OH MY FUCKING GOD.
Who the hell do we write to?

Hmmm this is a tough one.

The reason I say that is because if wouldnt that go directly against picking a helplessly smashed woman, and then getting her consent?

On the other hand, its like, lying shouldnt be grounds for rape. If so, every woman and man would be guilty of rape.

I dont know where I stand on this one. Because this type of fraud certainly would constitute a crime in my mind, but then how do you not penalize all fraud or lying?

That is disgusting.I can't believe they won't over turn that law. How is letting fraudulent sex remain legal even close to moral?

I only equate it to preying on a drunk woman because this type of fraud would seem, predatory, almost evil in comparison to lying about one's social or marital status to get in the sack.

Something undoubtedly needs to be done, somehow, without penalizing petty lying. This guy should be a registered offender in my book.

Scilian, you really frighten me. Saying that you make more money than you do, or that you're a lawyer when really you're really a law student is hardly the same thing than purposely misleading a person to think that you are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON. That goes beyond "lying" and if you don't think there's something criminal in it, I don't even know what to say.

I second that outrage! (ABC, WTF?!)

Ya know, if this creepy jerk had drugged her or knocked her out instead of tricking her into sex under cover of darkness, I'm sure the court would have ruled differently. Non-consent is non-consent, pure and simple.

And the state's argument of "rape is defined only as thus, not thus" is just pathetic.

Okay, you make your stance more clear in your second post. That's good. I still think that it's a pretty cut and dry case, but at least you recognize that this guy is in fact a sex offender.

Jesus Christ, has our Supreme Court not heard that we're a progressive state? The man was using mistaken identity for the same purpose others use alcohol and/or other drugs: to get sex from a woman who otherwise say 'no'. Looks like rape to me.

Well then you scare easy clara. That was my entire point you tard, how do you criminalize this without criminalizing petty lying? (I clearly compared it to a predatory crime)

Scilian - that's a good point. There would have to be measures taken to figure out what constitutes fraudulent sex. However, I would think outright pretending to be some one you know the other person WOULD have sex with should always qualify as rape.

I apologize if my last post gets through then Clara, I thought you were just attacking me for posing the question of how it could be criminalized without criminalizing the the entire nation of female and male youngsters.

That was my entire point you tard

Not OK.

That was my entire point you tard, how do you criminalize this without criminalizing petty lying? (I clearly compared it to a predatory crime)

Hey, can we maybe not use "tard" as an insult? You know, because it's insulting, derogatory, and hurtful to people with mental handicaps, or those of us related to or friends with people who have those handicaps.
It's wrong to use someone else's status as a person as a means of insulting other people, just like it's wrong to use "fag" or "homo" as an insult.
Thanks.

I second you, EG. Grow up, Scilian.

WTF is wrong with some of you people? Im so sorry if it offended you. Maybe sausage fest offends me. So that isnt a sexist word to refer to guys? So tit fest is ok but tard isnt?

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the decision. Unless Massachusetts changes the law (which I doubt they will, for reasons I can explain if anyone wants), the phrase "by force" is pretty clear. You might be able to make a case for this to fall under an impaired consent law, but I doubt it.

And Scillian, the last time I heard "retard" as an insult (as anything, really) was in 2nd grade. There are so many more interesting and non-offensive insults to use.

How would you craft a law against this kind of thing without making the guy who lies about how much money he makes, or the woman who lies about her marital status, a rapist?

"non-offensive insults"

:-O

Oh, it's possible, Raging Moderate. Same way the craft laws forbidding impersonating an FBI agent, for instance.

Pretty much. First off, we've got two problems here. The first is calling someone a name for daring to disagree with you. That, in itself, is not OK. The second is the name you chose. You used a word for mentally disabled people as an insult, and it's a word that's recent enough to still carry that connotation (as opposed to, for example, idiot, imbecile, moron, etc., all of which were originally technical terms for people who scored poorly on IQ tests and/or had some degree of mental retardation, but have since passed only into use as insults). Why wouldn't you expect people to be pissed off about it?

"Sausage fest," on the other hand, is a metaphorical reference to the fact that hey, there sure are a lot of penises around this place. It...pretty much means what it says. Unless you think noting that men have penises is an insult, it's not that comparable.

RM, it wouldn't be too hard to craft a law that recognizes degree--lying about one's marital status or income is creepy, but not criminal. Actually sneaking into somebody's bed and lying about one's identity is a whole different kettle of fish. Degree matters.

I think the basic issue is about how you define consent; is it positively-defined (I must give you consent) or negatively-defined (if I don't clearly say no, all lights are green!).

I just don't see how anyone can justify working from the negative definition. So we're all ready to have sex with every single person in the world at every moment unless we clearly express our exception? That's absurd, obviously.

IMO, consent cannot have been properly given because of the GROSS misrepresentation of the facts. In her mind, she consented to have sex with her husband, not his skeezy brother... there's a difference. And WTF.

So then EG, groups of women should be referred to as Tit fests, or pussy fests?

It depends on the context. Don Imus, for example, should keep his mouth shut. But if Jessica et al want to do a post about a big female-only gathering, then I'd take it in good humor.

But if you really can't tell the difference between members of a subordinated group mocking a powerful group, and vice versa, then this is something we're not going to agree about.

I fail to see how it justifies you personally insulting Cara because she disagrees with you by using the pseudo-word "tard."

I think I'm going to be sick. The idea that I could willingly have sex with someone, only to discover that it was someone else the whole time... It's twisted and disgusting and in no way constitutes consensual sex. The fact that she didn't fight is totally immaterial, because consenting to have sex with one man is NOT consenting to have sex with another!

And Scilian, way to go. Not only did you use a totally offensive term, but you've pulled the classic bait-and-switch of crying "You did it first!" and then trying to turn the discussion to be about what another person said. The classy thing to do would have been to simply apologizing for your word choice. Even classier would have been not to say it in the first place.

Well than cool. I could care less if some people find the word offensive or not.

Bait and switch crying? who is crying? Im just saying shut the fuck up about being offended, unless this just some kind of pussy fest or something.

"The fact that she didn't fight is totally immaterial, because consenting to have sex with one man is NOT consenting to have sex with another!"

Agreed. But the law does say that rape is sex without consent and with force. It's hard to get "force" out of "fraud". Fault the law, not the decision.

Im just saying shut the fuck up about being offended

Why? Because you don't like it? Too bad.

Scilian, nobody said you were crying, for pity's sake. I said:

bait-and-switch of crying "You did it first!"

In this case crying means the same things as saying, yelling, shouting, asserting, whispering, etc. etc. Check your reading comprehension.

And why should we have to shut up about being offended? Because you don't like having people point out what a shitty thing it was to say? Bother you? Make you uncomfortable? Maybe just annoy you?

Tough luck. Shouldn't say stupid shit like that in the first place.

WTF is wrong with some of you people? Im so sorry if it offended you.

No, you're rather clearly not sorry, or you wouldn't be taking offense to being called on your shit, and trying to justify it by saying "but what about X?"

Maybe sausage fest offends me.

If it offended you, you could have mentioned it, and we could have discussed why it offended you, and whether it was hurtful to use that phrase. Saying that it offends you now doesn't detract from the hurtfulness of the word you used, nor does it justify it.

It's wrong to use words like that in a hateful manner, and it's wrong to get bent out of shape for being called on it. I think that it's wrong to use someone's weight, sexual orientation, gender, sex, handicap, race, etc as a weapon to insult that or any other person. If you've got a problem with someone, say what your problem is, don't use other people's statuses as weapons to hurt or deride.

If you didn't think that "tard" was derogatory or hadn't thought about the fact that it could hurt unintended targets, that's one thing- a better response would be to take a moment and consider what's being said, instead of getting hostile and going on the offense. You said something that was kind of shitty, and got called on it. Now's your chance to learn from the experience and maybe not make the same mistake in the future.

Oooh boy. Scilian, may pussies (the kind with sharp claws and short tempers) rain on your head for that remark. Pussy fest?! First of all, using pussy as a term for a wuss (as opposed to the older definitions, cat, or kind person) is incredibly offensive, and if you're so incredibly stupid as to not understand why, you ought to leave before you are torn to shreds by these "pussies."

Second, grow up! My middle school brother is more mature than you.

"But if you really can't tell the difference between members of a subordinated group mocking a powerful group, and vice versa, then this is something we're not going to agree about."

If I could just put that on a t-shirt I could wear every day...it would make my life a lot easier. Nice one.

Well than cool. I could care less if some people find the word offensive or not.

Well, thanks for clarifying. That just makes it clear to me that you're an asshole. Thanks for making that crystal clear to everyone, though. I hate it when you can't tell if someone is actually an asshole, or just clueless. It's clear now that you're intentionally ignorant, not clueless. Thanks.

Im just saying shut the fuck up about being offended, unless this just some kind of pussy fest or something.

I don't think you get to come on here and demand other people not criticize you, when the majority of your posts have been nothing but criticism of this site or the people here. You said something shitty. You got called on it. You could have said "I didn't realize that was offensive, sorry" and we'd have all moved on. You acted like an asshole, instead, and now you're unhappy about it.
Tough.

Not touching the insult debate....

I'm rather disturbed that the article says she was asleep, and then he came in and had sex with her. Like, not that she was sleeping and he woke her up and she's like, yay sex!, but it implies that he started sex with her while she was still asleep. Which is rape. Maybe the article is wrong, but that should have been enough for a rape conviction, even if the fraud angle isn't specifically illegal. Or not, because the courts suck at convicting rapists.

Here is a link to the actual opinion:

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=%2FWelcome%2FFrameless%2FSearch%2Ewl&n=2&ACTION=SEARCH&bhcp=1&bQlocfnd=True&CFID=0&DB=MA%2DORSLIP&Method=TNC&query=to%28allsct+allsctrs+allsctoj%29+&RLT=CLID%5FQRYRLT23010115&RLTDB=CLID%5FDB23010115&sp=MassOF%2D1001&ssl=n&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&RS=WEBL7.04&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001

I agree with Bearcat, the problem is not with the opinion itself but with the Massachusetts legislature. 50 years ago they court held that fraud was not covered by the language of the criminal statute and the no one changed the law. (I for one am curious Bearcat why you think this cant be changed) This despite the fact that many other states completely revised their statutes on rape and sexual assualt. Compare with Texas's 11 point definition of lack of consent:

(b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the
consent of the other person if:
(1) the actor compels the other person to submit or
participate by the use of physical force or violence;
(2) the actor compels the other person to submit or
participate by threatening to use force or violence against the
other person, and the other person believes that the actor has the
present ability to execute the threat;
(3) the other person has not consented and the actor
knows the other person is unconscious or physically unable to
resist;
(4) the actor knows that as a result of mental disease
or defect the other person is at the time of the sexual assault
incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting
it;
(5) the other person has not consented and the actor
knows the other person is unaware that the sexual assault is
occurring;
(6) the actor has intentionally impaired the other
person's power to appraise or control the other person's conduct by
administering any substance without the other person's knowledge;
(7) the actor compels the other person to submit or
participate by threatening to use force or violence against any
person, and the other person believes that the actor has the ability
to execute the threat;
(8) the actor is a public servant who coerces the other
person to submit or participate;
(9) the actor is a mental health services provider or a
health care services provider who causes the other person, who is a
patient or former patient of the actor, to submit or participate by
exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the actor;
(10) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other
person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's
emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's
professional character as spiritual adviser; or
(11) the actor is an employee of a facility where the
other person is a resident, unless the employee and resident are
formally or informally married to each other under Chapter 2,
Family Code.

Note however that even under this broader definition nothing clearly covers this case (I think your best shot is 5). Crafting a narrow additional definition about impersonation would be pretty easy, crafting language is broader and covers false statements of facts gets tricky.

