Toy Soldier_

You're being ridiculous. People have a right to change their mind. The person she had sex with was her husband, and she knew it was her husband. He did not conduct "false personation" to have sex with her.

In most states, consent is ineffective (legal ease for not-valid) if induced by deception. This basically means that no consent is given when sex is induced by deception.

In all acts of fraud, the victim provides what seems to be consent because they have yet to realize they have been tricked. Example- Bernie Madoff defrauded thousands of people of their assets. They not only agreed to give him thier money, they actually called their brokers or bankers and transferred funds in Madoff-managed accounts. But we have recognized that the deception invalidated their consent, and deemed their consent, no consent at all.

I am not being ridiculous at all - please give me valid reasoning for why it is more emotionally damaging to pretend to be in a high paying job in order to have sex with someone than it is to pretend to love someone in order to have sex with them?

Not about changing their mind ; in this hypothetical scenario, the partner who was planning to leave had known for months that they no longer loved their partner and had been planning to tell them for weeks. But when wanting sex they would tell their partner; "I love you" in order to encourage them into sexual activity.

How is that any different?

Here's another flipped example: what if a woman (as many women do) was to lie about her age? She tells some guy in a club that she's 35 and he then has sex with her, he then later finds out that she's 41,and this guy has sworn that he'll never have sex with anyone over the age of 40.

She has now raped him, correct?

I mean, not having sex with anyone over 40 would be a ridiculous stance is he was physically attracted to her anyway, but no more ridiculous than only having sex with "rich people".

But your stance is - and seriously now - that this woman who was embarrassed about her age, or this man who was embarrassed about his income, should be charged with a sexual assault? It's ****ing madness. If you choose to sleep with people you don't know (consensually!) then you accept that you don't know them.

What about people who are in relationships going out looking for sex with others and telling them that they're single when they're not? Are they rapists?

Hold on... So... When I was 13 and told a girl that I was a black belt in karate and had a dirt bike to impress her so that she would kiss me, was I actually sexually assaulting her?? ****, should I be on some sort of register?

I'm disgusted with you TS :nono:

I think all men should be accused of rape and then this way we catch 100% of rapists


disgusting creatures

So by this reasoning.The person being lied to has no responsibilty for their own actions or their own judgement.As soon as they're lied to that's it,All personal responsibility is gone,They cannot give consent,All responsibilty for what they do with their own body is passed over to the the person lying.
I can't agree.It is up to anybody to judge the situation for themselves and decide wether they give consent or not.That is our own responsibity and choice.
Being forced without consent or choice is then when it becomes rape.
If i took the risk of jumping onto a railway track thinking it was safe then i got hit by a train and somehow survived i would'nt blame the train driver.I took a risk which is something we all do when we consent to sleep with a person we don't know.They could be lying through their teeth to us but it is up to us as individuals as to wether we take that risk or not.Imo.

I think the problem here is that the definition of "rape" is being changed. Rape is forcing someone to have sex against their will and that's how it should stay imo

I agree.

I sometimes wonder if there's some sort of agenda to describe everything as "rape" in an attempt to actually dilute the term, and make ACTUAL rape seem less serious? I can't think of any other explanation :shrug:.

I can almost accept it being some sort of fraud, but it's not a rape or a sexual assault of any kind.

And like I said earlier - if you consider that to be fraud, then you sort of have to wonder... is the woman sleeping with someone just because he's rich (unless she's made it clear that it's her reason beforehand) not also fraud to the same degree? Hmmm.

Yes, that's actually what I was thinking myself aswell.

It might be morally wrong to lie to someone to get them into bed but you still choose to do it so it's not rape by any stretch of the imagination and it's pretty insulting to victims of actual rape to suggest that it's anywhere even near what they went through

Best point of the thread, not here for people getting out of rape on a technicality based on whether someone was informed or not about the attackers history

The claims in this video are balderdash. For one thing, Rape by Fraud has nothing to do with being "jilted."

And my recommendation about checking someone's ID when you meet them by internet dating is totally mischaracterized. It should be standard procedure to check the background of anyone you meet through internet dating. Don't wait 'til you're on your way to the bedroom.

Paul is apparently not at all in synch with the concept that every human being under the sun has the right to self determination over what they do with their body. Lies and manipulation strip you of your ability to knowingly consent.

Anyone wanting further information should read my book, Carnal Abuse By Deceit, which Paul, seems not to have done, thought he clearly expresses that he has a firm grasp on what I'm saying..... Absurd!

Strewth..
Where do we draw the line, what about us poor old housewives that are in bed with Poldark, have a great romp and then realise we were fantasising and it's the tried and tested hubby.
Have we cheated On said hubby?
Have we raped said Hubby!
Have we just had a great romp and who gives a chuff.



Seriously, if you are prepared to have a bonk with someone you think is a banker then get upset because he/she flips burgers at a fast food joint, put it down to one of life's experiences and get back out there on the prowl.

Lol.

I only slept with Leather Trumpet because he said he worked in Hedge Funds. Turns out he doesn't even have a hedge. B*stard...

Well i agreed with everything you said up until this line 'Lies and manipulation strip you of your ability to knowingly consent'.We as humans have the ability to consent or not whatever lies somebody is telling us.It is up to us to judge wether somebody actually is rich or infact works in McDonalds and is lying(not that being rich should be a reason to sleep with somebody).That is our responsbilty imo.I think we will have to agree to disagree on that.

He did, but he cut it down so that he could get a better view at the ladies sunbathing in the next door garden.

Trumpets Strumpet :idc:

Working on the lawsuit even as we speak...

Kirk told me that he was Nigel Farage but he had actually just put on an old spitting image mask. I wanted to be close to the power, but all I got were broken dreams and a broken coccyx.

Romps with bankers vs McDonald burger flippers is not what sexual assault by fraud is about. in fact, romps are not what it's about either.

Yes of course it would be.

I'm not going to bother replying to this thread anymore because it is obvious that nobody agrees with me though I have my opinions and I will stick with them :)

You really need to drop the banker vs McDonald Burger flipper thingy. That's not a case of rape by fraud.

In all cases of fraud, the victim appears to be giving consent because they are not "knowing" and are fooled into consent. But in every jurisdiction across the globe, CONSENT is INVALID when obtained by FRAUD.