To think cheating/lying does not remove consent

[FastLemonFinch]

I watched this video (damn Facebook ads) and was surprised at what Liv Nervo was saying -
https://www.facebook.com/GoodLawProject.org/videos/liv-nervo-speaks-out-against-the-man-who-tricked-her-into-pregnancy-shes-fightin/2018375549095913/

summary is Nervo was in a relationship with a man. Six months into pregnancy with him (they both were actively trying to conceive) she found out he had a whole other family and even an additional woman he in a separate relationship with, ie he was cheating and had either lied or not openly disclosed this (or both).

In Nervo’s opinion this equates to rape as she didn’t give her full consent (as if she had known he wasn’t single she wouldn’t have had sex with him) and also coercive pregnancy. She seems to be saying that rape consent laws need to be updated and a new offence of coercive pregnancy needs to be created.

Nervo doesn’t mention this in her video, but it appears this all came out because of a financial/custody dispute, and when the “Good Law Project” started representing her these additional allegations got thrown into the mix. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/djs-ex-partner-escapes-costs-order-in-bitter-family-proceedings/5126217.article

Whilst I feel this man is morally reprehensible and certainly support his naming and shaming, and I’m sympathetic to Nervo, I personally don’t think what he did was criminal. Saying the law needs to change or is outdated to accommodate this scenario is both concerning to me in terms of what we think is criminal vs immoral behaviour, and also in this particular case I’d worry it risks undermining what is currently rape under the law, eg you don’t consent at the time. Very different to saying actually it wasn’t consensual months later because of new information you have found out.

and whilst pregnancy by coercion is awful, I don’t think that’s what happened here. To me this would be forcing someone to get pregnant (either via rape or lying about using a condom or tampering with contraception). if that’s currently not a crime then I would support changing the law to make that illegal.

I also think the so called “Good Law Project” is doing more harm than good in this case but that’s maybe a separate discussion!

I was just wondering if I out of touch and do others think Nervo is right to say what happened to her is rape/coercive pregnancy? AIBU to think whilst what he did was awful it’s not illegal?

This is the message you get when editing a post.

This. It's awful but it's not rape.

My guess is that men were doing it so much, that it was becoming a huge burden on the legal system, so it ended up being shifted to a civil matter when there was a shift to secular law.

I think the courts, certainly UK ones are already overwhelmed with a big backlog of criminal cases without adding people who cant keep their trousers zipped/ keep their legs together into the mix!!

Don't remember seeing that while editing. Must have missed it after being used to it. Mnhq had to make that clear when they introduced the edit feature incase some goady posters wanted to use it as a loophole. So yes changing it to suit an argument is against talkguidelines.

However all edit history can still be seen by posters so it's a pretty stupid thing to try and do to if not in good faith. Many people edit any part of their posts (not just typos) but not to deceive.

Edited to add: Had to check this and yes it is here. Just not the way yours showed up. Will put up a pic in the next post since I can't upload one here now.

It's been there the whole time but I'm so used to it, it's become part of the background. It's like the equivalent of 'smallprint'.

We either need to provide a system whereby men are entirely optional and nobody is relying on one for It’s basic survival in terms of children and families.
Or we ought to cut the dicks off if they marry somebody and then cheat
Either option works for me

I’ve been through both and the trauma was comparable.
When somebody raped you at least you know that that’s a bad person and did everything they did was horrendously wrong and criminally punishable whether it happens or not you know that that’s the case.
With cheating this is the person who you are at your most vulnerable with you. Share your life with you, trust implicitly.
Everybody tells you what a good guy he is and the fact that you have to continue to raise your children with him because he’s a good man
But you know he’s not
And there’s no karma there there’s no punishment he’s not going to hell
There’s no accountability

Ultimately, I don't think the crime described (and I do think it deserves to be labelled a crime) is rape. Maybe there needs to be a new category of crime for this, but I also think it will be difficult to prove that someone has been deceived to convince them to have sex (or even to intentionally get pregnant). And what degree of deception will be high enough to merit punishment? Many people lie to get someone into bed, though usually not to the extent of hiding an entire other family—but lying about a girlfriend/boyfriend must be frequent. Unless there is significant proof, someone can always falsely claim that the other person knew the truth and has just become angry or jealous after a breakup. The legal system barely keeps up with its current responsibilities (and I would argue that it's woefully ineffective at meting out true justice for the crimes already on the books), so as much as I'd love to see some of these scummy people pay for their harmful deceptions, I don't think it's likely to happen.

LOL

Absolutely on board with this 🤣

I have really wrestled with this, where the line lies with the knowledge required for consent to be valid, as I feel I have instinctive opinions but can't articulate them and they might be inconsistent. I agree with you OP, but I think it is interesting to discuss where the line does lie. I think this case should be an extension of bigamy law, rather than rape laws, as we as society have moved on in terms of the variety of committed relationships acceptable.

I feel the undercover policemen does constitute rape, but in the same way as a teacher/power imbalance rather than no consent in the traditional way.

However, I think the person who thought their partner was Jewish and wouldn't have slept with him if they'd know wasn't raped. I don't think you can fully differentiate that from everyone lying a little bit of a dating profile.

I once met (horrible) identical twins, who would let each other "have a turn," with their girlfriends before they split up with them, pretending to be each other. I felt very strongly this was rape, but none of my friends did at the time. Although one does now we are older and wiser.