Thanks to EG, roymac, et al for defending me against the name calling before I had a chance to do it yourself. You did a beautiful job.

I would just like to add, though, that if you're going to insult me, you could at least get my name right. Sheesh.

There was a case like this recently here in Denmark. The guy was convicted since fraudulent sex is illegal here. I've never heard anything like it before, but I'm glad we actually have laws about it :/

I didn't say it can't be changed, I said it likely wouldn't. Aside from the likely outcry from MRA folks, it smacks of some rather atrocious laws that were repealed some time ago. Basically, telling a woman you would marry her when you didn't intend to in order to have sex with her was a tort (not a crime), as was telling her you were single when you weren't, etc. If Massachusetts were to try to change the law, it would be called a sex fraud law or something like that by both supporters and opponents, and these old laws are still fresh enough in some peoples minds that the bill would die.

On the other hand, a (very) narrow bill covering only deliberate impersonation would likely succeed, but, to tell the truth, I'm not sure that it happens enough for the Massachusetts legislature to bother.

I'm rather disturbed that the article says she was asleep, and then he came in and had sex with her.

It's a classic she said / he said situation.

From the article:

The woman told police she was asleep alone in the bedroom she shared with her longtime boyfriend when a man came in, climbed into bed and had sexual intercourse with her, according to the SJC decision.

The woman said that during the intercourse she believed the man was her boyfriend. Had she known it was the defendant, she would never have consented, she said.

Suliveres claimed the sex was consensual, telling police the woman came to him while he was asleep in another room and invited him to her bedroom to have sex, court documents said.

If her story is true, it's clearly rape. If his story is true (and she invited him, perhaps mistakenly thinking he was the boyfriend), should it still be rape?

Whoa, step away for a second and there goes the neighborhood. Scilian, outside of the sheer offensiveness of the word, we don't tolerate personal attacks on the site. So let's all back the fuck up.

There seems to be several variations of this article floating around. In terms of the woman being asleep or not, this is an exerpt from the Boston.com version:

"The incident happened when Duane was working the night shift at an envelope manufacturer in Westfield, the brief said. At 3 a.m., the woman later told authorities, she was awakened by the sound of the door opening in the dark room and said, "Duane, why are you home so early?" but heard no response. Then, she said, she felt someone who she thought was her boyfriend get into bed, remove her clothes, and climb on top of her. They had sex for about 10 minutes, she told police.

After he got up, he opened the door and she saw in the light from the hallway that it was Alvin Suliveres, she told authorities. She contacted the police shortly afterward."

In terms of impersonating, according to this exerpt he never claimed to be the boyfriend, he just didn't answer her question.

The Boston.com article is here: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/05/state_high_cour.html

yesbut has it right...the "consent" was premised on the identity of the man, therefore it didn't exist. What's crazy is how the MA rape law is centered around the use of force rather than the absence of consent.

"In terms of impersonating, according to this exerpt he never claimed to be the boyfriend, he just didn't answer her question."

WTF? so it's okay to rape someone then - as long as you don't lie first.

"In terms of impersonating, according to this exerpt he never claimed to be the boyfriend, he just didn't answer her question."

OH, so everything's all right then. Another rapist gets away it, but hey - he didn't lie.

Rape is clearly no longer illegal. No one is ever guilty of it, and the man's word is always the more credible one.

(sorry if I double posted)

People here have been eloquent in talking about the skirmish with Scilian, so my take on it is not about discouraging same. What I do want to say is - I used to come across this guy who was exactly like Scilian, on another unrelated-to-feminism board. And after I don't know how many times of smacking him down (like Scilian, he was easy prey), I felt towards him like I feel towards Scilian now: someone who behaves that way in interactions with others, online or off, does not really have any opinions on anything - other than "It is immensely satisfying to fight with people." There is no other logical explanation for the content of his/her (Scilian's) posts. It is my experience that the only thing that would effect him/her would be to not talk to him/her. And the idea of getting on his/her nerves in return is something that, I admit, in my own petty/combative way, I find very satisfying.

I guess I don't understand why some posters can't agree that lying about what you do for a living is far different then entering someone's bedroom and initiating sex with her when it's clear that she thinks you're her significant other. And the law isn't so restrictive that it can't apply degrees to this sort of thing. I mean, it's illegal to give someone roofies and have sex with her, right? How is that not fraud? You're rendering that person unable to give consent. This woman was unable to give consent to her boyfriend's brother because she didn't even know it was him in bed with her!

This was clearly an assault.

However, I would think outright pretending to be some one you know the other person WOULD have sex with should always qualify as rape.

Could he be held legally accountable for something like identity theft? It seems like that's the level of "lying" we're talking about here, rather than just fudging the details of your resume (though that, while not constituting rape, is pretty skunky too).

What's interesting to me is that the Mass. Supreme Court did not rule that the woman's version of the story is untrue, according to ABC. The guy claims SHE came to HIM for sex, but the court doesn't seem to have ruled in his favor--saying she knew what she was doing and it was consensual. Rather, they ruled that EVEN IF she was coerced into sex with someone she believed was someone else, that doesn't count as rape (e.g. sex by force). Hmm . . .

I agree that there's a huge difference between exaggeratng your job or your income or your mad scrabble skills and intentionally misleading someone about your identity.

I wonder how differently this would've been treated if the man weren't her boyfriends brother. Let's say the circumstances are the same, she's asleep, a guy gets in bed with her and she thinks it's her boyfriend so they have sex and then it turns out some guy just picked the lock to her apartment and came into have sex with her.

i think they'd have a hard time not calling that rape (not that i understand why they aren't calling this rape to begin with). so i feel like the fact that she knew her rapist probably gave them an excuse to doubt her. not a good one at all, but i wonder how much that had to do with it.

i also wonder how much victim-blaming played into this. you know, in a "how could you be having sex with him and not know that it wasn't your boyfriend" kinda way.

shitty. it's all shitty.

Note to self: Add MA to the list of states to avoid, right above MD.

JoanKelly -
I'm not defending Scilian's recent behavior, but to be fair, s/he has contributed meaningful or insightful comments in previous threads. Based on that, I question the assertion that s/he is just here to stir shit up or start fights.

That's not to say an apology wouldn't be nice, but let's not break out the tar and feathers over an ill-considered choice of words. Everyone has a bad day once in a while.

I doubt Scilian will use the word "tard" on this blog again, and that's good enough for me.

What happened to the formatting on this thread? Can we fix it? And by "we," I mean, well, Jessica and the rest of the mods.

"Saying that you make more money than you do, or that you're a lawyer when really you're really a law student is hardly the same thing than purposely misleading a person to think that you are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON."

I don't think any other laws on fraud treat impersonation as uniquely more evil than any other forms of fraud.

I do think it's suspect that impersonation is throught of as uniquely more worth of protection than other forms of fraud, I do think it's got something to do with old fashioned ideas about feminine virtue. I can't see any good justification for singling that out but letting people who lie about other things off the hook.

"I guess I don't understand why some posters can't agree that lying about what you do for a living is far different then entering someone's bedroom and initiating sex with her when it's clear that she thinks you're her significant other."

The suggestion seems to me that profession is so trivial that people mislead into sleeping with someone because they think they're a lawyer, or whatever, are so shallow they don't deserve the protection of the law, whereas identity is a more serious matter. Personally I think that's a suspect line of thinking. But there are plenty of other things 'serious' things to lie about that are more serious: that you haven't had an affair, that you're using birth control, that you've tested negative for an STD. If you're arguing that impersonation is the only genuine fraud, don't just argue against the easy cases.

While Im not saying this in reference to the actual case, since I know little enough about what supposedly happened, never mind what actually did happen. However Im just going to agree with most others, in that I believe tricking someone into sex, by whatever means, is as bad as forcing someone to have sex.

Wait wait wait . . .

So an eighteen-year-old can get locked up for having loving, consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old, but nothing happens to a person who uses deceit to obtain non-consensual sex??

Our system sucks.

Personally I think that's a suspect line of thinking. But there are plenty of other things 'serious' things to lie about that are more serious: that you haven't had an affair, that you're using birth control, that you've tested negative for an STD. If you're arguing that impersonation is the only genuine fraud, don't just argue against the easy cases.

I know of a guy who slipped off the condom before entering the woman. That strikes me as non-consented, because she consented to protected sex, not unprotected sex.

i also wonder how much victim-blaming played into this. you know, in a "how could you be having sex with him and not know that it wasn't your boyfriend" kinda way.

Well, obviously I would notice that some skinny 5'7 guy wasn't my boyfriend, but a lot of brothers have very similar builds. It's doubtful that I would notice a one-inch or 5-10 lbs difference in the dark, especially if I'm not looking for it and I'm half-asleep.

This woman was unable to give consent to her boyfriend's brother because she didn't even know it was him in bed with her!

I don't think the fact she didn't know it was him matters.

If the Boston.com article is accurate, he knew she thought he was his brother, therefore he did rape her. The law must be changed.

But what if she had called him "Baby" instead of "Duane"?

Can "I thought she knew it was me" be a legitimate defense in such a situation?

prairielily,

i agree that i probably wouldn't notice the difference either. but i'm sure she's getting a lot of shit from that. probably at least a little from her boyfriend.

and i agree with Jes. the system sucks. bad.

The entire law makes me incredibly squeamish. The fact that it states rape is sex "with force and against her will" poses a large problem outside of just this one case. How do we define force? Many women don't fight off their attackers. Some women are too drunk to fight off their attackers. Would a court rule that to be "force" or just a lack of consent? Clearly, to everyone here (and everyone with a working brain) a lack of consent is enough to qualify it as rape, but would it be enough to LEGALLY qualify it as rape under this statute? I'm worried that it wouldn't. I'm certainly not trained in law, so I don't know, I'm just throwing my personal ideas and impressions out there. Someone who does know more about law, please feel free to straighten me out if I'm wrong. But this law seems to be way too vague and in major need of an overhaul. And we're not talking about some backwards red state . . . this is fucking Massachusetts. They're quite liberal there, so I certainly hope that the population and the legislature would support extended legislation.

As for the question of how she didn't realize it wasn't her boyfriend, I knew that was going to come up at some point. My husband and I had a conversation about that right after I read this and I wrote a blog post on the topic. Let's suffice it to say that while it's unlikely in most circumstances, it certainly is very possible.

Colleen, something that happens all the time in criminal cases is that a court makes a ruling of law that is really bad or silly because it wants to decide the facts but can't. Deciding what the facts are in the criminal justice system is generally the jury's job; leaving the court to say, "even if X is true, it wasn't a crime," when what they really think is "X didn't happen, but juries are crazy and who knows what they'll say." At least this is what many lawyers in the process think that judges do. (The same thing happens with rulings excluding evidence, where some judges bend over backwards to avoid saying, "Officer A is a baldfaced liar and nobody would believe his ridiculous story," so they instead say, "even though X is true, the evidence should still be thrown out because {insert specious legal reasoning}."

A statutory fix, narrowly drafted, is easy: just add the the conditions under which consent is not present, "the actor has reason to believe that the other person believes to actor to be a person (a) other than the actor; and (b)known to the other person.

Defining a rule about other misrepresentations just is not going to happen until we make a hell of a lot more social change. The truth is, we have enough trouble getting nonfeminists to recognize any rape beyond the use of force; getting them to agree that saying what a potential sex partner wants to hear to "score" is rape is a target that I think is a long way off.

