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 Saying the law needs to change or is outdated to accommodate this scenario is both concerning to me in terms of what we think is criminal vs immoral behaviour, and also in this particular case I’d worry it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 really tricky and a great debate to be had. There’s been a lot of really well articulated comments on here.

For me, I voted you are being unreasonable. I will start by saying I have been raped in the traditional, no consent in the moment sense.

I do, ultimately, think there is an argument to be had for maybe a new law rather than the current definition being extended. If information is withheld from you, that a reasonable person would be expected to know would influence whether or not you gave consent, and you wouldn’t have consented in those circumstances, I think you are justified in feeling that you were essentially raped. You were tricked into having consensual sex in those circumstances. The difficulty would be proving it - I think that will be impossible. You look at how rape victims are currently treated. Add this law in and defence lawyers would basically go through a woman’s sexual history, posts online, etc to find anything that suggests she chose to be involved with someone in a relationship in the past, or that she condoned it online or with a friend, etc. For that reason I can’t imagine it ever being prosecuted - and we know current rape laws aren’t a deterrent so it wouldn’t even work like that.

So whilst I think it does amount to rape, and I feel awful for anyone tricked into sleeping with someone they thought was monogamous and it wasn’t, I think even if we were to adapt the law (and I still think we should do that) it wouldn’t result in any prosecutions. I think getting a jury to agree in principle it was rape would be easier than proving the victim wouldn’t have consented in these circumstances. If they are engaged or married it would be easier, as there’s generally an expectation of monogamy. I do kind of think if you are pregnant and can show it was a planned pregnancy you might be able to use that to prove you wouldn’t have consented if you knew they were sleeping with someone else. But beyond that I think it would be tough,

All in all this whole situation just reminds me of how badly women get treated - in relationships, in law, online, etc.

Could you explain how? There was a greay post uo thread about how you decide whether something is material to consent. These things are often defined not within the law itself, but in the practice of the law and the precedents that are set. We've seen that in the recent challenge to sex and gender in the Equality Act, where it was decided that woman refers to biological sex female, and the acy had been misinterpreted for many years in practice.

By stretch do you mean by completely making things up? The guy is clearly a grade A tosser but he didn’t rape her.
I hesitate to say it but women spouting nonsense like this put things back constantly and play directly into the hands of the minority of men that try to and succeed in assaulting women.

Because it’s nothing to do with appearance.
I’m sure we’ve all had an experience where we went to bed with a 10 and woke up with a two
That’s an entirely different scenario from being deceived over a period of time.

Genetics are something that nobody controls I’ve seen two very good looking parents produce a quite unattractive child that actually grew up into a very average adult
Same with intelligence levels
Same with health

This is about scenarios and circumstances.
if we agree to breed, we agree to breed under certain conditions. If we are misled about those conditions then it’s fraudulent.

Nothing to do with appearance, which is entirely subjective. And in the eye of the beholder.

We had breach of promise to marry under common law in the UK until 1970. If a man changed his mind, you could sue him for your lost future, your embarrassment, your lost earnings if you had quit or changed job in preparation for marriage, and if you had been in physical relationship with him you could be awarded a higher settlement as we were considered unmarriable by another suitor in those circumstances.

Perhaps Nervo would find this 17th century law attractive?

Categorically not rape, and as a survivor, I find the suggestion abhorrent. I believe it’s deceitful, upsetting and will make her feel violated, but it is in no way anything close to being forced to have sex against your will

Looks is a bit of a facetious example, I agree; but making it a criminal offence which negates consent to conceal one very particular thing (your relationship status) but not to conceal a whole range of other things about yourself (your health; your criminal background; your financial situation; your job; being previously married or already having a child etc) creates a hierarchy of untruths, and a peculiar idea that one very particular deception is objectively the worst kind of deception there is. Women (or men) who are lied to by a partner about all kinds of things are likely to feel betrayal, shame, guilt, and feel they wouldn’t have chosen to have sex or a baby with somebody with no job or with debt or with a serious health problem or a gambling addiction or a criminal history or another child etc - but the law wouldn’t recognise any of those feelings, because the deception isn’t “bad enough”, only being in a relationship with somebody else is. And once you take a stance that consent can only be given if you know everything about somebody, that is a tricky slope about what constitutes “everything.”

Thanks. Does it cover every STI? Because there are some that doctors tell people they don't have to declare.

They’re obviously has to be a line in the sand and again I do agree with you, I wouldn’t have had a child with somebody who was bankrupt for for example, but it’s in the same category as has children with somebody else.
I’m comfortable with the line being honesty about marital status and parenthood status.

