Mod The Sims - Is it rape if you change your mind afterwards?

jooxis

23rd Jul 2010, 09:37 PM

HystericalParoxysm

23rd Jul 2010, 09:41 PM

... what the fucking fuck? A "reasonable woman" should know that sometimes dudes lie to get in your pants. Hell -people- lie in general, male and horny or not. This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day, and I've read a -lot- of stupid things today.

Vanito

24th Jul 2010, 04:10 AM

Race is overrated.

mustluvcatz

24th Jul 2010, 04:35 AM

"If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated," the judges said in their ruling.

Huh? I must've missed something in that article because the only thing I saw about a "relationship" was this:

"The two had sex in a nearby building."

Excuse me, sex in a nearby building is NOT a relationship. I don't see any mention of the pair having any kind of relationship. If this woman had been in a serious, romantic relationship with this man since 2008, I could see her being upset when she found out lied. However, it appears to be a one day (eh, maybe it was night?) stand. She's Jewish, he's an Arab- ok, I understand that there's some "bad blood", so to speak, between the two. Bad blood or not, she said yes and him lying to her doesn't give her a right to cry "rape". That's downplaying the seriousness of rape and making a mockery of it.

Btw- lol @ "co-operated". I think the word they're looking for is consented.

supersimoholic

24th Jul 2010, 11:50 AM

Umm... Rape is being forced into having sex - she chose to have sex with him!!
So, next time a woman has sex with a man that says he likes this football team but then after she finds out that really he supports the opposing team and just said he liked her team to get into her pants... She can get him done for rape? Maybe this woman shouldn't open her legs so easily! And to be honest, if anything that makes her sound like a mega racist! What if it was "Oh no, I thought you were JAPANESE, not CHINESE, sorry but RAPE!!!!!!" or even "AUSTRALIAN!??? I only had sex with you because I thought you were from NEW ZEALAND!! RAAAAPPPPEEEEE!!!!!!!"

"Consensual Sex" is NOT rape in any way, shape or form between two adults. That's one screwed legal system, and I live in England!...

HystericalParoxysm

24th Jul 2010, 12:10 PM

supersimoholic

24th Jul 2010, 12:45 PM

Y'know... the whole "deceit rape" thing. The only time I can see something like that making even a -tiny- bit of sense is when something someone says is forcing you into a sexual situation you don't want to be in under any circumstances. For example, "You're gonna fuck me right now or I'll kill your kid." Or the whole thing with whatsherface and her mom in the first season of 24.... When you have no choice but to consent even though you really don't want to.

I still think of that as forced rape, because like you said, there's no choice.

I think the only way this would make any sense is if your are with an identical twin and the other one pretended to be your partner - But ONLY if you were in a committed relationship with them.

crocobaura

24th Jul 2010, 12:51 PM

"The court must protect the public interest against sophisticated criminals with a smooth tongue and sweet talking, who can lead astray innocent victims."

Stupid hypocrites. They would sleep around for money or favours and god forbid to call them whores, they are innocent victims now able to put in jail any guy that misrepresented himself.

Oaktree

24th Jul 2010, 06:50 PM

People make choices based on faulty or incomplete information all the time. When you later find out that you had wrong information, you can't say that the choice you made wasn't your responsibility. She made the choice to have sex with that man and even though she later found out that she had faulty information, she is still responsible for the choice she made.

jooxis

24th Jul 2010, 06:51 PM

Y'know... the whole "deceit rape" thing. The only time I can see something like that making even a -tiny- bit of sense is when something someone says is forcing you into a sexual situation you don't want to be in under any circumstances. For example, "You're gonna fuck me right now or I'll kill your kid." Or the whole thing with whatsherface and her mom in the first season of 24.... When you have no choice but to consent even though you really don't want to.

What if someone offered you money for sex but after the deed refused to pay up?

When you offer to buy an item, then take it without paying - it's called theft.

So would that be "rape"?

edit: no need to click "disagree" I'm simply asking a question without stating my opinion.