As a legislative matter, I think the way to get to the political goal of criminalizing a material misrepresentation to a sex partner is to make it a separate offense and start small, making it a B misdemeanor. I'm not saying that's fair or right, just that that's the way to get people on board with the idea that it is criminal conduct at all. And the definition has to include a "materiality" or "reasonable reliance" element such that the fraudster believes the victim would not consent to sex if he or she had knowledge of the truth. For example, "I wasn't fired from that job, I resigned" probably is not material. "I've never had an STD," or "I am the casting director for the new Survivor, want to be on TV?" are things probably said in the anticipation that the other person will rely on it. I would call the statute "sexual battery by fraud."

Cara, that's a good point. It occurs to me to wonder whether they would include drugging someone to constitute force.

I'm going to chime and and I'm going to do my best not to sound like I'm victim blaming but I'm having a really hard time wrapping my mind around this situation for various reasons.

In the last account that I read it said that the first time he came into the room there was no light and she said his name and got no reply. If your boyfriend is home at an unusual time and you ask him a question, if he went straight to taking off your clothes without answering you wouldn't you find that odd? Wouldn't you keep asking?

After they finished having sex she said he opened the door and there was light from the hallway, but the light wasn't on before apparently when he opened the door to the bedroom the first time so why is it on now? I can't see the guy flipping on a light switch just so he can make an exit.

Also, unless it's pitch black usually there is some light coming into the room, especially if you live in a city or suburb so wouldn't her eyes have adjusted enough to see some of his face if they were having sex face to face? I've lived in both the city and the country and even in the country my bedroom was never dark enough so that I couldn't see anything at all.

And though this guy is her boyfriend's brother, how physically similar are they? Wouldn't he feel different in someway? Smell different? Different hair? Different back? Love making techniques? I'm not trying to be funny and she might have been really tired but I keep putting myself in this situation and I'd like to think I'd notice something was up, especially if I'd been living with my S.O. for a while. It didn't say they were twins so there would be physical differences which makes this all the more odd to me.

I know this is her word against his and if this happened the way she said it did it's really bad for her and I feel he should be punished but there are several variables that I just can't get past on this.

I don't want to offend anyone on this board and if you have possibilities I'd love to discuss them.

The thing is UltraMagnus (and I discuss this a bit further in my blog, if you're interested, but I don't want to reiterate that whole post here), that the guy probably did have different sexual technique. But, imagine that you're getting sexual with someone who you fully believe, no doubt in your mind, to be your SO. Your SO starts doing thing differently in bed . . . do you A. wonder where the hell he/she learned that and why he/she is doing something different, but keep going because it feels good and/or you don't want to spoil the mood or B. flip on the light in a panic to make sure that you're having sex with the right person?

Obviously there are a multitude of different reactions one could have and those two options do not cover them all. But the latter decision is what would probably have been needed here, and I can sure as hell tell you that it wouldn't have been MY reaction.

Went looking for a State that has a statute that might cover this and hit it on the first try with California:

(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:

...

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the
act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph,
"unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting
because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act
occurred.
(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud
in fact.
(D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's
fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a
professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.

C seems to be directly on point and does seem to avoid the issue of tangential lies.

Overall Massachusetts seems to need to enter the last quarter of the 20th century (let alone the 21st century) in terms of its rape law.

(California exclusion of spouses in its definition of rape is a whole nother issue)

Wow, I know it wasn't the point of posting it, and the rest of the law looks fairly comprehensive . . . but that spousal exception is really freaking me the fuck out.

I'm afraid I agree with UltraMagnus - the woman's claim that she didn't recognize that the person in the room was the boyfriend's brother, instead of the boyfriend, strikes me as a bit incredible. (Feel free to attack away...) It would have to be extremely dark, and you would have to be pretty impaired, for there to even be a *chance* of this scenario happening. And I agree with Thomas, that this is a case where the court probably purposely interpreted the law in such a way as to exonerate the defendant because it did not find the victim's factual explanation credible. (There's an old adage: Bad facts make bad law.)

The sad thing is that I imagine that the situation wasn't exactly the fraud that everyone's railing about, but instead more garden-variety coercion. Brother comes in, catches girlfriend unawares, starts undressing her, girlfriend realizes that something's up, is shocked and scared, is probably ashamed of the whole situation, thinks it's too late to do anything, gets coerced into sex, etc. (And BTW, I do think that this scenario would constitute rape.) She probably didn't have the "words" to be able explain such a messy situation, turned to the "I didn't know who it was" story - and then got disbelieved. And the rest is (case) history.

In the last account that I read it said that the first time he came into the room there was no light and she said his name and got no reply. If your boyfriend is home at an unusual time and you ask him a question, if he went straight to taking off your clothes without answering you wouldn't you find that odd? Wouldn't you keep asking?

Honestly, probably not.
The article I read said that the room was dark, not the hallway, and it said nothing about it being an unusual hour. I can easily see a situation where I'm asleep, and expecting my girlfriend to come home late from work or something. I'm asleep, a woman comes into the room, and when the door shuts, it wakes me up. I'm slightly groggy from just waking up and say something to her, and, she climbs into bed, and starts kissing me or rubbing my stomach or back instead of responding. That wouldn't set off any alarm bells. Why would it? If I thought it was my girlfriend, and she was just feeling frisky, I wouldn't really think it was any more odd than if I was standing in the kitchen making dinner and asked how her day was and, instead of answering, she came over and kissed me.

After they finished having sex she said he opened the door and there was light from the hallway, but the light wasn't on before apparently when he opened the door to the bedroom the first time so why is it on now? I can't see the guy flipping on a light switch just so he can make an exit.

Like I said, I didn't see an article where it said the hall light was off. If she didn't wake up until he shut the door, she wouldn't have seen the light when he came into the room.

Also, unless it's pitch black usually there is some light coming into the room, especially if you live in a city or suburb so wouldn't her eyes have adjusted enough to see some of his face if they were having sex face to face? I've lived in both the city and the country and even in the country my bedroom was never dark enough so that I couldn't see anything at all.

1. If she's got heavy blinds or a room in a basement, it could easily get that dark. I know that I've woken up in the middle of the night and not been able to see anything.
2. It's entirely possible to have sex without facing your partner.

And though this guy is her boyfriend's brother, how physically similar are they? Wouldn't he feel different in someway? Smell different? Different hair? Different back? Love making techniques? I'm not trying to be funny and she might have been really tired but I keep putting myself in this situation and I'd like to think I'd notice something was up, especially if I'd been living with my S.O. for a while. It didn't say they were twins so there would be physical differences which makes this all the more odd to me.

Odd? Of course. Impossible? I don't think so. We have no idea how long the sex lasted, how awake she was, what position they were in, what the respective brothers look like, etc. It could be that things were a little different, but she just thought her boyfriend was being playful or trying something new. It could be that she was still groggy. It could be that the brothers look very similar. I don't know. Do I think it's weird? Sure. I also think it's weird (and terrifying) that a husband would rape his wife, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

but roymacIII,

Someone above posted a clip that said they had sex for ten minutes.

Thanks for the possibilities but I'm going to reserve judgment on this one. The guy is an asshole, that's for sure, but I still don't have enough to form a valid opinion.

Thanks for the possibilities but I'm going to reserve judgment on this one. The guy is an asshole, that's for sure, but I still don't have enough to form a valid opinion.

I'm fine with reserving judgement- I'm just saying I don't think it's impossible.

Honestly, ten minutes? That's barely a roll in the hay.

*shrug*

I remember reading an article years ago about primate infants being able to identify family members by smell, even family members they were meeting for the first time. I don't remember how they explained that they knew the infants knew a person was "family," but I remember being convinced.

It's also possible that the brother put on the boyfriend's cologne before entering the room.

I've known two sets of brothers I had trouble telling apart even though there were a couple of years' age difference in both cases.

Good points, Kate. If they shared the same living quarters, he would theoretically had access to all his brother's toiletries. Hell, they could have shared a variety of Axe scents for all we know.

The point is that trying to explain what happened-- no matter how many good and plausible ideas are out there for those who are interested in them-- is speculation. And it doesn't really matter to me. Why? Because the court did NOT rule that she knew it was the brother and not her boyfriend. It ruled that consent obtained by fraud does not equal rape. If the court did in fact rule that she knew, there would be a place for the argument of "how this could have happened" and whether or not she was "lying." But it didn't. I don't see anyone involved in this ruling (other than the accused and his attorney) challenging the victim's credibility, so I really don't think that we should either.

If I promise to marry you, and then you have sex with me consensually (something you personally would never do without that promise), and then I change my mind about getting married, is the sex now "retroactive rape"? What if I *never* intended to actually marry you?

What if I lie about my name? My criminal background? My income, education, military record....

What if you lie to me about your sexual history, HIV status, number of children?

Is the guy a sleazeball? Yeah, he is. But if lying to get someone in the sack neutralizes consent, we've got a real problem.

--Dave

"It would have to be extremely dark, and you would have to be pretty impaired, for there to even be a *chance* of this scenario happening."

It would have to be very dark, and the brothers would have to be similar sizes and shapes. Other than that though, I think this situation definitely could have occured, especially if there was a minimal amount of foreplay.

"Brother comes in, catches girlfriend unawares, starts undressing her, girlfriend realizes that something's up, is shocked and scared, is probably ashamed of the whole situation, thinks it's too late to do anything, gets coerced into sex, etc. (And BTW, I do think that this scenario would constitute rape.) She probably didn't have the "words" to be able explain such a messy situation"

Umm... I think that came pretty much from the imagination. How do we even know she took off her clothes? Maybe she sleeps in a night gown. If it was dark, and they got started on the sex pretty quick, I think her story is as feasible as yours, or maybe moreso (I mean, assuming that if he started undressing her she would then be too embarassed to say "no" to sex is assuming a lot about the woman, IMO)

Dave: You're right that all of those things would make you a sleazeball.

However, if she thinks she consented to someone completely different from the person she actually had sex with, I think that makes this an easily definable different ballgame.

Also Dave, I do believe that knowingly infecting someone with HIV is a criminal offense, now.

Out of curiosity, do you guys think its possible the brothers somehow collaborated on this? Some guys are into that kind of thing. Alternatively, maybe her boyfriend had at least said some things to his brother about the ways they have sex, which could have made it easier to the brother to pretend to be her boyfriend.

So if I have a strong resemblance to a famous person you have seen in media but never met, and you go to bed with me thinking I am that person, that's rape?

--Dave

If you purposely lead that woman to believe that you are in fact that celebrity, I would say yes.

So this case, where the guy didn't tell her anything, wasn't rape?

I'm just pointing out that as soon as you make consent something that can be retroactively withdrawn because of misrepresentations, things get pretty complicated. Especially since almost every "guy on the make" lies to some extent, if only by omission, and so do a lot of women.

Yeah, when I was younger (and unmarried) I told women lies I thought improved my chances of getting laid, and sometimes it seemed to work. I'm not proud of that, but I certainly don't feel like I committed rape, and I doubt they feel like they were raped.

This is obviously an extreme case, but that's the point, it's an extreme example of a type of behaviour it would be very dangerous to criminalize, and there's no clear place to draw the line.

--Dave

"So if I have a strong resemblance to a famous person you have seen in media but never met, and you go to bed with me thinking I am that person, that's rape?"

I'd say, yes.

"I'm not proud of that, but I certainly don't feel like I committed rape"

Well know isn't that just the problem with about half the sexual abuse against women in our country?

"So if I have a strong resemblance to a famous person you have seen in media but never met, and you go to bed with me thinking I am that person, that's rape?"

I'd say, yes.

"I'm not proud of that, but I certainly don't feel like I committed rape"

Well now isn't that just the problem with about half the sexual abuse against women in our country?

I think it's pretty obvious that by letting someone call you by the name of the person they think you are without saying a word to combat that belief, you are purposely leading them to believe that you are that person.

