Lying about vasectomy doesn’t make it rape.

[fascinated]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/man-who-lied-about-vasectomy-has-rape-conviction-quashed-s9kb6x9q5

Very disappointing case.

So what was he found guilty of?

He was convicted of rape, but he has now had the conviction quashed so no guilt on that charge now.

@fascinated I just looked up the sexual offences act (2003) and for the moment rape is only men. With the offender requiring to be a 'he / his'.

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis

However i doubt the 'he' & 'his' in the act will survive the trans issue.

but it's almost certain that if a man lied to a woman about his HIV status this would be rape

No it wouldn't but it would be a separate crime in its own right which could be committed by a man or a woman.

www.tht.org.uk/hiv-and-sexual-health/living-well-hiv/legal-issues/how-law-works

I could understand if it were separated - so that consenting sex isn‘t rape but cheating your way to unprotected sex can be prosecuted for risking grievous bodily harm or for causing it, if a pregnancy or std infection is the result. In any case, how lying about fertility and having unprotected sex is different from removing a condom without consent is beyond me.

Though I can see the logic in calling these things rape, too.

I could understand if it were separated - so that consenting sex isn‘t rape but cheating your way to unprotected sex can be prosecuted for risking grievous bodily harm or for causing it, if a pregnancy or std infection is the result. In any case, how lying about fertility and having unprotected sex is different from removing a condom without consent is beyond me.

I'm thinking along the same lines too. I wouldn't want the meaning of the rape to become diluted to the point where women could be accused of it for lying about being on the pill.

Now I can see that this was a shitty thing to do and the guy is clearly an all-round wrong 'un but rape?! Plus when a woman becomes pregnant and the man doesn't want it the general response is "well he shouldn't have had unprotected sex". Surely it's the same principle? If you're a woman and you don't want a baby to be the outcome of sex, take responsibility for that and protect yourself... I'd say both parties are in the wrong here. Condoms protect against more than pregnancy too.

Plus when a woman becomes pregnant and the man doesn't want it the general response is "well he shouldn't have had unprotected sex"

Well yes - that is generally the response on here.

The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are far worse for a woman. This will be howled at as "victim blaming" but in my view as the consequences are far worse a woman should take responsibility for avoiding it- especially in a casual, don't really know the man relationship where there's no expectation on either side that they will commit to each other.

It was foolish and irresponsible just to take his word about it.

Now I can see that this was a shitty thing to do and the guy is clearly an all-round wrong 'un but rape?!

I think contract analogy is informative. Not that sex is a contract but still. If you break the material terms, something essential to the contract, you have nullified the contract. So in my mind, consent isn't present when you are aware that were the woman aware of the information you lied about, she wouldn't have sex. You know that's not informed consent.

However that gets interesting when people hide their married status. It's not causing bodily harm, which unprotected does. But I still wouldn't consent to sex with a married man.

So in my mind, consent isn't present when you are aware that were the woman aware of the information you lied about, she wouldn't have sex. You know that's not informed consent

Do you apply that to women who lie about being on the pill? Or who are on it but know they haven't been taking it properly?

Well that comes down to the bodily harm point I explained in the last paragraph. When it isn't present, it is more complicated.

Broadly I think people shouldn't lie about material terms. And that includes the pill.

I'm prepared to accept that this isn't exactly rape but more a sexual assault. Sex by deception should be a crime eg sexual encounters involving deceit are wrong whenit is reasonableto believe that had you provided your sex partner withsome information you haveabout yourself prior to the encounter, then he or she would not have agreed to have sex (owing to that information).
Gayle Newland who pretended to be a man was tried for sexual assault.

Indeed. It just doesn’t make sense that some deceptions seem not to vitiate consent while others do. That’s case law for you. Messy.

Is it in the States where they have a first, second degree rape system? I’d need to look it up.

There’s a lot of complexity around rape/sexual assault. In some cases the absence of consent is very clear (stranger rape etc), whereas there are others where a contractual model may assist in analysis. From the victim’s perspective the immense psychological and emotional harm done (not to mention physical harm) is the key and sadly the current model and (lack of) enforcement does not even begin to address this.

It may be wiser for there to be a separate offence as it can in a sense make real rape seem less bad if we include a myriad of other deceptions within it, perhaps?

Some women go out with a man and have sex with him only because he says he is worth a lot of money or has a good job or men sleep with a woman because she reassures him she is over the age of consent. There is a huge load of lying going on in the sexual arena and where we draw a line and say that is forced sexual intercourse - rape is not easy.

I think people who infect others with sexual diseases without disclosing it don't rape but can be sued for personal injury for example.

Also the older case law where women got pregnant because a doctor botched a sterilisation used to say a child is always a blessing so no damages although that might well now be reversed.

I think it's sex by deception but don't think that is rape. Some women tell men they are on the pill when they aren't. That isn't rape. If you're having casual sex take responsibility for the contraception. If it means you end up with 2 forms of contraception that's fine.