Mistermook

25th Jul 2010, 05:15 PM

I'm fairly certain that in the US once you've given and are able to give consent there are no "backsies" on the issue. If everyone anyone has sex with consensually but later on turns out to be a disappointment were a rapist we'd be jailing nearly everyone. It doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, in the US at least, I can see a civil suit of fraud. I don't know what sort of damages "Dude talked me into having sex with him" might be worth, but if someone misrepresents themselves and the other party declares harm that's usually the only way to recover the harm, except in the specific instances where fraud is criminal ("He told me he was a police officer, and it was the law that I had to have sex with him." - except that would be impersonating an officer AND rape, because using authority to compel a sexual performance is rape.)

Anyways, it's worth noting that the Israeli approach is significantly different than the US. Yet another reason to support distancing ourselves from our political and economic arrangements with the country.

el_flel

25th Jul 2010, 05:28 PM

What if someone offered you money for sex but after the deed refused to pay up?

When you offer to buy an item, then take it without paying - it's called theft.

So would that be "rape"?I would say no. The person made the conscious choice to have sex but they didn't get the outcome they wanted, in a similar way to the woman in the article. In HP's example the person had sex under duress (made me think of Cake or Death? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY)), but in your example there is no duress and they were still consenting, even if they wouldn't have done if money weren't being promised.

I would say I'm shocked at the outcome of the case, but in that part of the world I find the legal system highly questionable and not just at all. Just because you have sex but then find out the person lied, and had they told the truth you would not have slept with them, does not make the situation rape. If it does then heck, I expect there's a lot of women (and men) out there who have been "raped".

EDIT: and I agree with mustluvcatz - it does make a mockery of rape.

Clashfan

25th Jul 2010, 06:09 PM

That is a shocking precedent for their legal system to set as others have stated it opens up the possibility of calling almost any type of sex rape. If you have been sexually active for any length of time you have probably had sex that you later regretted for whatever reason. Of course the issue here is not the sex itself but the political/ideological difference between Jews and Arabs. Makes me wonder what the outcome would have been if he had claimed to be Jewish and turned out to be say Norwegian or Chinese or any other race than Arab.

The only situation I can think of in US law that would label consensual sex as rape would be if one of them was under the legal age of consent, therefore negating the ability for it to be consensual in the first place, otherwise know as "statutory rape". Not a law I necessarily believe in, especially when talking about an 18 year old and say a 16 year old, but that is a different topic altogether.

I am also in agreement of it making a mockery of rape.

jooxis

25th Jul 2010, 07:38 PM

Exactly. There can be sex that you later regretted - but to call yourself a victim of rape is a slap in the face to the real rape victims out there.

LadyFrontbum

26th Jul 2010, 05:38 AM

It's not rape. At all. She may feel like she's been raped afterward but the bottom line is she had consensual sex.

The deceit rape / retroactive rape thing makes no sense at all to me.

Say you had sex with a guy who was a blood relative and knew he was but withheld this information from you in order to get in your pants - now that would be sex based on deception, but I still don't see it as rape. At the time the sex was consensual and willing... that automatically makes it as far from rape as you can get.

Afterward you would feel incredibly violated but I really doubt you would feel anything even close to what rape victims feel. The guy in my scenario should be charged with something for sure but I don't think it should be referred to as rape. "Sex by deception" is enough imo.

"A legal precedent in Israel classifying sex by deception as rape was set by the Supreme Court in a 2008 conviction of a man who posed as a government official and persuaded women to have sex with him by promising them state benefits."

Hello. Stupid much?

Doddibot

26th Jul 2010, 10:43 AM

What if the guy wakes up next to a girl who looks terrible without her makeup? If he knew she looked like that, he'd never have slept with her. Deceit rape!

I agree, it's stupid. You're consenting to have sex knowing the other person could be a filthy liar, and accepting that risk. It's just the way everything works.

SuicidiaParasidia

27th Jul 2010, 03:53 AM

riddle me this:

is it rape when DURING the act, the woman/man/whoever changes their mind, but the other wont stop/isnt paying attention?
they consented the start, but not the end.

Ive

27th Jul 2010, 03:57 AM

Wont stop? Yea, maybe depending how it plays out from when the other part says stop
Don't know/pay attention? How are they suppose to know that they have to stop if they well... don't know?

But then again he/she could always play on the "Oh I didn't know that he/she didn't want me to and therefore I didn't stop". Difficult.

Clashfan

27th Jul 2010, 04:08 AM

riddle me this:

is it rape when DURING the act, the woman/man/whoever changes their mind, but the other wont stop/isnt paying attention?
they consented the start, but not the end.