This issue seems really cut and dry to me, and I find the fact that you seem to be defending its legality so adamantly pretty disturbing.

So, "buyer's remorse", making a foolish decision about who you sleep with consensually, opens up a rape charge?

--Dave

I'm afraid I agree with UltraMagnus - the woman's claim that she didn't recognize that the person in the room was the boyfriend's brother, instead of the boyfriend, strikes me as a bit incredible.

Bullshit, guys. It's not incredible. It can happen. Clearly, it DID happen. None of us know what kind of sexual relationship this woman had with her boyfriend. None of us can speculate about whether the lights were on/ what the guy smells like/ why she couldn't tell the difference - hey, what if both brothers were heavy smokers? What if she doesn't have a sense of smell? Can't you see how ridiculous this speculation is? She didn't want to have sex with her boyfriend's brother, ok? She was raped. What makes it so hard for you to believe her? I for one am sick of reading comments from people who automatically tear a story apart because they don't trust women to tell the truth about their experience.

Thank you, JP.

And Dave, no. No one here suggested that (other than yourself) and acting like someone did, especially when taken in consideration with a lot of other comments you've left here, really doesn't make you look very good.

Dave,

She asked the guy a question when he entered the room, and he didn't answer. There's this idea of lying by omission. He knew she thought he was her SO and didn't correct her. She consented to sex with her SO, NOT WITH THE BROTHER.

I think another way to explain it is this, a hypothetical. You and I have sex once. Before we have sex, I am diagnosed and fully aware that I have HIV/AIDS. Let's say while we're warming up, the question arises about whether we should use a condom and we opt to forgo it so we don't spoil the mood. Does it matter whether I actually lied to you about my condition or completely avoided mentioning it at all? Either way you become infected through me. Again, that's a hypothetical, I don't have HIV/AIDS, and my sex life is NOYB. :)

You could argue that those are two different things, but in either case how is lying worse than just omitting the facts? This is by no means the same thing as lying about how much money you make or what school you graduated from, and that's the distinction that I don't think you understand. You have to understand that this sex would have been consensual ONLY if the man involved was her SO.

JP,

I was just being honest about being skeptical given the information that we have, which isn't much on all accounts so I'd remind you that even you don't know exactly what happened and anything that you or others have offered as possibilities is also speculation.

I wasn't tearing her apart I was trying to understand how this could happen. I'm a naturally skeptical person so coming from that experience I just went, "wait a second" and thought about it. Excuse me for doing so.

Also, why haven't we heard about the boyfriend on this? You'd think that a guy tricking your girlfriend into sleeping with you would be grounds for an ass kicking at least (possible assault charges aside), especially if it's your own fucking brother.

Could you stuff that strawman a bit further, Dave? What Cara is saying is basically if some guy, for example, comes up to you and tells you he's David Hasselhoff and puts the bee on you, and you wind up going to bed with him, and then in the middle of the night, you wind up looking at his driver's license, and it says he's Joe Bltzflyk from Sheboygan, you have got grounds to suggest he didn't obtain your consent, since you did not consent to sleep with Joe Bltzflyk from Sheboygan. If you can't see how that's different from waking up in the morning and thinking, "Oh, god, what have I done?! I've slept with David Hasselhoff," I can't help you.

The line gets even less murky in this case because the boyfriend's brother lied by omission to the woman in question, obtaining her consent to sex under false pretenses (identity).

Yeah but UltraMagnus,

You're clearly picking and choosing who you're skeptical of.

Why haven't we heard from the boyfriend on this? Like I said, maybe he was in on it. There are guys who are into that sort of thing.

Either way, I think being skeptical of the woman is a but silly. What would she possibly have to gain by lying about a case like this? I'm pretty sure if she had wanted to have sex with the guy, she wouldn't have later accuse rape.

Try to see it from a guy's POV for a minute, okay? Many men are almost as petrified of being charged with rape as women are of being raped. Especially with Sex Offender registries meaning you'll be marked for life, it's a scary thing. There's already a checklist of things every guy has to remember every time he has sex with a woman, adding "have I told her everything that might change her mind about doing this?" to the list seems a little extreme.

I'm not defending what this guy did, he's a grade A slimeball, he ought to be guilty of *something*, and I wish there was a way to criminalize his actions that wouldn't have such far-reaching consequences. The disconnect here seems to be that many of you don't *care* what the consequences are, as long as they only affect men who lie to women to get sex.

I'm not defending rape, I'm just worried about the consequences if we expand the definition this way.

--Dave

Dave,

"Buyer's remorse?" WTF, mate? It isn't that she had sex with X knowing he was X, and later decided having sex with X was a bad idea, it was that she had sex with Y reasonably believing he was X, whilst Y knew (or reasonably should have known) that she thought he was X, and later realized she had sex with Y, which she never would have (and never did) consent to.

If, for some reason, Y thought she knew he was Y, and was reasonable in his belief, that would be a defense and a damn shame for all involved, but not a crime.

"There's already a checklist of things every guy has to remember every time he has sex with a woman,"

Oh you mean such as:

A) birth control
B) protection
C) make sure she actually wants to have sex with me.

Boy men have it /so/ much tougher than women.

Also, why haven't we heard about the boyfriend on this?

Maybe because her court case wasn't about providing us with salacious details. Maybe because it was about prosecuting her rapist. Maybe because this isn't about entertaining you and your natural skepticism. Maybe because she was hoping the justice system, not some random guy posting on a blog, would convict the man who raped her.

I wasn't tearing her apart I was trying to understand how this could happen.

It's not your job to be skeptical, UltraMagnus. It's your job to a) believe a woman when she says she was raped, thereby reducing the number of "blame-the-woman" jerks by one; and b) find out what you can do to stop rape in our society. That might be a better use of your time.

You know, just when reading some of the comments on feministing make me want to blow my brains out, people JP and Nina remind me why I keep coming back. Thanks to both of you (and everyone else who fits the bill) for being awesome.

"Well now isn't that just the problem with about half the sexual abuse against women in our country?"

That was the line I was responding to. Nina was implying that lies about yourself, even lies of omission, neutralize consent (and that I specifically was a rapist, even if neither I nor my "victims" thought so).

So, assuming that he is a not a mind-reader, a guy apparently has to share everything about himself that might make a woman choose not to sleep with him, or he's lying by omission.

I can agree that *specifcally* misrepresenting your identity as someone the other person would choose to sleep with does make consent a mockery, and should amount to some form of rape under the law.

--Dave

First of all, I was going from the information that we have at hand presented in the original post and a different account posted earlier in this thread, which is all her testimony, nothing else, so yes, I am being skeptical of what I've been given because I don't have any other side of it. If I did I'd be skeptical of that too if the information was odd to me.

It's not your job to be skeptical, UltraMagnus. It's your job to a) believe a woman when she says she was raped, thereby reducing the number of "blame-the-woman" jerks by one.

JP,

So as a human, since it's not my job to be skepital I should just take all the information anyone gives me and believe it? Well then perhaps there is something to those wacky people who believe that homosexuality is a death worthy sin and that evolution didn't happen.

And who are you to tell anyone what their "job" is? I had no idea you had that authority over everyone who posts here, or all women about what it is they should or shouldn't be doing/thinking so I apologize for my transgression in not realizing my role.

Aside from the fact of the final ruling, this is a country that invites people to think for themselves and make up their own minds about what they believe. If a woman says she's raped I'll believe her unless she's proven otherwise, but with this case I find what information I've been given skeptical and I spoke out and said so, JP, and since you're worried I'm giving ammunition to the "blame the woman" jerks, then you could be giving ammunition to those who believe that if you post on a feminist message board you must agree with absolutely everything they say.

I didn't say she wasn't raped, I even said the guy was an asshole for what he did and he deserves some punishment. I also didn't put out an all bulletin for the MRAs to come running, they usually show up on their own.

This is a website that is supposed to foster discussion. I know rape is a touchy subject for everyone and that women have a helluva hard time prosecuting rape cases but I think we'll all agree this is an unusual situation and obviously for this state there isn't language in the laws to address it. Maybe after this there will be. Maybe we'll all get more information as to what went on and we can go from there.

Dave, you're a funny one.

I had my husband read the article, and ask him what he thought. His MALE POV said it was rape from the gitgo. In the example I gave previously, I (the woman) lied to you (the man). To get a real male POV, put yourself in the woman's shoes, put your wife in as the SO, and put your wife's sister or some other similar woman in as the brother. Whether you would want to admit it or not, if you had sex with your wife's sister, and she knew you thought she was your wife, it is also rape. You say that no man wants to be accused of rape, yet you and so many other (not all) men have a really hard time accepting definitions of rape. You are trying to justify your actions because there's a possibility that maybe you raped someone in your youth. If so, then you are lucky she/they didn't press charges and instead of keeping your head in the sand, start learning. Put yourself in women's shoes, and stop trying to justify your behavior because you don't want to admit that maybe you're a sleazeball too. Most people on here agree that rape is sexual activity, with or without violence, that occurs without the affirmative consent of all participants. To argue that "she didn't say no" or that "he's under so much pressure" is just a cop out.

""Well now isn't that just the problem with about half the sexual abuse against women in our country?"

That was the line I was responding to. Nina was implying that lies about yourself, even lies of omission, neutralize consent (and that I specifically was a rapist, even if neither I nor my "victims" thought so). "

No Dave,

If it's something important, such as your identity, and if you know she thinks you are someone you are not, or thinks something else relatively important about you that is not true, you should tell her. It's not rocket science, buddy.

"If a woman says she's raped I'll believe her unless she's proven otherwise, but with this case I find what information I've been given skeptical "

You just contradicted yourself in a single sentence.

"Aside from the fact of the final ruling, this is a country that invites people to think for themselves and make up their own minds about what they believe."

This country also operates under a certain culture, that does a lot of influencing on a lot of people's beliefs.

Ninapendamaishi, I'll be more specific then.

I know that it is hard to get a conviction for rape in this country. If a girl tells me she was raped and she leaves it at that I'll believe her.

If she says she was raped and she takes it to court and it's disproved, I guess I'll have to take the evidence that was presented as disproving her and see if I agree with that or if I think she was fucked over.

In the case of Twanna Brawley we all believed her until she was proven to be lying. Were people supposed to keep on believing that she had been? Those cases are extremely rare and they disproportionally affect real victims of rape, which is why I will believe the women until she's proven other wise.

This country also operates under a certain culture, that does a lot of influencing on a lot of people's beliefs.

Name me a culture that doesn't. Are you saying that no one can think for themselves at all? I think Jessica, the other bloggers and a lot of other posters would disagree.

"If it's something important, such as your identity, and if you know she thinks you are someone you are not, or thinks something else relatively important about you that is not true, you should tell her. It's not rocket science, buddy."

I agree that pretending to be a specific other person does not constitute "consent", and should be rape. But that isn't where parts of this thread was going, it was about the lying, not the identity, and that bothered me.

But what's "relatively important"? If I lie about my name, not as someone specific you would have consented to have sex with, but just something I made up, does that neutralize consent?

Or, turn it around: If the woman lies about *her* name, her address, her place of employment, and probably everything else, was *I* raped? This one isn't all that hypothetical.

--Dave

"Or, turn it around: If the woman lies about *her* name, her address, her place of employment, and probably everything else, was *I* raped? This one isn't all that hypothetical."

Yes, if you feel raped. (If you don't feel raped, you're probably not going to try pressing charges)

So consent can be retroactively withdrawn, and the litmus test is if one side of the encounter "feels raped"? Umm.... This doesn't seem like such a good idea.

So as a human,

As opposed to what, exactly?

And who are you to tell anyone what their "job" is? I had no idea you had that authority over everyone who posts here, or all women about what it is they should or shouldn't be doing/thinking so I apologize for my transgression in not realizing my role.

