Posted on 03/05/2021 1:31:50 PM PST by Stravinsky
Imagine the following hypothetical situation: Frank and Ellen meet at a night course and end up getting drinks together after class several times. The drinks start to feel like dates, so Ellen asks Frank if he is married, making it clear that adultery is a deal-breaker for her. Frank is married, but he lies and says he is single. The two go to bed. Is Frank guilty of rape?
To most people, even those who consider Frank a dishonorable creep, the answer is clearly no. The law agrees: In most American jurisdictions, Frank is not liable for any tort or crime, let alone something as serious as sexual assault.
But why? This question has been a source of contention among legal experts for decades, ever since the law professor Susan Estrich argued that the law of rape should prohibit fraud to procure sex, just as the law of theft prohibits fraud to secure money. Ellen did not consent to have sex with a married man, the argument goes, so the sex she had with Frank was not consensual.
To many feminist legal scholars, the law’s failure to regard sexual fraud as a crime — when fraud elsewhere, such as fraud in business transactions, is taken to invalidate legal consent — shows that we are still beholden to an antiquated notion that rape is primarily a crime of force committed against a chaste, protesting victim, rather than primarily a violation of the right to control access to one’s body on one’s own terms.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Does it apply to politicians who lie to get my vote?
It’s not rape. She consented to get it on with THAT dude in front of her. It all boils down to that one fact. If she didn’t take the time to get to know him better, that’s her poor judgement.
If a spouse cheats, are they also guilt of raping their spouse a few days later? I mean, had they known, they wouldn’t have agreed.
If a woman beds down and marries a rich man with the intent of divorcing him in couple of years and leaving with a bag of cash, would anyone suggest arresting her for robbery?
What if the man was 24 and the woman/girl told him he was 16? Then she continued to lie to him to get him to fly in to NYC twice a month for weekend hookups?
Asking for a friend from 36 years ago.
“Susan Estrich argued that the law of rape should prohibit fraud to procure sex, just as the law of theft prohibits fraud to secure money.”
Now at least we know they DO view it as a financial transaction. Kinda refreshing honesty for once.
No Frank is a low life lying adulterer. Which is what happens when you pick up a guy in a bar for a one night stand. Crying rape is just blaming your poor life choices on the guy who accepted them.
Sorry, my friend told me she lied that she was 19 but was only 16. His memory from 36 years ago is slipping.
But I don’t ‘identify’ as married...
A more plausible scenario is that Frank tells Ellen he is a hedge fund manager and that his Porsche is in Germany having the engine rebuilt and Ellen has sex with him only to discover he lives in his parents’ basement and is a part-time pizza deliverer.
Seriously, I had a question sort like this on my first-year Criminal Law exam 30 years ago, only the scenario was that a masked intruder breaks into a woman’s house and forces himself on her. When the act is finished, he rips off his mask and yells “Surprise,” revealing himself as the woman’s husband. All I remember is that some of the women in the class claimed they were so traumatized by the question that it affected their performance on the test and demanded a higher grade.
Of course, if we had maintained the standard that you only have sex with someone to whom you are married, we wouldn’t be contemplating such nonsense.
Just wondering if these SJW idiots will apply same standard to women who lie to a man about being on birth control, get pregnant, and then expect child support for the next 18 years?
I don’t understand this: “To many feminist legal scholars, the law’s failure to regard sexual fraud as a crime — when fraud elsewhere, such as fraud in business transactions, is taken to invalidate legal consent — shows that we are still beholden to an antiquated notion that rape is primarily a crime of force committed against a chaste, protesting victim, rather than primarily a violation of the right to control access to one’s body on one’s own terms.”
Wouldn’t “deflowering” make rape by fraud a worse crime, not less of one?
Of if Ellen used to be Elmer...
>> Yes but if “legal consent” is nullified in a business transactions then the transaction is treated as if it never happened. Neither party gets sent to jail. <<
Really? Fraud never gets you sent to jail? Fascinating.
Until the standard is applied in the other direction. What if a woman lies and the man took the subject matter to be a "deal breaker"?
Did Ellen do her due diligence? Not really ... she should have found others to vouch for Frank.
Caveat Emptor.
Otherwise, the court system will be overwhelmed with dissatisfied princesses gambling on their latest on-line prince who later proved to come up a little short.
That theory can be used for any mistruth. A job, color of hair, etc
I agree with his argument. Cat fishing is fraud
Lol. Perfect
I’m glad your friend cleared that up.
“To many feminist legal scholars, the law’s failure to regard sexual fraud as a crime”
it’s a slippery slope ... how long before it’ll be considered rape to exaggerate the length of one’s male member or one’s “staying” power? Whoopee might be on to something about her comment about “rape, rape” ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.