Tough call. I think it would really have to be based on the scenario and how much force was used to complete the act. If you call a halt and the other person then holds you down and forces you to complete the act well in my book that would be rape.

TRIriana

27th Jul 2010, 06:31 AM

Force used has nothing to do with it. The second the word "no" or "stop" is used and the act continues on regardless, it is rape.

jooxis

27th Jul 2010, 08:55 AM

You have a right to change your mind at any point - if you start screaming that you want someone to stop, they have to stop.

Doddibot

27th Jul 2010, 11:16 AM

I'd say it's even bad if somebody changes their mind during sex and doesn't say anything. Not necessarily morally wrong for the other person to continue if they don't know, but ... sad, I guess, if somebody is too scared to say no. Not legally rape, therefore, but not something that should happen (in a perfect world).

appelsapgodin

28th Jul 2010, 03:37 PM

That isn't rape, it's regret.

I'm definitely not someone who sleeps around a lot, but if I had to count the times that I regretted having sex with someone and would call it rape. Well, I would have been raped a lot.

I think this woman is just a hypocrit and a racist. She's probably doing this because her surroundings are against arabs and she's taking this as the easy way out. I think it is also pretty naive to think every man you sleep with will marry you and have kids and a happy life with you afterwards. She was horny, she probably enjoyed it and yes it turns out he was a liar. Welcome into the real world where men will always lie to get in your pants, honey.

Vanito

31st Jul 2010, 01:35 AM

It IS rape when the person continues AFTER stop is said. And women who repeatedly try to jail men for fake rape should be dumped into psychiatric institutions.

Oaktree

31st Jul 2010, 01:57 AM

And women who repeatedly try to jail men for fake rape should be dumped into psychiatric institutions.

I think they should actually do jail time. Rape is a very serious accusation. Even if you are simply accused of it but are later found innocent, in the US, you will often be put on the sex offender registry anyway. Being on the sex offender registry severely restricts your freedom and it follows you for the rest of your life. Even people who get on it for petty things like indecent exposure are treated as if they're violent rapists.

I'm sure there's some sort of law about false testimony, false accusation, or fraud that you can try someone under for repeated false accusations of rape.

Ive

31st Jul 2010, 02:09 AM

Falsely accusing someone of rape = the same jail time the "rapist" would have gotten. Or at least a sentence that measures up to what you would have to pay back, depending on the case ofcourse..

Wearing a brand that you are a rapist or anything else bad is very devastating. Like this article (on dailyfailmail, I know :rolleyes:) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298010/Facebook-libel-Law-student-dubbed-paedophile-wins-10-000-libel-damages.html) Not rape related but atleast the guy got some justice in the end. He couldn't go outside because of fear that people would attack him. There have been enough cases where men have committed suicide because they were falsely accused of rape.

el_flel

31st Jul 2010, 12:36 PM

People who falsely accuse someone of rape can, and are, imprisoned. They charge is most commonly perverting the course of justice, but other charges can include perjury and wasting police time. And they only need to have done it once. A few examples:
- Mother jailed for 2 years for false rape accusation. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201224/Mother-cried-rape-jailed-years.html)
- Lesbian jailed for falsely accusing a man of rape. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5077391/Lesbian-jailed-for-false-rape-accusation.html)
- Woman jailed for 3 yearsfor false rape accusation. (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/justice_happened_things_system_solomon_JyyLFVitMM4bx63gpD1ouI)

EDIT:
He couldn't go outside because of fear that people would attack him.This is because of stupid vigilantes who think they have the right to take the law into their own hands. Not directly the accuser's fault, but still their fault nonetheless.

Ive

31st Jul 2010, 02:53 PM

Yea but sadly that's what happens when people get accused of such things (guilty or not)

When I was in school at 11, one girl in my class accused one of our teachers of touching her and ripped her towel off in the wardrobes and apparently it was in front of all the other girls in our class. Funny thing is 1. Wardrobes lock from the inside and only the janitor if called can come and open it. 2. He was up in the cafeteria talking to other teachers when it "happened". Some girls jumped on the bandwagon and loooooved creating drama while most of us just said it's not really possible and we haven't seen a thing. He was suspended for 6 months for investigations and all students + parents that he had anything to do with had to come in for a meeting with headmaster and a police investigator. He was cleared of everything, she admitted to lying about it but still to this day (10 years later) he is known as the dodgy guy who touches you in the wardrobe if you are alone. Quite damaging..

jooxis

31st Jul 2010, 04:03 PM

el_flel

31st Jul 2010, 04:13 PM

Quite damaging..I totally agree and I find it disgusting to lie about things like that. It's a fault of the human mind that once we hear something it's hard to not think about it.

jooxis

31st Jul 2010, 04:59 PM

I totally agree and I find it disgusting to lie about things like that. It's a fault of the human mind that once we hear something it's hard to not think about it.