Clearly, by suggesting you focus on a solution rather than continue to contribute to the problem, I've put you out. Oopsie.

this is a country that invites people to think for themselves and make up their own minds about what they believe.

Sure it does, buddy. And if making up your own mind means "disregard that woman's testimony 'cause she could be another lying bitch!" then more power to you. I'm sure the rape victim would be really happy to hear that she hasn't quite convinced you yet.

I know rape is a touchy subject for everyone

Understatement of the year.

Is the guy a sleazeball? Yeah, he is. But if lying to get someone in the sack neutralizes consent, we've got a real problem.

Why? Because it means that sleazeball's will have a harder time getting laid?
Cry me a river.

I think that the problem here is in the difference between a minor lie, and a major lie, although I'd argue that, with something like sex and consent, we ought to be pushing for people to be more honest, not justifying why it's okay to mislead and lie. Maybe we can work towards figuring out where the line is.

Here's a way to start:
Saying that you love "Pride and Prejudice" when you hate it? Not a big deal.

Pretending to be the woman's boyfriend when you're not? Big fucking deal.

So if I have a strong resemblance to a famous person you have seen in media but never met, and you go to bed with me thinking I am that person, that's rape?

If you know that's what's happening and you don't tell her?
Absolutely.

So this case, where the guy didn't tell her anything, wasn't rape?

He most certainly did. He entered her room late at night while she was asleep. She said her boyfriend's name. At that point, it was clear that she thought he was his brother. He did nothing to let her know that he was not the person she thought he was.

I'm just pointing out that as soon as you make consent something that can be retroactively withdrawn because of misrepresentations, things get pretty complicated.

Not really. Here's a simple rule: Don't lie to people when you're going to sleep with them.

See? Not complicated.

Consider contract law. If I'm selling a house, and I tell the buyer that it's structurally sound, and the roof doesn't leak, and that it comes with the washer and dryer, and they sign the contract and go to move in only to find that none of those things is true, the contract is absolutely invalid. Or, if I sign a contract to work someplace, and I say that I've got degrees from Havard, and it turns out I don't? They'll tear my contract right up.

Getting consent under false pretenses is no consent at all. Consent has to be given on equal, honest footing. If you're lying, then your partner isn't in a position to give you real consent, because s/he doesn't know what s/he's actually consenting to.

Especially since almost every "guy on the make" lies to some extent, if only by omission, and so do a lot of women.

Then it's time to make it clear that that's unacceptable. Strangely enough, I've never had to lie to sleep with someone. That's what respect and consent are all about.

Yeah, when I was younger (and unmarried) I told women lies I thought improved my chances of getting laid, and sometimes it seemed to work. I'm not proud of that, but I certainly don't feel like I committed rape, and I doubt they feel like they were raped.

I doubt that every drunken asshole who slept with a mostly passed out girl thinks of himself as a rapist, either. And I bet there are probably women who had someone force himself on them who don't think of themselves as having been raped.

When you lie to someone to get them to sleep with you, you're manipulating and coercing them, and that means that you can't really be getting informed consent. Informed consent means that both parties understand the terms of the consent- if you've lied, you've taken away her ability to really decide if she wants to sleep with you.

So, "buyer's remorse", making a foolish decision about who you sleep with consensually, opens up a rape charge?

Bullshit.
You can't blame someone for making "foolish decision" about who she's sleeping with when the other person is a liar. If someone knows who they're sleeping with, and regrets it later, that's tough rocks. Sucks to be that person. But when one party is a fucking liar, then it's the liar's fault, and it's not "remorse" it's "rape".

"If she says she was raped and she takes it to court and it's disproved, I guess I'll have to take the evidence that was presented as disproving her and see if I agree with that or if I think she was fucked over.

In the case of Twanna Brawley we all believed her until she was proven to be lying. Were people supposed to keep on believing that she had been? Those cases are extremely rare and they disproportionally affect real victims of rape, which is why I will believe the women until she's proven other wise. "

There are many rape cases that don't result in a conviction. Many, many where something /I/ would consider a rape actually occurred. And as many people here have pointed out, the jury only decided this case wasn't a rape because of a technicality of the law, not because they thought the woman was lying about anything.

"Are you saying that no one can think for themselves at all? "

I think no one can think absent a significant dose of cultural influece. I think Jessica, the other bloggers and a lot of other posters would agree.
But I do kind of agree with Mark Twain on the point that majority opinions are usually the ones being more influenced by culture.

"So consent can be retroactively withdrawn, and the litmus test is if one side of the encounter "feels raped"? Umm.... This doesn't seem like such a good idea."

No, Dave. Consent under false pretenses is not consent if the person feels raped once they've realized they were led to have sex under false pretenses.

People generally don't feel raped if they had honest consensual sex with someone they wanted to have sex with.

"No, Dave. Consent under false pretenses is not consent if the person feels raped once they've realized they were led to have sex under false pretenses."

But it's not rape if they don't "feel raped"? So, they get a second chance to decide if they consent, after the act. That's what I mean by "retroactive withdrawal of consent" and "buyer's remorse". How am I supposed to know what degree of lying/omission will make her "feel raped"? That I'm not a millionaire? That I don't yet have my PhD? That I'm jewish by ancestry? That my grandfather was a Nazi?

--Dave

How about you be a little realistic for an instant, Dave?

This isn't about you. It isn't about the asshole who lied. It's about the victim, and what the lying is going to do to her psychologically, emotionally, etc. If you don't lie about being a millionaire, or being jewish, etc. you won't accidentally fuck with someone's life. Is that too much for you to handle?

(And by being realistic I meant that there are some things that most people aren't going to care much about, but identity in terms of name, profession, where you live etc. are pretty big deals.(

There are many rape cases that don't result in a conviction. Many, many where something /I/ would consider a rape actually occurred. And as many people here have pointed out, the jury only decided this case wasn't a rape because of a technicality of the law, not because they thought the woman was lying about anything.

I never said I didn't think it was rape, I was just wondering and posing a question as to how this happened and yes, I questioned her because this was the information I was given. Obviously that upset some people, so I apologize.

Clearly, by suggesting you focus on a solution rather than continue to contribute to the problem, I've put you out. Oopsie.

So it is your job to police everyone else. Glad to know . Next time I see you posting I will tread as if on eggshells so as not to upset you.

And if making up your own mind means "disregard that woman's testimony 'cause she could be another lying bitch!" then more power to you. I'm sure the rape victim would be really happy to hear that she hasn't quite convinced you yet.

I have said no such thing, nor has anything I said resembled anything like that. I said I couldn't wrap my mind around how it happened asked for possibilities and was given them.

Dave,

Re: buyer's remorse, see my comment above. The other one that starts "Dave."

Dave and UltraMagnus, you may want to go and read this post by Chris Clarke at Pandagon if you're feeling a little victimized. It's in reaction to the harassment of Kathy Sierra, but there are a few lessons you may find helpful for this thread. Especially the last few lines:

And when you shut the fuck up, two magical things happen:

1) You’re no longer actively contributing to the very problem you’re discussing;
2) It’s easier to listen to what the women are actually saying.

Yeah, all I'm seeing here is a man trying to figure out "how far he can go" without being called a rapist and then expecting feminists to somehow see it his way. Not gonna happen.

Here's a rule of thumb: if you think that what you're doing could possibly, in any way, be interpreted by your sexual partner as being non-consensual on his or her behalf, DON'T DO IT. The end. You can all go home now.

I'm *trying* to be realistic here. But I'm also trying not to personalize it. Realistically, if we're going to say "lying before having sex with someone makes it rape, and that includes not telling them something they later decide was 'relatively important', but only if they later decide they 'feel raped'", we're making a huge freaking snarl out of things. The kind of snarl that invites questions like "if she feels raped, maybe it's her fault", because you have to ask a judge or jury to decide if it's reasonable for her to "feel raped" because of what he did/didn't tell her. It makes it *harder* to hold rapists responsible, not easier, and puts the victim's credibility, intelligence, and mental health back into play in the courtroom.

On the other hand, the question of outright misrepresentation of identity as someone specific is much cleaner, much easier to use in a court of law.

--Dave

Nina

Not to argue with you, but if the gender roles were reversed would you still it was rape?

Can a woman rape a man through fraud?

Yes Ranter, it is the same if the gender roles are reversed, and the woman lies, and the man feels emotionally and psychologically fucked with and like something has been taken away from him (i.e. rape). The point of recognizing sexual violence as such is to protect the victims, not to piss off the assholes.

I agree with you, but I know a lot of men who would claim they had been raped through fraud. But I don't want the women who falsely represented themselves to go to jail for rape.

"I'm *trying* to be realistic here. But I'm also trying not to personalize it. Realistically, if we're going to say "lying before having sex with someone makes it rape, and that includes not telling them something they later decide was 'relatively important', but only if they later decide they 'feel raped'"

Well in this case she assumed something falsely, and he /knew/ she assumed something falsely. I think it's quite easy to say that if you're aware someone is assuming something important about you that isn't true, it's your responsibility.

Now, if two people have sex without knowing each other's names because they don't /want/ to know each other's names that's fine. But that's not remotely close to what happened here.

And seriously, read the Chris Clarke thing. It's good.

"Yeah, all I'm seeing here is a man trying to figure out "how far he can go" without being called a rapist and then expecting feminists to somehow see it his way. Not gonna happen."

According to Nina, if any of the women I lied to/stretched the truth/failed to relate the full story of my life and ancestry to, "feel raped" or would have if they had ever found out the Awful Truth, in my teens and twenties, I already am a rapist. Good thing I'm not taking any of this personally.

Is it possible to even ask questions (not even disagree, just *ask awkward questions*) without being considered a misogynistic asshole rapist?

--Dave

"But I don't want the women who falsely represented themselves to go to jail for rape."

People in this country need to learn to have more respect for both themselves and their sexual partners. How are we going to get there? If you know men who had serious issues because they had a partner lie to them, I think it's fine to convict the people of something.

Ranter -- Of course a woman can rape a man by fraud. It's actually one of the most clearcut situations. Check out Voila's post a ways up the thread:

To get a real male POV, put yourself in the woman's shoes, put your wife in as the SO, and put your wife's sister or some other similar woman in as the brother. Whether you would want to admit it or not, if you had sex with your wife's sister, and she knew you thought she was your wife, it is also rape.

Is it possible to even ask questions (not even disagree, just *ask awkward questions*) without being considered a misogynistic asshole rapist?

Yes. Just not when you're asking questions about whether or not it's okay to rape someone.

Look, JP, being a poster on this blog for almost a year I do not like being lumped in with Dave, who I haven't agreed with or addressed in any sense.

I have no idea if you know but I am a woman who has posted before that I have friend who was a victim of rape so I can identify somewhat with that. Not totally because it wasn't my personal experience but watching her put her rapist in jail was heart wrenching with what she had to go through.

Even knowing that, I brought up a question because the situation was odd to me. It's never come up before here as far as I've been reading and apparently not in that state either because it was missing from the law. It it terrible that she was tricked into sleeping with her boyfriend's brother and I have said REPEATEDLY that I feel he should be punished.

I NEVER said I didn't believe her I just said it was odd and Cara and posted on her own blog addressing the question she knew would come up in people's minds as to how this could happen. I appreciate her perspective as well as romacIII who also discussed the possibilities with me.

I have not called myself a victim nor have I acted like one. I have answered you in a dignified manner while you are trying to equate me with some kind of rape apologist, which I am not.

I HAVE listened to what the woman said by the CLIPS THAT WERE FUCKING GIVEN TO ME. They were short little blurbs about what happened and I dared to go "hmmm, I wonder about some of these facts," excuse the fuck out of me for doing so.

