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?

Outraged, do you think Spider's example should be sexual assault, even if the current law can be interpreted so that it is not?

I don't know Yonic. I don't think it's comparable to 'freedom and capacity to consent' because with that you either do have the freedom and capacity to consent or you don't. It's a yes/no judgement. Whether someone was deceived is a yes/no judgement, but whether that deception was sufficient to negate consent is such a grey area. You've said yourself it's a sliding scale, not a yes/no issue.

"...I think that anyone arguing that what a person you are fucking looks like is entirely irrelevant has a very peculiar view of human sexuality, as well, TBH...."

Somehow, I dont think the current law on rape is really based on theories of "human sexuality".

I've tried to explain how English law sees it (i.e. In short - consent is only negated where the victims actually knows the person that the accused is pretending to be and is decieved to think that the accused is that person). Whether you like this or not is a matter for you. It is currently what it is.

"It's a yes/no judgement."

Hmm, it's still a judgement though. Is someone slurring their words too drunk? Falling over? Losing their bag? Etc.

As I said, it's case law that sets and re-sets the exact interpretations of something like "significant" - I doubt any court wouldn't find the Mary/Derek example a significant deception.

"I've tried to explain how English law sees it (i.e. In short - consent is only negated where the victims actually knows the person that the accused is pretending to be and is decieved to think that the accused is that person). "

Bowl - that's based on recent case law, I assume, as it's not stated as such in the Sexual Offences Act itself.

The law evolves - more people are meeting online first as happened in the John/Jane Doe case and courts will have to reach judgements which may then be cited in other cases.

'Outraged, do you think Spider's example should be sexual assault, even if the current law can be interpreted so that it is not?'

I think it should be illegal and it is. It's incest.

Incest as a charge would apply to both of them, wouldn't it, as she consented to the sex?

I think it's too vague Yonic. I would want 'significant' defined properly, not based on a case by case basis.

What is significant in a sexual partner differs too much from one person to another.

I agree that discovering your boyfriend is your father would be 'significant' by anyone's standards!

Incest is punishable in the UK with up to two years in prison. Rape is four years upwards.

Outraged, that's fine - I'd be open to definitions - but my point was that courts often judge on words like that and case law (which reinforces statute and is referred to by the judiciary) is built. When the judges turned down one of the Ched Evans appeal requests, they cited precedent or relevant cases in their decision, for example.

Sorry, so "case law" is stronger than "case by case"

Here's the extract from SO2003

65Sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration

(1)A person aged 16 or over (A) [F5(subject to subsection (3A))] commits an offence if—

(a)another person (B) penetrates A’s vagina or anus with a part of B’s body or anything else, or penetrates A’s mouth with B’s penis,

(b)A consents to the penetration,

(c)the penetration is sexual,

(d)B is aged 18 or over,

(e)A is related to B in a way mentioned in subsection (2), and

(f)A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that he is related to B in that way.

So in this case Mary (A) would have to defend herself against a charge of incest by using subsection (f) ie that she did not know she was related to Derek (B). I suspect that subsection was drafted more to cover eg siblings separated when young who met and had sex without realising their relationship.

So a court would probably rule that although Mary's defence to incest wasn't envisaged by subsection (f) it would be a reasonable defence that would go into case law to be cited in future in any similar case.

'Incest as a charge would apply to both of them, wouldn't it, as she consented to the sex?'

That's interesting and I did wonder that. That would obviously be crazy.

But it would only be incest if she knew he was her father at the time of having sex and she didn't, so it wouldn't apply to her. He did know she was his daughter, so he would be guilty.

It would be the same if they were long lost father/daughter and had sex, but didn't know they were father and daughter. It's not incest if you don't know.

No you've given us your interpretation of the law, bowl.

As Jessica pointed out upthread, consent can come with conditions e.g. Assange and not using condoms. That would also be illegal in the UK. Deceiving someone is recognised as negating consent.

The law can't cover every scenario. As Yonic says, it evolves, it can be interpreted to fit many differing scenarios and exclude others. Precedents can be set (and over turned).

If your granny or grandad falls for a sob story at the doorstep and gets tricked out of £200, do you call them quite frankly stupid? Or do you save the insults for the man who pretended for the 300th time to have just got mugged and to need the money to visit his hospitalised child?

Also, nobody would argue the man is not a thief because the money is handed over freely. They wouldn't say she wasn't mugged because no violence or menace was used.

If someone is tricked into giving money to a scam artists, who sets out to dupe people into thinking their money is for something else, people would have every sympathy for those victims and want justice,

But it seems if someone is tricked into giving their body, to someone who sets out to deceive women into doing so, people seem to have no sympathy and don't seem to think a crime has been committed.

I feel so bad for his victims having to read people saying it's their own stupid fault, and blame them. I don't understand how anyone can defend him, he doesn't sound like a danger to women. I hope the victims friends and family are more understanding than some of the attitudes on here.

X post outraged.

As per the SOA 2003, I've interpreted her defence as above . In practice, the CPS would probably judge it unlikely they'd get a conviction of incest on Mary and wouldn't take the case forward; but if they did, she would have to make the defence. Which seems bonkers, as you say. No doubt the prosecution would be arguing "how could you not know it was your father, even in the dark?" Etc.

Doesn't bear thinking about, really.

I think it is rape as Mary consented to sex with Derek and not her dad. It's the same in the OP, it's rape.

(I agree Spider, in case that wasn't clear!)

So those of you saying no it's not rape, surely she would be guilty of incest as she knows she is related to her father?

'So those of you saying no it's not rape, surely she would be guilty of incest as she knows she is related to her father?'

We've already been through that.

Deceiving someone is recognised as negating consent

He deceived her, this negates consent he therefore legally and emotionally raped her. He systematically attempted this with other women so he is a serial rapist taking advantage of women with impaired judgment.

It's rape. Of course it is. And he's a creepy predator.

But there is still something that strikes me as...well, I don't think we can say the woman was "just a bit dim". She strikes me as very unsavory. It seems like a very Red Pill line to take, that someone is ugly and old so it must be rape. I'm just thinking out loud and not trying to be argumentative. And I don't mean to focus the conversation on the victim. But I cannot shake the feeling that if the genders had been reversed, I would think the guy who was horrified at having had sex with an unattractive woman should get a fucking life and get over himself.

Not sure if anyone can help me unpack this. Maybe I am just very weary of a society which says that the worst thing that can happen to a man is to have sex with an ugly woman. I just find that really toxic, and here it is in this case but in the reverse.

Now, he is 100% a rapist. And it would be beyond traumatic to know I'd been deceived into sex with a predator. It's just this appearance thing I can't get my head around.

Interesting discussion. It has made me think more about this case.

clearly the man in this case is at the best a deviant, deceptive ass. but just wondering -

All other facts being the same, if the woman in this case was a 65 year old woman who posted a false picture of a young woman on the website. And sex happened as it did. Were both of them raped?

I wouldn't call it 'rape' but I do think it should be a crime. Maybe give it a different name like 'sex by deception'?

Rape is defined quite differently in different jurisdictions. There is no one global definition. Maybe this should be something for global feminists to look at campaigning for?

". It seems like a very Red Pill line to take, that someone is ugly and old so it must be rape. "

I don't think that's quite the point, (and I'm not sure if the man in question is ugly anyway). There was a fundamental misrepresentation of who he was. The women had no chance to decide on their actual sexual attraction to him.