That's true, but I think it can be minimized if the suspects identity remains completely confidential - for example, if news channels don't release pictures and names of suspects before they are even convicted. I remember some years ago, three guys were accused of rape (which turned out to be false) but in the meantime their faces and names were on Fox News every single day along with coverage about "rape rape RAPE!!!". That surely ruined their lives, forever. Their identities should have been kept away from NATIONAL TELEVISION.

el_flel

31st Jul 2010, 05:26 PM

I totally agree. Certain groups of people, however, think they have a 'right' to know this information.

Doddibot

1st Aug 2010, 10:04 AM

Falsely accusing someone of rape is pretty much as bad as rape. But from my point of view the problem has always been - "proving" that rape took place. It's unfortunately a crime that doesn't leave much evidence. Unless you're covered in semen and bruises, which isn't always the case.
This.

The problem with harsh sentences for false accusations of rape is that there will be people who don't want to risk this, so won't report a rape. And it's hard enough to prove rape, even proving that somebody had sex with you doesn't prove it as there will often be an argument that you consented (or, in extreme cases, should/would have consented so it's ok. It's only recently that husbands could be charged with raping their wives).

Vanito

1st Aug 2010, 11:38 AM

This.

The problem with harsh sentences for false accusations of rape is that there will be people who don't want to risk this, so won't report a rape. And it's hard enough to prove rape, even proving that somebody had sex with you doesn't prove it as there will often be an argument that you consented (or, in extreme cases, should/would have consented so it's ok. It's only recently that husbands could be charged with raping their wives).
There is a BIG difference between a woman who in a normal situation accuses a man of rape, and the type of (borderline) women who claim to be raped by about each and every ex who dumped them and threatens to-become-exes with it. The latter kind belongs in a mental institution.

appelsapgodin

1st Aug 2010, 12:03 PM

A friend of mine has been falsely accused of rape. One of his exes who knew this information used it and also falsely accused him of rape to become friends with the woman who was the first to falsely accuse him. (Yes complicated much.) They both tell this story in the whole city. All his close friends do know that they are lying, but it is a hard accusation to fight against. They are quite set on ruining his reputation and this has ruined his life for the past 5 years.

Neither of the woman have ever gone to the police with their stories. I wish they would because then we (his good friends) could testify that at least the second one is lying for sure (since the time she said this 'rape' took place some of us were on holliday together out of the country with him, so he wasn't even close to her.) With the first woman he's had a relationship for 6 years which was kinda love-hate in which they would fight and break up, make it good again, have sex, fight and break up etc etc. But they had a relationship for 2 more years after what the first woman called 'the incident'. She is the kind of woman who tells more stories though, just to get attention. She also tells he has set her house on fire. She had a fire, but the firedepartment sorted it out and it was definitely not arson. It was her own fault because she fell asleep with a candle in the windowcounter which burned down the curtains. Which is what I heard from her roommates also.

Anyway, complicated story. Just wanted to illustrate that someone who willingly accuses someone else of things like rape can do this because they want to destroy someones reputation for their own gain. So long as they don't go to the police with these accusations a story like this can go round for ages and ages without ever being sorted out. And I would truely love to see both women go to jail or get a fine because they are lying about serious things like this. They degrade women who were raped for real and they ruin an innocent person's life. I don't think that is something that should go unpunsihed.

Lemon&Lime

1st Aug 2010, 12:25 PM

I'm posting this debate inspired by the recent news story about an Israeli woman charging a man with rape after having consensual sex with him - because he misrepresented himself as an Israeli (but was actually an Arab).

Israel jails Arab for 'deceit rape' (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/201072191017847251.html)

Can anything be considered rape if the sex was consensual at the moment it took place?

From what I know men say (and avoid saying) many things in order to impress women/get them into bed. Many of them would be "rapists" by this logic, I guess.

