What do you think of this...(possible rape)

Would people think differently if it was actually a photo of HIM when he was much younger?

littleboltonn - there is a world of difference between posting a picture of yourself when you were younger, prettier, thinner, blonder etc and posting a picture of someone else! And I agree with Yonic, there's something very odd about devising a whole slew of very unlikely hypothetical borderline cases, when rape is something that happens to actual people. All. The. Time.

And the number of women worldwide who have ever had blindfolded sex with someone they've never clapped eyes on before when that person has in some significant way deceived them about his appearance? Vs the number of women raped TODAY in this country alone, by their partners or friends or dates or strangers?

Do you see my point?

"Could anyone answer this question? Is it rape to use a picture of yourself that you no longer look like and did this same as this man did with a blindfold? Presuming that the women are consenting to the man in the picture who could now have serious scars, balding, missing eye ect ect"

Why is it so important to know?

The legal answer is that it should go to court and be tested, and case law established. I might think a 10 year out of date photo is not on but 5 years is ok. You might think only photos 20 years or more are significant enough. No one can definitively answer your question.

Sorry just to clarify I do believe what this man did was some kind of offence however not sure if its rape, not throwing a straw man just find it quite interesting as someone who has used dating sites and have met people in person, its not exactly rare to find someone using a more flattering photo that they no longer look like.

I.e. A man who looks who might have a picture of him pre-bald, would he be classes as someone using decieption to get sex?

Could anyone answer this question? Is it rape to use a picture of yourself that you no longer look like and did this same as this man did with a blindfold? Presuming that the women are consenting to the man in the picture who could now have serious scars, balding, missing eye ect ect

Littleboltonn you don't have much posting history at all on here so I don't know whether you are asking a genuine question or attempting a 'gotcha', but why does it matter what the answer to that question is since that's not what happened? The 'out of date photo' scenario is a far greyer area than the actual scenario of photo of completely different man.

None of those things should be in the slightest bit acceptable.

The fact that we are even debating them tells you why George Galloway can talk about rape as "bad sexual etiquette"

We can test and stretch this already very unusual case to death; unfortunately, tens of thousands of rapists are going free who have had sex without the consent of a woman who was seeing them and not consenting.

Do people sit around dissecting whether it's fraud if you say you need money for your sick child if your child is actually sick but their treatment is already funded?

Feeling quite nauseous now, TBH.

LittleB, this rant isn't "at" you - but your "still haven't heard" post was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Still yet to see an answer to the question of of a scenario where the picture was of him but just him 40 years ago. Would that be rape?

Or how about the if he was better looking in a picture, but after the sex, and the blindfold coming off he looks nothing like the picture but it turns out the picture is him, just that hes had an accident since? Or maybe not sheven in a long time? Different haircut? Basically the same person but just no longer looks like what he used to?

"Had she known which body was going to penetrate her, she wouldn't have agreed. I really think this negates her consent."

I think this is a succinct statement of the position.

When I say 'would that be ok', I mean 'would that be legal', rather than 'would that be an ok way to behave'.

I hope that was clear, but just in case it wasn't.

'You've quoted me to support your views Outraged but I really disagree with you'

I know! I agree totally with your definition and yet it leads us to two different conclusions!

'she had consented to a different physical human who wasn't there in that room. I don't think that the fact that the person she actually consented to was fictional'

That surely is contradictory? How can he be a physical human AND fictional? He can't. She consented to the person in the room and she did so without looking to see who that was. She consented to the person that she arranged to meet. He didn't look as he described himself, but it was the same person that she was chatting with online. What he said online was all lies, but it was not a separate person.

If someone has sex whilst under the witness protection scheme, without revealing who they really are, are they a rapist then?

Or is the key detail here that he didn't look like he said he did? If he used a correct photograph, but lied about every other aspect of himself (name, age, marital status, religion, hobbies etc.) would that be ok? Or would that be rape?

It mentions in one article he's getting charged for "rape by surprise". I think it's rape. I hope he is convicted.

I didn't meant to imply you (or anyone) thought he was decent. I should have said "most men wouldn't" instead.

I have to go and actually do some things in real life unfortunately

I'm not ignoring any questions.

'outraged "do you think it can only be rape if someone has been pinned down after saying no?" It's a genuine question.'

I think rape is sex without consent. Either because the person has said 'No' or because the person is unable to consent because they are scared/asleep/drunk/drugged/not mentally able/too young etc.

I don't think rape covers situations where a mentally competent adult consents to sex and then discovers that their sexual partner has not been honest with them. I think when you consent to sex with someone you do so in the knowledge that you are giving 'uninformed consent'. You are consenting to have sex with them at that time and you accept the level of knowledge you have about them at that time. Information discovered afterwards cannot be used to withdraw consent after the act.

I don't think anyone considers this man to be 'decent'. I certainly don't and have not suggested that I do anywhere on this thread, What he did was horrible, but it doesn't make it rape. Maybe there should be a 'sex by deception' offence or something similar, but it is not rape. Not imo.

Outraged, consent is continuous ongoing and can be withdrawn at any point. If someone leaves the room and someone else comes in, you could argue that the wife should lift her blindfold just in case of a switch, as she is otherwise giving consent to the body in the room by her voice and touch.

But in the Bill/Ben situation, Ben is presenting himself as Bill, and you have no reasonable way of discerning that he is lying (as they are identical in every way). If you are consenting to Bill, but Ben has engineered it so that it's his penis inside of you, then it's rape. You haven't consented to Ben, and Ben has every reason to know this.

outraged "do you think it can only be rape if someone has been pinned down after saying no?" It's a genuine question.

If a woman didn't say no because she is scared, because she is numb with fear would you see that as rape?

Whenever I read articles about rape, the amount of people who see "grey" areas, where there are none, frightens me. It really does.

A decent man who thinks the woman in front of him isn't 100% aware and 100% consenting wouldn't put his penis in her.

'Stranger in the cupboard' is rape because consent is person specific. She consented to A, but B had sex with her.

In the Bill/Ben situation she consented to have sex with Bill and did have sex with Bill. Or consented to sex with Ben and did have sex with Ben. If there was a switch mid-way through, then it would become rape. TBH though a normally competent person able to give consent would not accidentally have sex with their husbands evil twin! This is not Eastenders.

'This is a different body, a different person to the one they agreed to have sex with.'

There was no other person involved. She agreed to have sex with him after he gave her false information. There was no other body or real person there, only him. If the model had been there and met her and then swapped places with the old man, that would be rape. She met the old man and consented to sex with him after choosing not to look at him. He lied in order to have sex with her, which is wrong obviously. I don't think it's rape though. Sex based on deception is not rape imo. If it is, we have to look at adultery, people who lie about their age, people who use spanx/fake tan/a wonderbra to create a false image of themselves, wig wearers and on and on.

'He didn't care about their consent. That is rape.'

It's not actually. Having sex with someone without their consent is rape. Not caring about consent isn't illegal (it means you're an asshole, but it's not rape).

Outraged, I think that the Bill/Ben scenario is rape. Otherwise the blindfolded "cupboard swap" scenario is also not rape if the husband goes away and the stranger that comes back is welcomed by the blindfolded wife by touch, words etc. The wife is then consenting to the body that is there, after all.

Or do you also think the stranger in the cupboard isn't rape?