Some women go out with a man and have sex with him only because he says he is worth a lot of money or has a good job or men sleep with a woman because she reassures him she is over the age of consent.

Those are very different scenarios! Due diligence on the age of consent.

I always think of the trauma of the women deceived by undercover police and having relationships and children with them. That's horribly traumatic deception.

To go slightly against the grain here, and just thinking out loud, I think it's potentially dangerous to bring 'chances of becoming pregnant' into whether something is classified as rape or not. The woman's fertility at that point in time would then possibly become taken into account and fertility is this weird grey area which doesn't really have an accurate 'measurement' and would become very far removed from the actual act in question.

I think it's sex by deception but don't think that is rape.
I think I'd agree (having no legal knowledge!)

Some women tell men they are on the pill when they aren't. That isn't rape. Tricking a man into having PIV sex would never be rape as rape is defined as someone penetrating someone else without consent. YOur scenario isn't that and not sure what it has to do with this case!

I did think that in a number of countries, including the UK, had in courts accepted that sex by deception was rape, ie that withouth that deception consent would not have been given. And as said up thread in this instance had further consequences for the woman because she became pregnant and had to have an abortion.

In an earlier BBC report when it was first said the w*nker was going to appeal one of the grounds was reported as:

"If these convictions are upheld on appeal, the concern is that members of the public, both male and female, who have never been considered criminals in the eyes of the law will be at risk of prosecution for serious sexual offences," said Lawrance's solicitor Shaun Draycott.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49127545

Totally batshit. You want to over turn a conviction so that others who should have been prosecuted for the offence wont have to be?! ie the appeal is to allow men to obtain sex by deception and not be prosecuted!

And it seems trans activists also dont want to have to be honest and think they are entitled to obtain sex by deception:

Transgender activist Sophie Cook has stated that the UK's Sexual Offences Act requires transgender people to tell partners about their sexual history as part of its requirements that people making sexual consent decisions can make informed consent, and that the law is an infringement on trans peoples' human rights and on their privacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

And these 2 cases:

In 2000 an Israeli man Eran Ben Avraham was convicted of fraud for pretending to be a pilot and a medical doctor in order to have sex with a woman. In Israel pilots and medical doctors are held in particularly high esteem by women and their mothers.

In 2010 a married Israeli Arab Muslim man, Sabbar Kashur, was convicted of rape by deception after pretending to be a Jewish bachelor interested in a long-term relationship prior to having sex with a Jewish woman he just met. His initial sentence of two years but his sentence was eventually reduced to nine months.
www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-mysteries-love/201712/rape-deception
(I wonder if the difference in which crimes the 2 men were convicted of are to do with their race.)

Totally batshit. You want to over turn a conviction so that others who should have been prosecuted for the offence wont have to be?!

In their opinion (any judgement is an opinion) the current, relevant laws don't criminalise that act. It's less a case of approval and more a case of wishing to avoid unjustifiable ex post facto.

I wouldnt have called it rape either tbh. Definitely reprehensible and needs prosecution but not rape.

I just looked up the sexual offences act (2003) and for the moment rape is only men. With the offender requiring to be a 'he / his'.

The offender has to be physically male (because the Act mentions a penis), but the use of the words "he" and "his" doesn't carry any significance in itself. The Interpretation Act 1978 states that "In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears, - (a)words importing the masculine gender include the feminine; (b)words importing the feminine gender include the masculine; (c)words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular."

The reference to a penis might count as a "contrary intention" - nevertheless, the masculine pronoun in itself is legally meaningless.

There was one case where a woman was tricked into performing sex acts online, on video, because she thought she was being blackmailed by criminals and her family would get hurt. In fact it was just her boyfriend. This was not sex by deception, not criminal at all, because it didn't affect the quality of the sex act. But check out this very similar case - a father was upset that his daughter's boyfriend dumped her.He decided to embarrass the lad by posing as an attractive woman online. The dad filmed the boyfriend doing a sex act and then revealed who he really was. This WAS deemed sex by deception.

Wait, blackmailing a person into sex isn't criminal, (when the victim is female) but catfishing is (when the victim is male?) How is the first scenario not legally blackmail, if she thought she was being blackmailed?

I certainly remember even when I studied criminal law a long time ago it was very complicated.

There was that case fairly recently of that on line affair where the people met with the woman having agreed to be blind folded (that was part of their sex game) so did not know the person she was into was in fact a woman with a strap on. I certainly cannot remember which way a lot of these different cases went but it is a bit of a minefield.

I still think we need to "save" rape for the really most serious stuff otherwise we "dilute" it as a term in a sense and start muddling she didn't realise he wore a hair piece or was an undischarged bankrupt or that he was black or ginger when she had sex in the dark with him and had she known she would never have agreed. Then you also get cases of someone pretending to be someone else - identical twins or sex in the dark and you didn't sleep with the person you thought.

There are also as mentioned above personal injury offences eg if someone deliberately passes on STDs (and I suppose covid 19) and less serious than rape offences.