Actually, yes. If the male in this case for example was HIV positive and KNEW that he was and didn't use contraception, it would not only be classed as rape but manslaughter/attempted murder. You might think that the woman should have some responsibility for putting on a condom, but he would have full blame, regardless of whether he said he didn't have HIV or not.

And don't forget constitutional rape.

In response to this particular case though, we have to remember cultural differences. There may be a very important reason why this case would be considored seriously in a non-western society.

jooxis

1st Aug 2010, 01:04 PM

Actually, yes. If the male in this case for example was HIV positive and KNEW that he was and didn't use contraception, it would not only be classed as rape but manslaughter/attempted murder.

It still wouldn't be rape. It is a crime however, criminal transmission of HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV).

And don't forget constitutional rape.

Is any form of rape constitutional? :wtf:

Ive

1st Aug 2010, 03:42 PM

Lying about having HIV is dangerous. Lying about being well off however.. err

Lemon&Lime

1st Aug 2010, 05:51 PM

It still wouldn't be rape. It is a crime however, criminal transmission of HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV).

Read that article you linked to me properly. It says that you can be convicted of sexual assault in some areas.

Subsequent legal precedent[3] has established that failure to disclose HIV-positive status, combined with failure to utilize protective measures (condom use), is sufficiently fraudulent behaviour to constitute turning "consensual" sex into aggravated sexual assault, since the other party has been denied the information necessary to give properly informed consent.

Is any form of rape constitutional? :wtf:

Look it up on Wikipedia. If you have sex with someone who is underage, even if they consent, its constitutional rape.

jooxis

1st Aug 2010, 05:57 PM

Read that article you linked to me properly. It says that you can be convicted of sexual assault in some areas.

"While sexual assaults are associated with the crime of rape, it may cover assaults which would not be considered rape" from wikipedia. I would not consider it "rape", which doesn't make it any less wrong of course.

Look it up on Wikipedia. If you have sex with someone who is underage, even if they consent, its constitutional rape.

That's called statutory rape

el_flel

1st Aug 2010, 07:18 PM

I think the area of having unprotected sex without informing the other person you have HIV is a bit hazy. Whilst it is undoubtedly an absolutely vile thing to do I'm not entirely sure I agree with it being classified as rape. Firstly, if the victim knew about the other person's HIV status it is still probable that they would have chosen to have sex with them anyway, the only difference being they would have used a condom. Secondly, they still consented. Thirdly, (and I am in no way trying to place blame upon the victims but this is such an important point) both parties have a responsibility to use a condom, especially with someone you don't know all that well. I am completely aware that people lie about not having it, and I am also aware that many people don't know they have it, so this point really does depend upon the relationship the two people have. I was watching Ricki Lake (I know, I know) when they did a special on HIV and AIDS and there was a woman there who contracted it from her husband, who either didn't know he had it or lied about having it (I can't remember which).

Statutory rape is different to 'regular' rape because minors legally cannot give consent to sexual acts.

jooxis

2nd Aug 2010, 08:41 AM

I think the area of having unprotected sex without informing the other person you have HIV is a bit hazy. Whilst it is undoubtedly an absolutely vile thing to do I'm not entirely sure I agree with it being classified as rape. Firstly, if the victim knew about the other person's HIV status it is still probable that they would have chosen to have sex with them anyway, the only difference being they would have used a condom. Secondly, they still consented.

That's sort of how I see it. And there's no reason not to count all the other serious STDs with this logic (not just single out HIV).
If you are a conscious and sober adult and said "yes" to sex, then I can't see it as rape. Besides, every time you consent to sex you somehow risk that your partner may be infected with something. The possibility is always there no matter what the other person tells you. So protection should be everyone's responsibility in an ideal world.
I'm not blaming the victims of course, I really feel horrible for someone who may have contracted HIV from someone else, I'm just saying it isn't exactly rape - even though it's a terrible thing in itself.

Lemon&Lime

2nd Aug 2010, 10:43 PM

"While sexual assaults are associated with the crime of rape, it may cover assaults which would not be considered rape" from wikipedia. I would not consider it "rape", which doesn't make it any less wrong of course.

But it's not what you would consider, it's what the law would decide, and it explicitly says "rape" on the article.

And to argue against your point further - rape is sex without full/informed consent, yes? Well, how can a person give full/informed consent if their partner lies about their HIV status? That's what makes it rape.