But for you that's not enough. For you nothing short of blind ignorance and unquestioning submission will do. I can't change the way you feel nor will I attempt to, it's obvious you're angry at me and you aren't going to listen. So be it.

"Is it possible to even ask questions (not even disagree, just *ask awkward questions*) without being considered a misogynistic asshole rapist?"

Well then, why don't you do more asking of open-ended questions with a mind to learn, and less arguing with the feminists and expressing concerns over how men are victimized. (Btw, why do people who don't consider themselves feminists frequent feminist sites? Is it because they frequent the sites of all political groups they don't affiliate with? Is it possibly because they think feminism is a prevailing problem for society?)

UltraMagnus:

Maybe what happened to this woman would never happen to you. However, there are several of us who honestly believe it could feasibly happen to us. Do you not believe us? Why do you continue to question this woman when a number of us have said we feel this could have happened? Maybe it could have happened to others, even if not to you.

If I had sex with my wife's sister think it was my wife, I think my wife would be more upset with her than I would be, though I would be very upset with my sister in law. I still want the MA disicion uphelded, only because I can't see how handing down a verdict for the plantive couldn't be used as a grounds to sue or imprison a lot of women.

Ranter: then in that case, if you are not emotionally or psychologically upset to the point of feeling raped, your screwed-up sister-in-law lucked out. If you felt differently about the matter, however (i.e. felt raped), you should be able to hold her accountable.

nina I said I would be upset.

I also meant to write plaintiff not plantive.

If you feel violated, then she should be held accountable, IMO.

Me, I wound up here because it was linked from another blog I read, and it seemed interesting. I'm starting to think actually trying to participate as anything other than a member of the chorus is going to bring me nothing but grief.

I don't think "feminism is a prevailing problem for society". I think sometimes "feminists" are a prevailing problem for *feminism*. I used to think of myself as a feminist, but I apparently lack enough self-effacement to qualify as a male auxiliary. Although some of my best friends (and my wife, and my daughter, and my mother, and my sisters, and my boss/business partner) are feminists, and I agree with 99% of what they have to say about it and we've agreed to disagree about the remaining 1%. Apparently, like the modern Republican party, third-wave feminism requires total ideological purity. Or is it my facial hair and external genitalia that disqualifies me?

What I get from the Chris Clarke thing is:

1) I can't understand what it's like to be a woman. Already knew that one, but it bears repeating.

2) I'm not allowed to try to understand, if that means asking questions that indicate a failure to completely agree with what any woman says. If I don't understand already, I'm not worthy to be educated.

3) If a woman feels harrassed, intimidated, threatened, or discriminated against, the only acceptable male response is complete and immediate agrement. Anything else is mysogynistic. Including asking her "why?".

--Dave

*headdesk*

However, there are several of us who honestly believe it could feasibly happen to us. Do you not believe us?

My questions were to the situation as it was presented to me. With the few blurbs we were given it seemed like an odd situation. I know you expect me to believe the victim right off the bat I just questioned how it happened. I put myself in the situation and went, "How dark was the room, what position were they in, did he feel different?" questions that I'm sure went through a lot of people's mind, not necessarily on this board or else Cara wouldn't have bothered to bring it up on her own blog.

I posted my questions because I did find the situation odd and no specific details were given so it was open to me and I thought about it and some things, like the light in the hallway, didn't make sense to me. He could have closed the door quickly on his way in the room. I didn't think about that, romacIII gave me the possibility and I was appreciative of his comments to me.

Why do you continue to question this woman when a number of us have said we feel this could have happened? Maybe it could have happened to others, even if not to you.

So is this majority rule? Putting the topic of rape aside, if a majority of posters feel strongly one way about something, are those who have questions not allowed to express them?

I never said I didn't believe this could happen, I wanted to know how. This was a peculiar instance of rape one that I had never heard of happening before and even though I feel for the woman I still had to go, "wait a minute," and think it over.

And as I have said I think the brother should be punished for this, even if he is not to be charged with rape.

"If a woman feels harrassed, intimidated, threatened, or discriminated against, the only acceptable male response is complete and immediate agrement. Anything else is mysogynistic. Including asking her "why?"."

There's a big difference between asking her 'why?' because you want to learn about her experiences, and asking her 'why?' because you are judging her/questioning that she has a right to feel as she does. I think Chris would not have a problem with the former.

"So is this majority rule? Putting the topic of rape aside, if a majority of posters feel strongly one way about something, are those who have questions not allowed to express them? "

It's not about majority rule, far more logical than that I think. If a few people believe something could happen to them, then that probably proves a given thing could happen to some people. A different person believing that something couldn't have happened to /anyone/ is a bit odd b/c that one person is making presumptiosn about everyone else's experiences. The few people saying that something could have happened to some people are not.

UltraMagnus, I am sorry if I have offended you. My comments were not directed solely at you, and they were not meant to attack you.

I am angry - not at you, but at what I see as a continuing trend by some posters on the feminist blogs whereby rape victims are questioned and posters feel the need to challenge the victim's account of the rape. Asking "is this really what happened?" or saying the rape sounds implausible is only a step away, in my view, from saying outright that we can't believe the victim. I don't believe in blind ignorance either, but I sure as hell believe in solidarity with victims of rape. I also believe that each woman's experience of rape is different, that I can't possibly know what another woman's experience is, and it's not my role to challenge her on the details but to listen. And given the prevalence of rape in our society I would rather assume that a woman isn't a liar than assume that she is.

Again, please excuse me for offending you, none of what I said was meant personally.

A different person believing that something couldn't have happened to /anyone/ is a bit odd b/c that one person is making presumptiosn about everyone else's experiences.

Nina,

I. Never. Said. That.

Nina

Your arguments are beautiful to read, and I hate to say this, but I agree with Dave only that this is a loser issue for feminist. I want men who falsely represent themselves to be held accountable for what they do, but at the same time I don't want fraud suits launched at women, because they didn't correctly represent themselves at the beginning of their relationship. The only way you can get your arguments to work in favor of women, is if you can prove (or successfully argue rather) that women suffer more from sex through fraud than men do. Women are devastated when they find out they have been lied to by their lovers, and the point I was trying to make it that men would not be so devastated, but how do you frame that in an argument?

Realistically, if we're going to say "lying before having sex with someone makes it rape, and that includes not telling them something they later decide was 'relatively important', but only if they later decide they 'feel raped'", we're making a huge freaking snarl out of things.

How does that make a huge snarl out of things?

Let's start with one thing at a time: If you outright lie to a woman, and she finds out, and it turns out that, had you not lied, she wouldn't have slept with you, then you've raped her. It's not a matter of her retroactively removing consent or expressing "buyer's remorse," it's a matter of you preventing her from giving meaningful consent in the first place. The act of lying means that she wasn't consenting to what she thought she was consenting to, and that means that claiming it was "consent" is meaningless.

Now, if you want to start talking about lies of omission, I think we can start talking about the reasonable person standard. If you don't tell her that you're work in a book store, and she never asks, and she's upset when she finds out, I think that all of us can agree that there was no reason for you to think that it would be a problem. If you're married and you don't tell her, I think that's a little bit different, since you're making her an accomplice to adultry, and it's reasonable to assume that some people wouldn't sleep with you if they knew you were married. If you have an STD and you failt to tell her, then I think that's absolutely cause to think that she might not have consented, and failure to mention that should absolutely be criminal.

On the other hand, the question of outright misrepresentation of identity as someone specific is much cleaner, much easier to use in a court of law.

Then I'm not sure I understand half of the conversation from above.

Dave, your questions do not present themselves AT ALL as being pleas for education. They come across very strongly as attempts to show us how very wrong we all are in the form of a "question." Lots of people on this blog have asked for clarification on a whole lot of issues. I have seen many posters step forward to answer these honest questions, and I have answered many myself. I have also ASKED a lot of questions, and sometimes those questions have gotten lost in the shuffle, but for the most part they are answered because they are genuine inquiries. I also ask them with a level of humility, because though I am a passionate feminist and even have a feminist blog, I in absolutely no way pretend to know everything about feminism, and I respect the fact that there are a LOT of people on this board who know a lot more about a whole range of subjects than I do. Your questions, which go along the line of "So, what about in this highly improbable scenario?", sound much more like "Hmm? See how right I was!!!" than "Please, I'm genuinely trying to understand here." The fact that seemingly everyone who has commented on this thread has interpreted you in this manner should be enough to let you know that you might want to reconsider your approach.

As for UltraMagnus, I think that your question did come off as insensitive, and I understand why some posters have reacted in the way that they did. The reason I wrote about the topic in my blog is because I was anticipating a backlash from anti-feminists based on that aspect of the situation. I'm not calling you an anti-feminist, I'm just trying to clarify my own motive. While I understand the negative reaction you've received, I also recognize that your question was a genuine one, non-malicious one that simply came across poorly. You seem to have explained yourself, and so while I agree with what people are saying in relation to it, I don't see a need to harp on the issue.

"Women are devastated when they find out they have been lied to by their lovers, and the point I was trying to make it that men would not be so devastated, but how do you frame that in an argument?"

I don't think it's fair of you to say that. I think some men are devasted, even if it wouldn't be the majority. I'm not advocating double-standards here.

(Like there was a guy maybe a little over a year ago who I had a fling with, and I feel like he was maybe a little more emotional and a little more attached to the whole thing than I was, actually. I stopped seeing him in part because I was just feeling too dishonest about the whole thing)

I also have to disagree with you, Ranter. Double-standards are definitely a bad idea in terms of the law.

JP,

I'm glad to hear that you weren't trying to attack me.

I will apologize to you if I came off as an asshole, I honestly tried not to but there were some questions in my mind.

Having had a friend who was a victim of rape I know just how hard it is for women to get people to believe them. My friend was black in a majority white town and it was a struggle for her to get the local cops to take her seriously, so much so that they may have deliberately fucked up legitimate evidence that she was able to produce. Her rape exam was to her a humiliating experience and since she had to get it done off campus she felt the local white doctors were trying to punish her and hurt her on purpose. Even still, she was able to put her rapists away for two years and I am proud of her for going through with it. I wish she hadn't had to in the first place.

I know it's like this for a lot of women and it sucks ass that in order for it to be considered "legitimate" rape there has to be a verbal "No", a struggle or worse. I honestly hope that if this gets enough press then maybe the state will be forced to re-evaluate their stance on rape, so that no other woman will have to go through this. I also hope that the brother will be punished some way or the other, whether by a civil suit or a baseball to the kneecaps.

I know that I am in the minority on this one but again, this was a situation that I'd never heard of happening and yes, my first thought was "How did she not know it wasn't her boyfriend?" I don't know so I am taking her word for it and I hope she gets through this and gets some kind of justice.

Nina

Your not quite getting me on this one, so I'll rephrase.

Is it fair for women to suffer the same penalties as men do when they are successfully sued for falsely representing themselves. If MA rules in favor of the plaintive an endless number of civil suits will be lobed at both women and men, because women and men falsely represent themselves on a close to equal basis. What criteria do you want set for grounds to sue someone who has falsely represented themselves to gain sex from someone else? When you think about it a lot of women will suffer disproportional to men no matter what criteria you set.

While I understand the negative reaction you've received, I also recognize that your question was a genuine one, non-malicious one that simply came across poorly. You seem to have explained yourself, and so while I agree with what people are saying in relation to it, I don't see a need to harp on the issue.

I tried to post it in the least assholish way possible and I failed. Next time I will try to better ask if I have questions. And thank you Cara.

"When you think about it a lot of women will suffer disproportional to men no matter what criteria you set."