I don't think it does, it mainly seems to cover HIV and herpes, but even within HIV if the person has a low viral load and is non-transmissable at the point of sexual activity they would not be liable, as just having HIV and having sex isn't a crime, but having sex knowing it could be transmissable and you haven't informes your partner is.

But to follow your analogy, the consequences of lying at work would get you sacked. You wouldn’t be charged with a criminal offence.
lying in a relationship would get you dumped/ divorce. You wouldn’t be charged with a criminal offence.

in both scenarios there are consequences

But that would be a law based purely on preventing emotional harm - i.e moral - rather than actual harm. Having a baby when you have a wonky gene could do physical harm to another person. If we recognise abuse as having mental, emotional and physical components, what's to stop a man from claiming that a women misled him based on appearance, and that has led to him being bullied and ostricised by his social circle amounting to material emotional harm?

Yes and I remember a case where a woman was prosecuted, but she had been told the risk of a man catching it from her was very small (I think because it was female to male transmission rather than because of her viral load).

It's an insult to survivors of actual rape.

Also, a hefty chunk of "contraceptive failures" were actually intentional on the woman's part. Women who lie about contraception are vile, but I don't think they're rapists.

Again this is not about emotional harm. It’s about tangible provable lies.

You could be charged with a criminal events for lying on your CV. That’s an entirely possible outcome.

There should be a section for it under sexual assault.

Because if you wouldn’t consent to sleeping with someone who was sleeping with someone else then you haven’t given informed consent.

Just like I think not informing someone of stds and stis before sex should be considered the same and I include herpes in that, and I include having a low viral load so unlikely to pass on but still a chance.

If you know you have something you could pass on and don’t share that info then that person hasn’t been able to give informed consent.

I wouldn't have had sex with my husband if I'd known something. I was so traumatised I had a webchat with rape crisis to ask whether is was non consensual or rape. They said there is no such thing as non consensual sex as that is rape. It is either consensual or rape. Thankfully they said what had happened wasn't rape.

It's never good to make someone feel a victim and I've seen it many times on here, someone doesn't feel they were raped and posters insist they were. It doesn't help. Posters like that need to use their brains.

Let's look at the harm that is done. She believed he was monogamous, that they were planning a shared life together, and that would include financial resources for a planned for child.

If she is upset that he had other sexual partners and was put at heakth risk, there is already a legal pathway for that through potential grievous harm if he had a disease he did not disclose.

If she is upset because she believed they had a verbal contract on monogamy, then that does not exist, we already have a legal contract for that under marriage that provides redress if someone has an affair.
If we are saying an unmarried couple should have the same level of legal protection from day one of a relationship, what impact could that have? If he had committed bigamy, there is legal redress for that. If she believes he has gone against a verbal or written agreement to share finances for the baby they made, there is legal recourse there too.

But this is more to do with her feelings of being tricked or conned, and calling it rape or coerced pregnancy dilutes the already difficult to access laws around these topics. For me it sits firmly in the 'sometimes life sucks and people suck' category.

Yes, this makes me uncomfortable too. The one that stands out that is one where a woman had given her long-term boyfriend oral, and then he had vaginal sex with her. She felt this was selfish, as she'd expected him to give her oral as well. Several posters told her she had been raped, because he hadn't explicitly asked if he could put his penis in her vagina. She said this was ridiculous, and other people backed her up, saying that it's very unusual for a long-term couple to specifically ask for permission for every sex act. They got accused of making excuses for a rapist. It was disturbing, to say the least.

If you broaden the definition of rape too far, society will eventually return to the days when rape wasn't seen as a serious crime unless a knife was held to the victim's throat in a dark alley.

Also google 'Womblands' saga. A comedian accused another creator of sexual assault, because they had sex when she wasn't aware he was having sex with other people. The response she received demonstrates that the majority of people considered this a stretch.

People who have been cheated on will understandly have strong opinions and feelings on this topic. That doesn't mean it should be made into a law.

Correct but that’s not what the comment I was responding to said. They said you’d get sacked if you lied on your CV and said there should also be consequences for lying in a relationship.

To me, the analogous consequence to being sacked is being dumped, not being charged with an offence

No it shouldn’t be rape. She consented to the sexual act in the moment.

And I would argue, it depends on the severity of the offence.
Lying to get a job in a corporate environment would rarely be of consequence.
Lying to get a job as a surgeon as we’ve seen leads to imprisonment
And this is what it keeps circling back to, its impact
Effectively, we’re looking at gaining favour by deception here but without the literal marriage.
Therefore what needs to be analysed is what are the tangible impacts, we can’t quantify the emotional ones but we can look at the Financial for a start which be under no illusions is exactly what they look at when deciding whether to prosecute in a medical and corporate (financial services) environment. The greater the financial consequences, the greater the price paid by the perpetrator.
No reason why that couldn’t apply here