on her while she knowingly leads him on knowing it's not going anywhere just because she wants the free stuff. Can you imagine the outcry if that were legal? At least in that case, you can come up with a firm dollar amount in damages. Bottom line, OP just needs to make better decisions and do your diligence.

 

We already have that...both guys and gals take each other to civil court and wanna call everything they bought for them a "loan". Watch daytime court TV.

 

And, sometimes they do get some money/stuff back, but some judges just call it a normal give/take that takes place in a RL. But one time Judge Judy was upset and she's like 'Don't go and play house then come to me to divide up the stuff...get married'.

[oldshirt]

I disagree with that part, the bolded. Lying about existing facts to induce someone to have sex with you is the problem OP's talking about. She would not have consented had he told the truth.

 

There are situations where a woman can lie about existing facts to induce a guy to have sex with her that make men just as angry, such as lying about having an STD or lying about fertility or birth control. Oh, the howling and vitriol you hear from some guys about a woman getting pregnant. But he consented to have sex with her, so...

 

I think that reputation used to be the penalty. But today so many people date strangers that they have no background or social context for, there's a lot more room for lying. OP could out the guy as a cheater and liar, but there's a lot of social pressure to not do that either. Personally, I see nothing wrong with telling other people so that they know. It's true after all. He lied and induced.

 

 

People have sex because they want to have sex and because they have a desire and attraction for the person.

 

They are not "induced by facts."

 

There for it is not rape if those facts turn out to be false.

 

So if some gal has sex with a guy she believes is single or rich or in love with her etc, she is dropping her drawers because she is horny and desires him.

 

If he turns out to not be single, rich etc, she may not desire him now, but that doesn't mean that she didn't then. And it doesn't mean that she didn't drop her drawers consensually then.

 

Rape is forced, non consensual sex.

 

It is not intentional, consensual sex that turns out later to be someone you no longer wish to remain involved with.

 

If that were the case then virtually all relationships that ultimately end would be at risk of rape charges because at some point all relationships that end are because someone ended up not being what someone thought they were at first.

[BlueIris]

I just read this...and it is a good point....fraud.

 

It would be considered fraud I guess, but again what are her damages?

 

That is what it would come down too.

 

Did she have a mental breakdown after she found out for example?

 

Spent time in the hospital?

 

I dunno it is very ambiguous , but it still isn't rape, it's fraud.

 

As you know, emotional distress is difficult to quantify and we don’t have pillories or scarlet letters any more- which would be useful for frauds and exploiters like the guy that exploited OP - so it comes down to money damages. (A shortcoming of our system, IMO.)

 

But, I’m not advocating suit and I don’t think criminal penalties would work because in both cases proof is going to be difficult if not impossible. Criminal would actually be worse since the burden is higher. I just advocate for very deep vetting. But OP already drew that conclusion in an earlier thread.

 

I just don’t like the assumption or social pressure to take sex lightly, that sex doesn’t matter, or it isn’t a big deal to so-and-so and therefore it shouldn’t be for anyone.

 

That's often disingenuous anyway, since lots of the men who claim that it “shouldn’t” be a big deal also don’t want a woman with a high partner count. We also see people here on LS who recoil at a woman who has dated "bad" guys or who were manipulated, concluding that there is something wrong with her if some fraud takes advantage of her. They'll say, "you picked him!" even if she was defrauded. I don't agree with them, but you hear it. (Don't date those guys! )

[katiegrl]

Bottom line this is not rape.......

 

Fraud perhaps, but definitely not rape.

[BlueIris]

Bottom line this is not rape.......

 

Fraud perhaps, but definitely not rape.

 

I agree with you.

 

People have sex because they want to have sex and because they have a desire and attraction for the person.

 

They are not "induced by facts."

 

We disagree about that. There are certain facts that 100% stop me from having sex with someone. Many. No matter how much I want to have sex.

[oldshirt]

I'm not saying it isn't crappy to deceive someone into thinking you are single and available for a relationship when they aren't.

 

...and to fraudulently marry someone while married to someone else is an actual crime because marriage is a legal contract.

 

But assuming there was no force, duress or coercion, the sexual act is consensual, even if the relationship was fraudulent.

 

Rape is using force, duress, threat of harm or other manner that innately denies consent such as unconsciousness, under age of consent, intoxication etc.

 

Deception of status does not constitute force, threat of harm etc etc.

 

There for the act of sex is presumed consensual at the time of the act even if factors later develop that precludes the person from wanting to continue a sexual relationship.