Oaktree

3rd Aug 2010, 05:04 AM

But it's not what you would consider, it's what the law would decide, and it explicitly says "rape" on the article.

And to argue against your point further - rape is sex without full/informed consent, yes? Well, how can a person give full/informed consent if their partner lies about their HIV status? That's what makes it rape.

Few people are every fully informed of any decision they make. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, though, even if it seems arbitrary. The law draws it's invisible line in the sand at children and the mentally unstable being unable to provide consent, but a sane adult, even with only partial knowledge of the circumstances, is still able to provide consent. There are other laws that punish those who willfully spread STD's; why is the word "rape" so important, especially when it is inaccurate to the situation? I think the people that do it should still get the book thrown at them, hard, but I don't think the term "rape" is accurate.

jooxis

3rd Aug 2010, 09:40 AM

But it's not what you would consider, it's what the law would decide, and it explicitly says "rape" on the article.

And to argue against your point further - rape is sex without full/informed consent, yes? Well, how can a person give full/informed consent if their partner lies about their HIV status? That's what makes it rape.

There is no such thing as being "fully" informed about the person you are about to have sex with. No one would consent to sleeping with someone if they knew that person would kill them/beat them/rob them one day. Not many people would have sex with someone if they knew the person would ruin their lives/make them miserable/break their heart/cheat on them/etc... Heck, not many people would have sex with someone if they knew that person would later be a pain in the ass.
You can't know everything. It doesn't make it rape, just because you didn't recieve all the information you wanted. You still decided to have sex with them despite the lack of information, so you took that into account.

Lemon&Lime

3rd Aug 2010, 05:32 PM

There is no such thing as being "fully" informed about the person you are about to have sex with. No one would consent to sleeping with someone if they knew that person would kill them/beat them/rob them one day. Not many people would have sex with someone if they knew the person would ruin their lives/make them miserable/break their heart/cheat on them/etc... Heck, not many people would have sex with someone if they knew that person would later be a pain in the ass.
You can't know everything. It doesn't make it rape, just because you didn't recieve all the information you wanted. You still decided to have sex with them despite the lack of information, so you took that into account.

You are kind of going off topic here. Informed consent is agreeing to have sex with someone in full knowledge of what you are aggreeing to. Agreeing to get into a relationship with someone afterwards (if sex is first) which leads you open to being killed/beaten/robbed is a different thing altogether! Keep it relevant please! We're talking about the moment you agree to unprotected sex, not marrying them afterwards/before.

And anyway, if you read that Wiki article it says that my argument for it to be rape is the one that was used to get that law passed in many countries such as Canada.

If a person lies and says they are not HIV positive - that's not you sleeping with them without making sure you are being fully informed, but being lied to. The person who believes should not be the one who is punished. And the whole "Yeah but its your fault if you believe them when they say they don't have HIV and you don't use protection" to me, is similar to saying it's a womans fault if she gets raped while walking down a dark alley which a policeman told her was safe. Putting yourself in a vulnerable position in which you were mislead to believe was safe is not your own fault - but it is the fault of the person who deliberately mislead you. Therefore; withholding consent maliciously and so therefore the man/woman is unable to provide the legal definition of consent, and it is sexual assault.

jooxis

3rd Aug 2010, 05:42 PM

If a person lies and says they are not HIV positive - that's not you sleeping with them without making sure you are being fully informed, but being lied to.

Yes, you are being lied to - not raped.

The person who believes should not be the one who is punished.

Why would they be punished? When did I say the person should be punished?

And the whole "Yeah but its your fault if you believe them when they say they don't have HIV and you don't use protection" to me, is similar to saying it's a womans fault if she gets raped while walking down a dark alley which a policeman told her was safe.

Except no one here said that. I didn't say "it's your fault blahblah" - ALL I said is IT'S NOT RAPE. I did however, say, that it's a horrible crime.

Putting yourself in a vulnerable position in which you were mislead to believe was safe is not your own fault - but it is the fault of the person who deliberately mislead you. Therefore; withholding consent maliciously and so therefore the man/woman is unable to provide the legal definition of consent, and it is sexual assault

I never tried to imply whose fault it is or whether it's anyone's fault.

