Sex under false pretences - possibly triggering

[MightyMagnificentScarfaceClaw]

I have a question. If a woman consents to sex using a condom, and the man removes it during sex, or pretends to use one and doesn’t, that’s rape. Well what if a woman consents to sex with a man who is single and available, but he was lying and wasn’t? She wouldn’t have done it if she had known the reality. Is that rape?

The cases involving undercover policemen, those are awful institutional abuses of power and violations of professional conduct. We expect the police to treat potential suspects and informants with decency and respect, not to shag them on false pretenses. On that basis alone they should be criminalised, we don't need to declare them to be rape as well

AlisonGrant ^if you consent and someone lied about their relationship status I'm sorry but that is not rape

RTFT. Read my first post. Read where I wrote:
Catfishing, aka lying about life circumstances, is the mark of an arsehole who should be dumped, but it doesn't affect your risk assessment of the sex act. I'd hence argue that it's not legally going to fly as rape

And stop setting up a straw feminist by ascribing words to me that that I did not say and in fact have said the opposite.

I take objection to your use of a dictionary to to define rape when it's a crime with a precise legal definition and as a crime the legal definition is the one that counts. I take objection to your assertion that violence or threats are needed when they are not. If you'd read the full thread, you'd have already known that I did not take objection to your assertion that lying about being single does not make it rape.

@bd67th see you can't because nobody has been arrested for lying about being single and that's what the OP asked if lying about being single was rape

well it's not and you also do not know the legal definition of catfishing

my ex lied about being single, that was no rape and I dumped him and moved on

Thank you for the helpful replies. I agree that there is a distinction - consent, so not rape, but not informed consent. I don’t agree that asking the question is insulting, and I’m grateful for those who gave supportive responses.

All rape is a violation.

Not all violation is rape.

I appreciate that the two are frequently conflated - eg boys crowing about having 'raped' someone they've comprehensively thrashed in a videogame - but it is important not to water the definition of rape by extending it to cover all instances of violation.

Psychological violations and abuses such as lying about one's relationship or job in order to obtain consent to penetrate a woman's body must be recognised as unethical, and there is merit to discussing the possibility of criminalising some instances of these behaviours. But they should not be defined as rape.

There are some interesting precedents on this - there was a case in Israel where the man claimed he was Jewish but was actually an Arab. He was convicted of rape.

A famous case in English law was a burglar who climbed into a woman's bedroom and she had sex with him believing he was her husband. I think he was convicted too.

There was the more recent case of the woman who pretended to be a man - she was convicted of sexual assault, I believe.

There may also have been cases involving twins.

These are all off the top of my head - I'd need to look them up. In other words, however, sex under false pretences is definitely a 'thing' in law, but it's not always clear cut. Personally I think you'd be hard pushed to get anywhere with proving rape against the man who said he was single, particularly given the generally low conviction rates for rape.

Surely if anyone consents to sex within the context of a monogamous relationship if it turns out this is a deception then a greater risk of stds is incurred?

This is why consent must be informed and meaningful. I would have no problem with this being a crime. In terms of agreeing to sex because you believe the person is wealthier than they are, or what religion they may be does not carry any greater manifest risk to a person.

There are some interesting precedents on this - there was a case in Israel where the man claimed he was Jewish but was actually an Arab. He was convicted of rape

That is a very dubious and in my view racist decision. It would not be followed in UK law (any jurisdiction)The facts are ridiculous. The woman making the accusation claimed on the one hand she thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor looking for a serious relationship yet she it was reported that the two met in the street and had consensual sex within 10 minutes of meeting each other.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew

BBC News - Unravelling the Israeli Arab 'rape by deception' case
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11329429

A famous case in English law was a burglar who climbed into a woman's bedroom and she had sex with him believing he was her husband. I think he was convicted too

That isn't remotely the same. The accused was pretending to be another real person. That's completely different from pretending to be a richer, nicer, more eligible version of oneself.

There was the more recent case of the woman who pretended to be a man - she was convicted of sexual assault, I believe

I don't see what relevance this has to what is being discussed.

Under UK law pretending to be another real person known to the victim would be rape but otherwise consenting to sex is on the basis of you consented to have sex with the person you saw before you. In my view that is correct.