[katiegrl]

To me this is about as ludicrous as a man being able to sue a woman if he spends a ton of money on her while she knowingly leads him on knowing it's not going anywhere just because she wants the free stuff. Can you imagine the outcry if that were legal? At least in that case, you can come up with a firm dollar amount in damages. Bottom line, OP just needs to make better decisions and do your diligence.

 

SoF, your above scenario sparked a memory.

 

I recall reading a few years ago about a man who *did* sue his ex for all the money he had spent on her, because she actually admitted when she dumped him that she used him .....

 

Not sure what the outcome was, I will try and find the case.

[oldshirt]

..... In other words, just because someone no longer wants to continue a sexual relationship due to discovery of certain information, that does not mean that the prior sexual activities were non consensual at the time.

 

To be the crime of rape, the sexual activity must be nonconsensual at the time of its occurance. Not just a change of heart upon discovery of different facts afterwards.

[oldshirt]

SoF, your above scenario sparked a memory.

 

I recall reading a few years ago about a man who *did* sue his ex for all the money he had spent on her, because she actually admitted when she dumped him that she used him .....

 

Not sure what the outcome was, I will try and find the case.

 

That's for fraud, not for rape.

 

Fraud is a completely different crime.

 

Let's not confuse the crime of fraud and the crime of rape.

That chick may have cheated him out of money by using deception, but she did not force nonconsensual sexual acts upon him using force or threat of force.

[katiegrl]

That's for fraud, not for rape.

 

Fraud is a completely different crime.

 

Let's not confuse the crime of fraud and the crime of rape.

That chick may have cheated him out of money by using deception, but she did not force nonconsensual sexual acts upon him using force or threat of force.

 

Read my posts, got that!!!

 

I have been saying it is NOT rape from the get go..... and many of us have acknowledged it IS not rape.

 

At most, it is fraud. Definitely not rape....

Edited May 30, 2016 by katiegrl

[Mumbles]

Jesus! Seriously. If I could I would.

 

This is why some places, and japan is a good example, though they don't suffer the ridiculous litigation nightmare - but one reason why young singles are no longer getting married, or even into serious relationships any more.

 

The numbers opting out are so large its actually got the government concerned. The reason? Theres just no positive payoff any more.

 

In the material world we've created, where there are remedies sought for every slight imagined or real ... what does the future hold for us? Seriously? We'll all start creating alter ego's, like we do here at LS, and meet and greet (and have sex) only upon the basis that we remain utterly anonymous.

 

Is it -this- that happened to all the shining empires of the ancient world? Eventually they just ate themselves from the inside out and the barbarians, living lives more connected to reality, simply outbred them?

[oldshirt]

 

 

We disagree about that. There are certain facts that 100% stop me from having sex with someone. Many. No matter how much I want to have sex.

 

Right. But you are not induced into having sex by facts.

 

You have sex because you are horny, aroused, attracted etc. not by facts.

 

When you have sex, it is by consent at the time.

 

There for if facts change after the sex, that precludes future sexual consent (ie you won't have sex with that person again in the future) but it did not negate you prior consent.

 

Rape must be nonconsensual at the time of the act, not retroactively after the fact.

 

Otherwise everyone that has ever had a break up would be guilty of rape.

[BlueIris]

Right. But you are not induced into having sex by facts.

 

You have sex because you are horny, aroused, attracted etc. not by facts.

 

When you have sex, it is by consent at the time.

 

There for if facts change after the sex, that precludes future sexual consent (ie you won't have sex with that person again in the future) but it did not negate you prior consent.

 

Rape must be nonconsensual at the time of the act, not retroactively after the fact.

 

Otherwise everyone that has ever had a break up would be guilty of rape.

 

No. Not true for me. I just don't agree with your line of argument.

[oldshirt]

Read my posts, got that!!!

 

I have been saying it is NOT rape from the get go..... and many of us have acknowledged it IS not rape.

 

At most, it is fraud. Definitely not rape....

 

Right. It's not rape. Not even close.

 

Even for it to be fraud there has to be a loss.

 

And if someone was not being fraudulently being bilked out of something real and something tangible and something measurable like money or property or tangible goods, it would be hard to make anything stick legally.

[katiegrl]

Right. It's not rape. Not even close.

 

Even for it to be fraud there has to be a loss.

 

And if someone was not being fraudulently being bilked out of something real and something tangible and something measurable like money or property or tangible goods, it would be hard to make anything stick legally.

 

Which I also posted about ..... saying the defrauded person needs to show what *damages* they suffered as a result of the fraud.

 

To be proved during trial.

 

Have you read all the posts?

 

I am a legal assistant, you are preaching to the choir ....