If you are right, then that is the case with or without giving the legal sysem greater authority. Therefore, I'd rather people all people who are victimized see justice (and honestly, I don't know why women typically lie about themselves. I know Sex and the City did an episode where the lawyer pretended to be a flight attendent, but in general one doesn't see women going for conquest via lying. I don't know why women most commonly lie, but I don't think anyone tricks their sex partner into sex with good reason).

It just seems amazing to me that some people find it hard to distinguish between "Yeah, they're gonna make me manager" or "I can benchpress 220" or whatever, and actual identity fraud.

Impersonating someone to gain sexual contact with someone else sounds pretty frigging illegal to me.

It wouldn't be hard to write a law that addressed identity fraud for the purposes of sexual contact as illegal. I honestly can't believe this would somehow penalise people who "expand the truth" to impress prospective partners.

Off thread, but related to the "insult" discussion, do the regular Feministing posters feel like there's been a rise in non-feminists joining discussions they don't seem to have the background in?

I mean, I guess commenters change a fair bit, but it seems in the last few weeks there has been a lot of thread-time spent explaining what seem to me to be pretty straight-forward issues.

I'm not saying we should all agree all the time, but gee, I've recently been called an ugly man-hating fascist something something(so awesome! bingo cards are go!) on this site, which isn't something I'd expect on feministing...

Women falsely represent themselve not so much to gain to sex, but rather to trap men into marry them, or at least that is what a lot of my male married coworkers tell me. Both men and women lie on probably about an equal basis, but when it comes to sex, women lie more for the long term fulfilment rather than just to score. However both lied to gain sex.

"Women falsely represent themselve not so much to gain to sex, but rather to trap men into marry them, or at least that is what a lot of my male married coworkers tell me"

So what sorts of things do your co-workers say women lie about in order to get married?

anorak

It's because we were all awestruck by Jessica's book. But I am becoming more of a geniune male feminist the more I read you guys' arguments.

Nina

Mostly their racial background (I am not prejudice, but a lot of other men are), educational level, debate status (big one), or health.

Nina

Mostly their racial background (I am not prejudice, but a lot of other men are), educational level, debt status (big one), or health.

"racial background (I am not prejudice, but a lot of other men are), educational level, debt status (big one), or health"

I haven't heard of any stories, personally. However, I think lying about stuff to someone you're planning on marrying is pretty shitty and a pretty bad deal for both of you (I mean wouldn't you want to know the wanted to marry /you/? (you can substitue "sex" for "marry" in that sentence as well))

But we're not talking about being a bit misleading here, we're talking about PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE.
Not a "better" version of ourselves, but actual identity theft.
If I apply for a bank loan as "Miss Sarah Jones" when I'm actually "Miss Susan Smith", I'm committing fraud, and there's no reason why the bank should honour it's agreement with me. (Bad analogy, I know, but you get the point).
If I consent to sex with Mr A, but not Mr B, and then it turns out Mr B pretended to be Mr A, that is identity fraud and identity theft, because Mr B has impersonated Mr A for personal gain, in this case sex.
It is not analogous to lying about your income or car or whatever.
You are ACTUALLY PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE, which I'm pretty sure is a criminal act, at least here in N.Z. it is...

"But we're not talking about being a bit misleading here, we're talking about PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE."

Anorak, I know. I think some of us have consciously expanded the conversation here a little bit. I for one would be for criminilizing a wider range of "fraud for sex".

I am becoming more of a genuine male feminist the more I read you guys' arguments.

I just thought I'd re-post this. It's nice to hear :).

Nina
I know you (and probably most of the long term user of this blog) probably don't hang out in the same social circles that I do, but yes I know of a lot very conservative (but wealthy and well placed) men, who are completely against abortion (surprise), and some women did go to great lengths to present themselves as a totally different person (perhaps not with a different name), so as to get pregnant and trap those men into marriage. By overruling the MA decision you would be opening a huge can of worms that you might not want to open.

"Your questions, which go along the line of "So, what about in this highly improbable scenario?", sound much more like "Hmm? See how right I was!!!" than "Please, I'm genuinely trying to understand here." The fact that seemingly everyone who has commented on this thread has interpreted you in this manner should be enough to let you know that you might want to reconsider your approach."

Cara, I'm a natural contrarian, and I believe very strongly that every assumption should be questioned. Even so, I thought I showed a minimum of tact, I did not speculate about the facts of this particular case.

Beyond that, I'm a programmer by training and a game designer by profession. I *always* look for the singularities, the boundary cases where the rules break down and start delivering undesirable or nonsensical results.

It's not enough that the rule work for the case it was designed to apply to, because it will be applied to *every* case that falls under it's definition. And if the examples seem unlikely, how likely would you have considered the situation that precipitated this thread? Anyway, my examples were hardly unlikely events. When you're debating a point of public policy, you have to consider the unintended consequences.

It seems nonsensical to me that simply asking the hard questions is an attack on women. I *know* women are not weak, spineless creatures that can't stand up for themselves, so why is it neccessary to squelch and silence every last shred of doubt? Do you really think that simply asking "what if" questions is an attack on women?

If questions create doubt, that's a sign the questions really need answers, not that they shouldn't be asked.

--Dave

To clear a few things up that seem to have been misunderstood at least in a couple of comments. The opinion at issue is based on an appeal.

At the the rape trial the issue of rape was actually submitted to the jury. The jury could not reach a verdict and the court declared a mistrial. We dont know why the jury failed to reach a verdict, but it is probably a safe bet that some of the jurors believed the woman and some believed the man. If the people who saw the actual testimony (including for example the woman's explanation as to why she mistook him for for her boyfriend and his explanation of why he supposedly accepted the invitation of his brother's girl friend to sleep with her) could not reach an agreement, trying to reach one here on 4th hand knowledge of the case seems an impossible task.

It is also worth noting that for the purpose of the appeal (which was based on the defendnat';s objection to a retrial) the appellate court assumed the facts as presented by the prosecution or in other words that she was telling the truth in order to reach its decision.

Hey folks, I just checked up on the penal code of California because of the rape definition posted up a ways in this thread that excluded spouses. Thank the stars, spousal rape IS rape in California, it's just separate. It seems to be separate because:
1. The non-spouse code includes a specific clause for the rapist convincing the rapee that the rapist is the spouse (somewhat pertinent to the thread).
2. There's some stuff about donating the fine amount to battered women's shelters if you have a fine as part of your probation under the spousal code.

This argument is disturbing. When I read this I imagine the point at which you'd start to feel really worried would be when you're already having sex. Post sex you're lying there feeling disturbed and confused but still not likely to actually think it's a different person. Then they stand up and you realise it's not your partner. Can you imagine the horror? That is fucking rape

OTOH I have to say that if you meet someone and they say they're someone they aren't, but you have talked to them and looked them in the face and are sexually attracted to them, it's unlikely to feel like rape. I personally imagine I'd be really angry when I found out but not torn to pieces inside like in the former case

"but yes I know of a lot very conservative (but wealthy and well placed) men, who are completely against abortion (surprise), and some women did go to great lengths to present themselves as a totally different person (perhaps not with a different name), so as to get pregnant and trap those men into marriage. By overruling the MA decision you would be opening a huge can of worms that you might not want to open."

I grew up in a very conservative part of this country, Ranter. Very poor, but very conservative.

Okay, that aside: For this I defer to anorak's point. Identity theft is an easy enough thing to define, and an easy enough thing to criminalize. So the MA ruling doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex and lies in general. The desire to criminalize lying on at least some level was /my/ idea, but you wouldn't have to do that to change the ruling on the MA case.

I agree with your first paragraph completely, Fenriswolf. For the second, I'm not so sure -for me I think it would depend on how attracted I was to the person, how much I had begun to trust them, and what precisely the lie was.

I have been lied to viciously by more than 1 woman I was attracted to, and had sex with, but after I found out they were lying to me, I just broke up with them, wrote their name in my little black book, and got on with my life. After I turned 21 the ability for a woman to tear me to pieces inside was reduced to zero, but I am still a very passionate, caring, lover (just ask my wife). Few men over the age 21 are capable of having their hearts broken, but I have seen women as old as 40 cry for days and nearly drive themselves to suicide over some f*cked up words a guy said to them. That's the biggest difference between men and women; sex doesn't touch us as deeply as it touches women.

"but yes I know of a lot very conservative (but wealthy and well placed) men, who are completely against abortion (surprise), and some women did go to great lengths to present themselves as a totally different person (perhaps not with a different name), so as to get pregnant and trap those men into marriage. By overruling the MA decision you would be opening a huge can of worms that you might not want to open."

At the risk of going off-topic, Ranter, I wonder what you mean by "trapping the men into marriage"?

Do you mean that the woman slept with the man under false pretenses - telling him that she was on contraceptives or whatnot, thereby lulling him into a false sense of security that the liaison would not result in a pregnancy?

While I agree that it would be wrong for a woman to be dishonest about being on the pill/shot/patch/whatever, it takes two to tango. She didn't get pregnant by herself.

If a man does not want the woman he is sleeping with to get pregnant, perhaps he should use a condom?

I'm an old married lady, so I'm obviously not looking for partners, but hypothetically, if the situation were reversed and there was a male birth control pill, and I was considering having sex with a man and he told me that he had taken it, but I really didn't want to get pregnant, I would probably opt for a condom as a safeguard.

Just my $0.02.

ekishou

I can't really tell if you are agreeing with my point or not. The point I was trying to make is that some women use false representation to trick men into sleeping with them. Do the men have the right the sue?

Sorry I meant to write "to sue?" but the previewer post my comments before I can correct them.

What if you were a man, and you met a woman, say, in an airport. You hit it off, she tells you she's 18, and you go to bed with her. Later, you find she's not, and her parents are pressing statuatory rape charges. Do you have the right to press charges against her? Are you both rapists? What if you didn't meet her in an airport, but a bar somewhere. The setting clearly implies she's old enough, but she never directly says she's of legal age. Is this different?

Ranter,

Maybe a little of both?

When my husband and I first started dating, we both knew we didn't want children. We were honest with each other about that, and we discussed the methods we would use to prevent pregnancy together. If I had told him that I was on the pill when I wasn't, that would have been wrong. I think it's almost always wrong to misrepresent oneself. (I can't think of any scenarios off the top of my head in which it would be okay to be dishonest but who knows, maybe there is some kind of strange circumstance out there in the world in which it would be acceptable.)

Generally speaking, I think that if a person misrepresents him/herself in such a way that causes harm to another person, then the injured party ought to have some sort of recourse.

Given that, I think there should be some sort of reasonable standard, because misrepresenting some small thing like a hobby or interest (assuming it's not something criminal, etc) shouldn't open you up to legal action, whereas I think it would be right and reasonable to take legal action against someone who knew they had an STD and didn't inform you before you put yourself at risk, for example.

It's late (or early) so I may not be expressing myself clearly, but my main problem with your description of the man "trapped" by the woman is the implication that the woman was the only one involved.

Do you think that if a man knows that he doesn't want children, he should consider taking his own measures, such as wearing a condom? Whether he trusts that the woman is being honest about being on the pill or whatnot, he would have the option to manage his own contribution to the situation.

My apologies if I've strayed too far off topic.

Thanks for posting that bit about spousal rape in California, Cecily. That earlier post panicked me a bit, but I'm glad to know CA is living up to it's (mostly) good name.

Everytime someone I know tells me that California/the west coast should secede from the US, I tell them that it's silly for two reasons:

1. The country wouldn't let us, since a lot of the economy is based on trade with countries across the ocean and we have all the west coast ports.

but mostly

2. Lots of other states need the example of California and other progressive states. Hey Massachusetts, look! We've got these nifty little rape laws that you should take a look at. True, we don't prosecute rape as effectively as we could, but you should still take a leaf out of our legal book. After all, you're supposed to be our east-coast-progressive buddy.

