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

[differentnameforthis]

Now I think this is rape. I appear to be a lone voice however, as most are calling those who fell for this stupid.

Opinions?

Rape?

So it is not a fact that the man who had sex with her didn't look like the man in the picture. What people look like is entirely subjective.

lol don't be silly

Unless you believe in shape-shifters or invasion of the body snatchers, in which case I think you have bigger fish to fry than this thread

"The man behind the scam, who used the name Anthony LaRoche (his real name was not provided) had allegedly propositioned 342 women across France, using an image of a model from an American fashion brand advertising campaign.
His lawyer disputed that the encounters were rape.
“He never forced any of his alleged victims into sex and the photo he used of the model was clearly too good to be true,” the lawyer told Le Parisien."

Does it make any difference to anyone, when considering whether his actions should be considered criminal / whether he is a danger to women, that he has done this multiple times?

The women he put his penis into knew him on a limited basis, just as I might know a man I meet in a nightclub and go home with on a limited basis.

The basis on which they knew him and consented to sex with him included their impression of what he looked like. He hadn't just put on five stone or gone a bit bald. He used a fraud to assume the identity of someone else, another actual person. The consent he obtained was therefore invalidated.

"photo he used of the model was clearly too good to be true,"

So because he was really good at fraud, he should get away with it?!

he demonstrated that he had no interest in obtaining consent, and he did not obtain consent. He is a rapist.

& why was the photo of the model "too good to be true"?

There are plenty of very attractive men around.

I'm not sure what the lawyer is trying to imply there but I'm not sure I like it, at all.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51

Yes you must be right - because every individual looks exactly the same in the eyes of every other person, and we all see what other people look like in exactly the same way.....

I've tried to explain how English law works on the issue. Whether you think its "silly" has nothing to do with it.

I don't see how this could be rape, the only thing he lied about was his image. He was the one that spoke to her, he didn't impersonate someone she knows. She consented to have sex with the person she was talking to which was him. It seems more in line with a 'beer goggles' situation which is regretted after.

Surely it's recognised that what someone looks like is absolutely key to whether you want to have sex with them, especially for a one night stand? Or maybe I am shallow...

YonicScrewdriver

You may well think it 'should' be rape, but that wasn't really the question

It isn't rape under English law. Perhaps French law views it differently, I dont know.

Oh LOL @ that

One picture of a very attractive young model
One picture of a late middle aged balding man

It's "subjective" as to whether they might look the same to a woman?!!!

If that's the case, and late middle aged balding men look like models to so many women, why did he bother using a false picture!

The "looks are subjective" thing is usually used to explain different people being attracted to different types of people. To try and use it to say that looks are LITERALLY subjective is ludicrous. Don't be so silly.

Oh, I agree it would be hard to get a conviction. This is the country where a man got away with rape by arguing he was drunkenly in the wrong room and didn't realise the sleeping woman 20 years older and of a completely different body type to his girlfriend wasn't his girlfriend.

"Whether or not he 'looks' like the model is irrelevant, because what someone 'looks' like is subjective."

I just think this is one of the most mind-blowingly stupid things I've ever read

What someone "looks" like! Why bother with passport photos eh?

Am proper lol @ that.

What if the picture was of him 30 years ago and he was unrecognisable now. Would it still be rape, as it would still be the same person?

TheCountess yes of course what someone looks like is pretty fundamental to whether you want to fuck them

Is all of this to do with it threatening ideas like women not being "visual" and being turned on by money, or GSOH, or personality or whatever.

Is the upset at this because the idea that women might choose who to fuck based on nothing more than a hot body and a handsome face is a horrifying idea?

"Under English law, it isn't rape for same reason that the undercover policemen who had sex/children with the those women also wasn't rape - because there is no actual deception as to identity." I thought the cases against the undercover policemen were dropped for lack of evidence, not because it couldn't be rape.

And it does seem that deception by the man can be rape as per the link Sorrytodisturbyou posted upthread.

He has deliberately set out to obtain consent by persistent deception.

He is a bellendious shit.

"...What if the picture was of him 30 years ago and he was unrecognisable now. Would it still be rape, as it would still be the same person?..."

Exactly. Some people are just happy being dim. Too busy LOLing to make an actual effort at thinking.

Societies throughout the ages have tried to tamp down on, and get rid of, the ability of women to fuck people they are actually sexually attracted to, haven't they.

This is all very interesting.

I like the idea that you literally can't tell what people look like because it's all subjective. Maybe when people look at my DH they see a man 40 years older than him, a foot shorter, with brown eyes and a beard. Of course they might! It's all subjective dontchaknow.

I actually don't know which way a test case would go on this one. Courts have certainly ruled that deception on a matter that's an essential basis to the consent invalidates the consent - for example in the case of a girl who represented herself as a boy to obtain sexual contact with other girls.

"....I thought the cases against the undercover policemen were dropped for lack of evidence, not because it couldn't be rape..."

Yes, lack of evidence is what the CPS say, because that's their remit - to consider if there is sufficient evidence.

It is for someone else (i.e. the court) to decide if the law has been broken, based on the evidence

Yes Whirlpool - it is fascinating how threatened some men are by it.

"It's not a gender specific issue." Rape is a very gender specific issue. Not to mention how men's actions are systematically minimised when it comes to sexual violence, all the time. And 99% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men. That's pretty gender specific.

In that instance, you could also argue that the recipient of the sexual contact was in bed with the person she'd talked to, got to know, even looked at and found attractive in the moment of the contact.

The perpetrator was still found guilty.

So it could have been classified as rape, if there had been enough evidence. You said it wasn't rape. Not having enough evidence to prove rape does not mean it wasn't rape.