[oldshirt]

No. Not true for me. I just don't agree with your line of argument.

 

I'm not saying you have sex every time you are horny or are attracted to someone.

 

I am saying every time you have sex, you are choosing to do so because you are attracted, aroused, desire to do so etc

 

So you may be attracted to a rich, single man and drop your drawers because you desire him and want to have sex with him.

 

And if you find out he lied and is neither rich nor single, you may no longer desire him nor wish to continue the sexual relationship. But that doesn't mean the sex wasn't consensual at the time.

 

To be rape, it must be forced or coerced and nonconsensual at the time of its occurrence.

 

When you find out he is broke and married, that doesn't retroactively negate your prior consent.

 

It may be $h1++y, but it isn't rape.

 

If he talked you into investing all your money into offshore properties and then took off with it, that may be fraud. But it isn't rape.

[ShatteredLady]

LuckiestGirl.

 

Hi. I remember your original post. I felt very sympathetic to you. I think it's horrible how he deceived & emotionally manipulated you at such a fragile time in your life.

 

** Did you ever tell his wife?

 

For those who haven't read the back story they met very shortly after the op's mother had died. She was very vulnerable. This has emotionally damaged her to the extent that she questions if it's her fault for being a victim.

 

I REALLY wish that you hadn't used the word "rape" in your thread opener. Remove that word & I find it a very interesting subject to debate!

 

We are not talking about a one night stand. This relationship lasted for 6 months. He not only stated that he wasn't married. He created a whole dramatic history that painted him as a tragic 'hero' single father of 3 children.

 

I feel that some of the responses here have been quite harsh. Sadly I don't think there can be any legal recourse but I do understand why you're so very upset by this whole experience. I think you know that there are lessons to be learnt from this but I do understand that you were at an incredibly vulnerable time in your life & felt a very real intimacy with this man.

 

I truly hope that you have stopped blaming yourself.

 

He's HORRIBLE! DISGUSTING! CRUEL! I'm so sorry that you crossed paths with an awful person like him at that time in your life.

[oldshirt]

Which I also posted about ..... saying the defrauded person needs to show what *damages* they suffered as a result of the fraud.

 

To be proved during trial.

 

Have you read all the posts?

 

I am a legal assistant, you are preaching to the choir ....

 

I'm not arguing with you at all. I just haven't read all the posts.

[BlueIris]

I'm not saying you have sex every time you are horny or are attracted to someone.

 

I am saying every time you have sex, you are choosing to do so because you are attracted, aroused, desire to do so etc

 

So you may be attracted to a rich, single man and drop your drawers because you desire him and want to have sex with him.

 

And if you find out he lied and is neither rich nor single, you may no longer desire him nor wish to continue the sexual relationship. But that doesn't mean the sex wasn't consensual at the time.

 

To be rape, it must be forced or coerced and nonconsensual at the time of its occurrence.

 

When you find out he is broke and married, that doesn't retroactively negate your prior consent.

 

It may be $h1++y, but it isn't rape.

 

If he talked you into investing all your money into offshore properties and then took off with it, that may be fraud. But it isn't rape.

 

Oldshirt, I won't tell you what you think and feel and you don't tell me how I think and feel- deal?

 

On the harm/damage issue, think of defamation. You don’t have to prove monetary or physical harm for certain types of defamation either.

[katiegrl]

I'm not arguing with you at all. I just haven't read all the posts.

 

Never said you were arguing.

 

But you are discussing things that have already been discussed...

 

Again, many of us, including Blueiris, have acknowledged it is not rape.

[katiegrl]

Oldshirt, I won't tell you what you think and feel and you don't tell me how I think and feel- deal?

 

On the harm/damage issue, think of defamation. You don’t have to prove monetary or physical harm for certain types of defamation either.

 

In CA, in order to file a civil lawsuit one does need to show damages suffered as a result of the fraud, defamation, etc. To be proven during trial. Or not.

 

Otherwise no attorney will touch it. And even if they did, it would be tossed out by the courts.

 

Emotional distress *is* a valid cause of action if the person can show .they have been emotionally damaged somehow.

 

Not sure what the law is in other states.. but I cannot imagine any attorney wanting to touch it if there are no damages.

Edited May 30, 2016 by katiegrl

[BlueIris]

I personally don’t think it should be called rape because I want the word and crime rape to have a specific and clearer meaning.

 

But rape-by-deception isn’t some wild or outrageous concept. It’s been debated by scholars with great arguments. Just Google “Yale Law Journal Rape by Deception” to read articles.

 

So, OP isn’t way off base by any means! It’s debatable and has been debated.