Again, all I said was that it's not rape. This does not mean someone deserved it. This does not mean that it's a good thing. All it means is that it is technically not rape. You have been tricked, double-crossed, lied to in a most horrible way but you have not been raped.

Purity4

3rd Aug 2010, 08:39 PM

Yes, you are being lied to - not raped.

Why would they be punished? When did I say the person should be punished?

Except no one here said that. I didn't say "it's your fault blahblah" - ALL I said is IT'S NOT RAPE. I did however, say, that it's a horrible crime.

I never tried to imply whose fault it is or whether it's anyone's fault.

Again, all I said was that it's not rape. This does not mean someone deserved it. This does not mean that it's a good thing. All it means is that it is technically not rape. You have been tricked, double-crossed, lied to in a most horrible way but you have not been raped.

I completely support Jooxis here. Calling something rape that isn't rape in no way helps future rape victims. Lying about having and transmitting HIV/AIDS is also a horrible crime, but it's not rape to do so. I'm not sure what it would be called, Reckless Endangerment, Attempted Manslaughter, Attempted Murder, I don't know. It is a horrible crime, but it is not the horrible crime of rape.

el_flel

3rd Aug 2010, 09:56 PM

The wiki entry says "aggravated sexual assault", that's not necessarily rape.

Lemon&Lime

4th Aug 2010, 10:06 AM

Actually, under Canada it does say rape.

Secondly, I think you're all struggling to grasp what I am saying. Sex without informed consent is rape. A person cannot make informed consent if a person withholds their HIV status. That argument will successfully get a conviction for rape in many countries (Canada is my example). I haven't actually read a post which directly argues the point I'm making in this post for the 3rd time, so I'll leave it at that.

How about this - how does attempted murder make more sense as a conviction than rape? Using your logic about the rape scenario; I could say that murder/rape makes no sense because it's not like it was murder/rape at the time because the person agreed to it and there was no malice involved. :)

jooxis

4th Aug 2010, 10:17 AM

A person cannot make informed consent if a person withholds their HIV status.

Informed consent means you are conscious (not in a coma, asleep) and are in the right mind to make your own decisions (not mentally ill) and mentally mature (not a child or animal) - a person can and does make informed consent to sleep with someone who withholds any information about any infections they have. You, as a fully conscious able-minded adult are making your own decision - everyone knows that people can lie, this is information that we ALL know.

You KNOW there is the possibility the person is lying to you and you are still fully capable of making the decision to either back off or go ahead. You weren't physically forced or taken advantage of while unconscious.

Lemon&Lime

4th Aug 2010, 10:22 AM

This goes back to my point that the person who is sleeping with someone who is HIV positive shouldn't be blamed. You are putting the blame on the person who had sex with them in your argument - they should have known that they could have been lying. You agree with me that they are not being fully informed, yet you're saying its their fault if they believe them so its not rape because they deserve it if they're gullible?

jooxis

4th Aug 2010, 10:53 AM

Stop making that strawman every single time. If you can't understand, then you can't understand.

I am saying that given the fact that the victim would be a conscious, fully-abled adult that the crime (CRIME! HORRIBLE TERRIBLE CRIME!) being committed upon them would NOT qualify as as the crime of RAPE but as a DIFFERENT KIND OF CRIME.

I am not "putting the blame" on the victim by not calling the criminal a rapist.

I am making a dictinction between what is rape and what is not rape.

simbalena

4th Aug 2010, 11:35 AM

You agree with me that they are not being fully informed, yet you're saying its their fault if they believe them so its not rape because they deserve it if they're gullible?

It's not rape because it's not forced sex. Using that logic anyone who says they are sterile or taking contraceptives to someone and has sex with them and gets them (or themselves) pregnant has raped them. That's not rape.

el_flel

4th Aug 2010, 12:08 PM

Actually, under Canada it does say rape.I skimmed through it and couldn't see rape specifically mentioned, whereabouts did you read it?

Secondly, I think you're all struggling to grasp what I am saying. Sex without informed consent is rape. A person cannot make informed consent if a person withholds their HIV status. That argument will successfully get a conviction for rape in many countries (Canada is my example). I haven't actually read a post which directly argues the point I'm making in this post for the 3rd time, so I'll leave it at that. I don't think people are struggling to understand you. We get what the law says, I don't think anyone is debating that. What people are really debating is that, to them, it doesn't make sense to class it as rape. I get the point about informed consent, and I get that consent can only be used as a defence if the defendant had disclosed their HIV status prior to sexual intercourse, but I just find it a bit strange for reasons I've already mentioned.