However, my friend knew someone who looked very like a famous person and had the same first name, so like David Beckham, for example and called David too. He wouldn't explicitly say he was David Beckham, but definitely didn't correct people who thought it unless they asked or said something explicit, like asking about football. I found that very confusing, ethically!

So as I said, a very hard line to draw and it's really interesting to hear other opinions.

This is a brilliant breakdown and definition. I think we need to avoid creating laws based on current moral mores. We know polyamory is on the rise, so legally how would informed consent be recognised? Would there need to be contracted consent? We reject the idea that marriage is contracted consent as that allows marital rape, and we know contracts can be coerced, so this all sounds like a great thing for solicitors bank balances but a terrible process for the people involved.

I agree with you. I understand why she’s repulsed but that’s not the same as criminal. If it was rape then you could argue that his wife has a case too as extramarital sex risks her health.

This reminds me of a post where an OP knew that her h had a medical condition before having a baby but thinks that he should have been more forceful about how this affects their future family. This is apparently a rare condition where there is little info available like prognosis.

We have sex in a “as seen condition” and assume that the other person has been telling the truth about what they’ve said about relationship status, number of past partners etc. Unfortunately we can rarely verify facts like relationship status including the cheater’s favourite excuses of open relationship and attached but not having sex.

What about not disclosing an STI? I guess it's not rape, but could it be its own crime, endangerment or something? Then you get into very difficult questions about people going out and about with Covid etc.

This is already handled under the idea of 'reckless transmission' and considered an act of grevious harm under law.

I think it seriously compromises consent because it changes the context entirely in which someone would choose (or not) to become pregnant.

Remember that excellent series I May Destroy You? Alongside the main narrative other areas of constant were explored. Including how honest you are with a partner about exclusivity.

And lying about whether you have other children is a pretty big lie. It changes what you are as a partner and parent. If that man was covered by the Consumer Act as an appliance from Curry’s such a misrepresentation of his Specifications might be actionable.

But not everything that is wrong can be criminalised.

And aren’t the Good Law Project firmly on the side of male bodied/ male chromosomed people defining themselves as female?

I don't think it's automatically criminal behaviour but there are many offences that cover criminal aspects. I do think there should be criminal action in the case of things like spycops.

Some of what is described in the original post could feasibly already be covered by coercive and controlling behaviour.

A man meets a woman in a bar, the woman is wearing a full face of make-up, false eyelashes, clip in hair extensions, fake tan, the lot. They go back to her place and DTD. The following morning the man sees her without all that make up and she looks completely different. He is not attracted to her, would never have slept with her if he knew what she really looked like without all the "fake-up".

She "lied" about what she really looked like. Would that be "assault" as he couldn't give "informed" consent?

Or a man meets a woman who lies about having a child and the man finds out a few weeks later. The woman lied because she was afraid the man wouldn't go out with her if she told him about the child?

Interesting that you would try and put those into the same categories as lying about having an entire additional family 😳
And hoodwinking someone into making an actual human child.
Can you explain the long-term implications financial emotional and physical of having fucked somebody you don’t like the look of in the morning? That happened to me even without make-up and Hair Extentions although I’m sure some men wear those as well.

Agree entirely with OP. The man is a reprehensible shitbag and it could be argued, emotionally abusive. But from what I can see he isn’t a rapist. I worry that by updating laws to include behaviour from men like this dilutes the seriousness and damage that actual rape does. Rape in LTR is already so difficult to prove. This won’t help that imo.

We need a new term for this i think, other than rape. When I watched How I met your mother, all those years ago, barney's behaviour disgusted me

He didnt rape anyone, that we know of, but he would lie to manipulate women into sleeping with him

I agree that lying about who you are to get sex is morally wrong.

For example - Harvey weinstein and his casting couch = rightly punishable

Lying to a woman by saying you want to marry her - allowed?!

@SueKeeper Im struggling to understand how it would be unethical to look like David Beckham and not instantly tell anyone he meets that he ISNT David Beckham?
Move on, nothing to see hear..

I struggle with this. I think society is far too ok with women being fair game for men to trick and deceive in the interest of getting their rocks off. The underlying message seems to be "well of course men are going to lie, if you are stupid enough to believe someone who has spent a lot of effort trying to make you trust them then more fool you", while also being "women need to be open and trust men, #NAMALT and it's not fair to treat them all with suspicion". As usual, damned if we do and damned if we don't.

There is the scenario in the film "Revenge of the Nerds" where one of the nerds steals the fancy dress outfit of a women's boyfriend and she unknowingly has sex with him. In the film, of course, she is deligted by the deception and it's a win for him. In general, women watching are horrified by the scenario. But really what is the difference between a man pretending to be someone else by hiding his face and a man pretending to be, well, someone else by hiding his behaviour and history?

If this was to become law, these discussions about categories are exactly what would have to happen to decide if one thing was actionable and something else wasn't. There has been an incredibly public case of a man who had sexual activity with someone he believed to be a woman because of hair, makeup. Now, he argued on the basis of his sexuality being straight that this was deception, and also that he has been stigmatised in his social circle. If you had a baby with a man who had had extensive plastic surgery to be typically attractive and didn't disclose, then you had a baby with all hus previous facial features, would you consider that rape and coerced pregnancy due to lack of informed consent? This arugment is more likely to be used against women, as women make up more of the consumers of plastic surgery.

They absolutely would not become part of the discussion at all. This is an entirely separate.
Entirely