Regarding seeing things from a 'guys' point of view: My boyfriend came and looked at what I was reading when I first saw this, since I was spluttering noises of protest. His faced looked progressively shocked, and then he immediately declared it's fucked-upness and that it was CLEARLY rape.

There is no such thing as a 'guys' point of view, just like there's no such thing as a 'womans' point of view on anything, seeing as how you can't attribute viewpoints to over 3 billion people at once. Lets keep that in mind.

"Few men over the age 21 are capable of having their hearts broken, but I have seen women as old as 40 cry for days and nearly drive themselves to suicide over some f*cked up words a guy said to them. That's the biggest difference between men and women; sex doesn't touch us as deeply as it touches women."

Jeez, what is with all the perpetuations of gender stereotypes on this board lately... you remind me of my parents. There are /certainly/ many guys who can get their heart broken over the age of 21. For men and women alike, I think it depends on how attached you get to another person, it's not about "the meaning of sex" per se.

Now it's my turn to go out on a limb: I think in general, women may have lower self-asteem and tend to feel lonelier. This is just a theory, of course, but I actually think men have an easier time finding a partner who will act very loving towards them than women do. I have often wondered if men don't feel that gap in their lives so often, just because everyone (their mothers, sisters, lovers, etc.) are trying to take care of them. Women often don't get that as adults, that same level of domestic love and support. Please Note: Yes I said this was me speculating, based on my life observations and how I feel about things.

(Anyway, that's my current guess as to why women may tend to become more attacched to partners)

Ok I didn't have the chance to read all posts, so forgive me for being redundant if this has already been mentioned. I have been with my fiance for 2 1/2 years and I know every crack and crevice of his body, so if someone got into bed with me and attempted to pose as him, I'd know it. Not to take any credit away from this woman, because I don't know how long she was with her boyfriend, but how do you not know how someone's body feels if they are your partner? Not that I'm doubting her, but I'm just saying, it's a little difficult to believe. I wish I knew more of the facts of the case though.

Also, shame on Mass. You'd think they would have figured something out with this case other than completely disregard it.

Ranter, you seem to really love your wife. Are you honestly saying that if your wife left you today and never spoke to you again, you wouldn't be heartbroken?

Meliso812, if you read the thread, you will find plenty of discussion about how this could have happened.

Few men over the age 21 are capable of having their hearts broken, but I have seen women as old as 40 cry for days and nearly drive themselves to suicide over some f*cked up words a guy said to them. That's the biggest difference between men and women; sex doesn't touch us as deeply as it touches women.

Bullshit. I don't know where you get your information, but this is an extremely sexist and rather offensive comment towards both men and women. I agree with a fair amount of the things you say Ranter, but this is totally off the mark.

Heh! I certainly know some guy over the age of 21 who kept sending “I am going to kill myself if you don’t take me back� emails for almost a year. I also know a guy over the age of twenty one who did actually committed suicide after an acquaintance of mine dumped him several years ago (he didn’t die).

"Few men over the age 21 are capable of having their hearts broken, but I have seen women as old as 40 cry for days and nearly drive themselves to suicide over some f*cked up words a guy said to them. That's the biggest difference between men and women; sex doesn't touch us as deeply as it touches women."

Don't generalize your emotional problems to the rest of us. Some of us are fully formed humans, with feelings and everything.

(sojourner: out of curiosity, are you going to Bonnaroo?)

Okay then, Back to Your Regular Programming

What is Bonnaroo?

(Apparently not.

It's a music festival this summer. I'm volunteering there. Someone with your handle was posting on their info board, so I was just curious)

Sorry folks. Back to Your Regular Programming

Nina
Pretty much everything I write is based on my perception of things and how I see the world. I am not a statistician, and I don't have access to too many of the arguments out there. Probably the main reason why I visit this site is because I want to read your arguments.

"but I actually think men have an easier time finding a partner who will act very loving towards them than women do. I have often wondered if men don't feel that gap in their lives so often, just because everyone (their mothers, sisters, lovers, etc.) are trying to take care of them. Women often don't get that as adults, that same level of domestic love and support."

I agree with that entirely. The question is; is that due to our genetic makeup, or is that reality a product of the society we developed since its inception?

Nina

Personally I think men and women get attached to partners at a relatively equal level. It's the devastation factor after breakups that is different.

In my profession I have witnessed a few suicides. I have never seen a man kill himself over a woman (when they commit suicide it usually over finances, and few men have failed their attempts), but I have seen several women kill themselves (or usually just unsuccessfully attempt suicide) because they were heart broken.

"The question is; is that due to our genetic makeup, or is that reality a product of the society we developed since its inception?"

Well obviously, I think it's mostly culture/society.

Because I really don't believe men and women have different emotional needs, in general. And while my parents' generation may be a little different, of people 30 and under I perceive men and women to react to breakups pretty similarly (and also similarly diversly depending on the individual)

But I totally think self-esteem plays a role in how emotionally dependent someone gets on other people. If a person thinks highly of their SO to the point where they define themselves in part based on their SO, that's going to make a difference. If a person has not been loved enough in their life and they have trouble feeling loved and loving themselves, that's going to make a difference.

I think in general in our culture, women will be defined by others more by their significant other than vice versa. Like somehow if you're a woman, who you're dating is a reflection on yourself. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like for guys it doesn't work that way. For a lot of guys it's more like their friends might say "yay, you're scoring!" and they aren't going to be judged as a person on the perceived "quality" of their significant other.

I have never seen a time in which men and women had the same emotional needs. I know my needs are considerably different from my wife's. I do work with a lot of really young men and women, and I am not all that old myself. The reason why men and women react so radically different to breakups is probably due to the different emotional needs, but I may be wrong. I think men are programed to always look for the better situation, where as women are programed to make the home as comfortable as they possibly can.

"I think in general in our culture, women will be defined by others more by their significant other than vice versa."

No, this is not true. In the professional world men are always judged by the wives they have (especially in the conservative world). Kerry's wife was a liability to him. However the husbands of most female politicians is completely unknown. A husband can be as outspoken as he wants, but a wife is expected to stay in her place.

That came out wrong, so I'll rephrase.

If the husband of a female politician is already unknown, then more than likely he will remain unknown.

Dude Ranter:

A lot of that stuff is just not true. I know we've got this culture with these gender stereotypes and all. I don't think women "evolved" to be more emotional than men. Throughout most of history and prehistory women have had to do very similar tasks as did men in order to survive. Also in a lot of cultures men take a much larger role in child-rearing than they do in our culture.

If people are raised to behave a certain way from the time they are little, that's going to have an effect.

I think most men, whether they'd admit it to their buddies or not, need to be loved, to feel cared for, to feel that somebody else thinks they're important. Do you disagree? Women have those exact same needs. I think the difference, is that women think they are expected to behave in a very caring manner to their partner, whereas men may not. Like, when you used to be single, did you ever worry that girlfriends were not really loving you and just using you, or feel like they didn't care, or anything? Or had she and past girlfriends behaved in ways that made you feel confident you were appreciated? I think those are concerns a lot of women have with a lot of relationships.

And contrary to a lot of stupid books that give relationship advice, I also think men and women have similar sexual needs. I know so many women who are discontent with the sex they are having, and feel like their SO just doesn't care.

The primary concerns for men in western culture, and in most cultures, is economic status, and social position. Most men actually think it is better to just rent love (that's why there are prostitutes; how many women do you know who pay for sex or keep male mistresses?).

"I think most men, whether they'd admit it to their buddies or not, need to be loved, to feel cared for, to feel that somebody else thinks they're important. Do you disagree? Women have those exact same needs."

I will agree with you that women have those needs, and I am slowly putting those needs to higher priority, but most men don't have those needs (or at least will not admit to them).

"Like, when you used to be single, did you ever worry that girlfriends were not really loving you and just using you,"

Sorry I separated your sentence.

No, I never cared, and the moment i discovered I was being use, the relationship was over (and usually they were ones who got heart broken the worse).

For me the most important was honesty, and honesty if ever came into doubt the relationship had no meaning. I have always wondered why women (even really liberated women) will stay with assholes. Most men will tell you; the worse you treat a woman, the better they will treat you.

"Most men actually think it is better to just rent love (that's why there are prostitutes; how many women do you know who pay for sex or keep male mistresses?)."

Most men I know don't think that. (Also, I'm pretty sure that statement would help support my analysis that men don't feel like their SO is a significant part of their identity the same way many women do) But really, men I know don't think that. I'm also going to a pretty liberal, bobo type school though, so there also isn't a huge culture of pursuing wealth and status. I think the fact that there's a big difference between conservative and liberel culture in the U.S. when it comes to gender roles though, is testimony to the significant role culture plays in forming gender roles.

"but most men don't have those needs "

Maybe they won't admit them. I absolutely believe most men have those needs though. I've known very few men who had bad relationships with their family, but those I've known wind up being emo as could be. I knew a kid who tried to kill himself 7 times over girls. I think everyone needs an emotional support base.

"I have always wondered why women (even really liberated women) will stay with assholes"

I don't know if most women intentially stay with assholes. I think it's that they can't tell what's going on. Not all, but a lot of guys don't express emotion. And women have a tendency that if a guy you like doesn't like you, it somehow reflects on you, like you're not good enough or you did something wrong or something. And I think it's cultural. I don't think women are raised to love themselves unconditionally or to feel that they are worthy of love unconditioinally and to demand respect, they're more raised that they need to put other's needs first and try and please others. So if others aren't being pleased, they wonder "what's wrong with me?" (I realize that's very generalistic, but it describes a lot of people's experiences)

'No, I never cared, and the moment i discovered I was being use, the relationship was over"

To me that doesn't say that you didn't need love, that says to me that you were comfortable /demanding/ expecting/ love, and that you were confident you'd find it somewhere else.

"To me that doesn't say that you didn't need love, that says to me that you were comfortable /demanding/ expecting/ love, and that you were confident you'd find it somewhere else."

The last part of that is true. I always knew I could find love someplace else, but no, I did want love, respect, kindness, and someone I felt good around. I just never worried if I was being used or not, because if I was being used I knew I could leave them in a minute.

How difficult is it for you to leave a man you love? Actually I remember you telling me that you had not yet had a serious BF. I was raised to believe that if you love someone, you have to be able to let them go. If a woman ever used me, I still loved them, I just had no problem letting them go.

"The last part of that is true. I always knew I could find love someplace else, but no, I did want love, respect, kindness, and someone I felt good around. I just never worried if I was being used or not, because if I was being used I knew I could leave them in a minute."

My whole point here is that I don't think women have that same level of confidence in finding someone else who will love and respect them as much as they need. In general guys don't provide as much love and respect to their partners as vice versa (or at least, there are a lot of assholes out there, I'm not really sure how you quantify something like that). I think women's low self-esteem can draw from a number of cultural sources. But basically, I just think they don't have confidence upon breaking up that they will find someone who'll treat them better shortly down the line -and in a lot of cases, they're probably right. All I'm saying is I think women and men have similar needs, but I think women don't get those needs met as often, and therefore may appear needier.

"My whole point here is that I don't think women have that same level of confidence in finding someone else who will love and respect them as much as they need. In general guys don't provide as much love and respect to their partners as vice versa (or at least, there are a lot of assholes out there, I'm not really sure how you quantify something like that)."

This I completely agree with.

"But basically, I just think they don't have confidence upon breaking up that they will find someone who'll treat them better shortly down the line -and in a lot of cases, they're probably right."

Also I agree, but the last part of this is completely wrong, and it is a sad reality of society. Why do women not feel they can find someone better than the asshole they have? Trust me; there is always a better man out there willing to love you.

I got to go. Thanks Nina