I once sat at a wedding table with a celebrity lookalike, who was boasting that he wouldn't correct women who thought they were hooking up with the real deal.

When I told a friend about it, she told me she knows identical twins that let each other "have a go," before splitting up with their partners.

I thought this was a kind of rape, but I was young enough at the time to be convinced by mr rapey lookalike that I was a drama queen and it was no different to someone claiming to be ten years younger/a millionaire. It still doesn't sit right with me, so I understand why it's hard to draw a firm line.

'I think you should invest in a oxford dictionary and look up the definition of rape

to force someone to have sex when they are unwilling, using violence or threatening behavior'

This is not the definition of rape under the law in england and Wales. Not sure about Scotland.

Please don't spread misinformation on the boards.

The part about having to include violence or threatening behaviour is particularly worrying.

I hate when people attempt to mislead women around the law, asserting that things that happen a lot are not crimes, when in fact they are.

Removing condom is rape, terms of consent violated, exposing woman to risk of pg, std.

Lying to get end away is shit but not criminal. At this point don't see how it could be. Line would be v difficult. Interesting though that a woman has been done around this (said was man).

The undercover police, that was utterly morally reprehensible and I believe the people who ordered those activities should face proceedings but I don't know what. Have laws been broken. They had kids with them ffs the deception lasted years and was paid for by us, the taxpayer.

AlisonGrant see you can't because nobody has been arrested for lying about being single and that's what the OP asked if lying about being single was rape

And if you read my first post you would see that see that I told the OP that lying about being single wouldn't be legally considered rape: I'd hence argue that it's not legally going to fly as rape

There isn't a legal definition of catfishing.

I have said three times now on this thread that lying about being single doesn't make sex rape. Please stop lying about what I've actually said.

If a consent violation happens around sex, isn’t that pretty much it? I’ve seen people make the case that prostitution can be perceived as rape as the financial hardships mean the consent is invalid as financial coercion is present. Could it also not be said that consent obtained through deception is also invalid?

Statutory rape ignores wether the victims actually consent as it’s deemed they cannot give informed consent. How can anyone give informed consent when deception occurs?

I'm equally disgusted and terrified that absolute definitions are being eroded.

We are being indoctrinated by political correctness.
Men can be women, women can be men, and rape can be "consensual sex which you later regret".

I fucking despair.

Dervel I draw the line between "rape" and "shitty behaviour" by asking "would the information withheld or misstated affect the person's risk assessment of the sex?" STI status, biological sex, and condom use all affect that risk assessment. Criminal record might affect that risk assessment. Bank balance and educational level wouldn't affect that risk assessment.

In the cases of the lesbian and the transman, their lack of male organs would have affected the risk assessment: the transman's prosthesis caused injury and bleeding to h* partner and the lesbian's partner would have assessed risk of pregnancy as lower. "Lower risk" is still different risk*, especially as in one of the cases (I forget which) the victim was under the impression that they were TTC and was getting upset because nothing was happening and she thought it was somehow her fault.

Lying to get end away is shit but not criminal. At this point don't see how it could be. Line would be v difficult. Interesting though that a woman has been done around this (said was man).

I remember getting quite frustrated when this case was discussed here at the time.

Clearly it has relevance to issues relating to trans issues, so the sex-by-deception element of the offence got most of the attention. TRAs were able to frame the whole thing as an example of anti-trans sentiment and centre the discussion around whether trans people should have to disclose their sex.

The perpetrator in that case penetrated the victim with an object. The victim had not consented to penetration with an object. There was no consent for penetration with an object - hence it was rape and should have been (was? I forget the precise specifics) prosecuted as such.

A penis is not an object. Consent to be penetrated by a penis does not equal consent to be penetrated by anything else the perpetrator feels like sticking up there.

That message seemed to get lost in the trans-related furore round the case.

Must have been assault by penetration

Rape requires penis in England and Wales

fraggling is correct.

My first sentence of my most recent post should have been I draw the line between "criminal sexual offence" and "shitty behaviour" by asking... because not all sexual offences are rape.

Assault by penetration carries the same sentencing options as rape btw.

Correction noted. Think I slipped into "common usage of the word" rather than "actual legal definition" there. Whichever word's used, that crime occurred as well as the sex-by-deception issue. But at the time our attention was diverted to the latter.