How about this - how does attempted murder make more sense as a conviction than rape? Using your logic about the rape scenario; I could say that murder/rape makes no sense because it's not like it was murder/rape at the time because the person agreed to it and there was no malice involved. :)I would think that attempted murder makes more sense because people cannot ever legally consent to be killed.

Lemon&Lime

4th Aug 2010, 12:15 PM

Several Canadian courts have ruled that people who are not informed that a sexual partner is HIV-positive cannot truly give consent to sex. And therefore if no consent is given to sex, it would be rape or sexual/aggreviated assault.

In R. v Konzani, the same court held that a person accused of recklessly transmitting HIV could only raise the defense of consent, including an honest belief in consent, in cases where that consent was a "willing" or "conscious" consent. In other words, the court distinguished between “willingly running the risk of transmission” and “willingly consenting to the risk of transmission.” This suggests that consent will only operate as a defense—in all but the most exceptional of cases—where there has already been prior disclosure of known HIV-positive status. (United Kingdom)

These quotes show there is a legal precedent in Canada and the United Kingdom which backs my opinion.

And yes, you're not putting the blame on the victim because you're not calling them a rapist - but you are saying its the victim's fault for not realising they may have been lying. That was my point, please reread my post.

simbalena

4th Aug 2010, 12:19 PM

I would think that attempted murder makes more sense because people cannot ever legally consent to be killed.

In some places they can can't they? Isn't euthanasia legal in some countries? But then that doesn't help Figgi's argument anyway because voluntary death is not murder and voluntary sex is not rape.

you are saying its the victim's fault for not realising they may have been lying.

I can't see anywhere that anyone has said it's the victim's fault. If something isn't classified as rape it doesn't mean that the victim is to blame. Making that assumption does not make sense.

jooxis

4th Aug 2010, 12:20 PM

And yes, you're not putting the blame on the victim because you're not calling them a rapist - but you are saying its the victim's fault for not realising they may have been lying. That was my point, please reread my post.

Then you just don't understand. This has nothing to do with anyone's fault - it's the criminals fault. The crime however, is not rape.

I'm not saying it's the victim's fault. The victim HAS BEEN WRONGED. But not raped. Why? Because I explained it ten times. Because they weren't forced and they were conscious and said yes. That's why it's not rape - that's why it's a different crime. They were given the DECISION to have sex or not - unlike rape victims.

Lemon&Lime

4th Aug 2010, 12:34 PM

But they were not given an INFORMED DECISION which, like it or not, is the legal definition of consensual sex. Might be different to your opinion but that's life.

All I'm saying is I agree with the lawyers and judges. They were not given the decision on whether or not to have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive, therefore consent could not be given as a defence.

And, again - how is attempted murder/manslaughter more suitable as a verdict? Or assault? How can someone be assaulted if they were willing, like you said? Or how can someone be murdered or attempted to be murdered or accidently murdered if they were not under any duress at the time, and potentially walked away from the "scene of the crime" relatively happy?

At the end of the day, you can argue that it's not rape but it's not like the alternative makes much more sense.

el_flel

4th Aug 2010, 12:44 PM

And therefore if no consent is given to sex, it would be rape or sexual/aggreviated assault.

These quotes show there is a legal precedent in Canada and the United Kingdom which backs my opinion. Thank you. Although in the case of R v Konzani I believe that the consent part relates not to sexual intercourse but to contracting HIV, and he wasn't convicted of sexual assault or rape, but of grievous bodily harm.

And yes, you're not putting the blame on the victim because you're not calling them a rapist - but you are saying its the victim's fault for not realising they may have been lying. That was my point, please reread my post.Was that aimed at me? Because if it was I've never once blamed the victim. No one here has put blame on the victim. People understand that a criminal offence has taken place but are debating as to what that offence is.

In some places they can can't they? Isn't euthanasia legal in some countries? But then that doesn't help Figgi's argument anyway because voluntary death is not murder and voluntary sex is not rape.Exactly.

simbalena

4th Aug 2010, 12:45 PM

But they were not given an INFORMED DECISION which, like it or not, is the legal definition of consensual sex. Might be different to your opinion but that's life.

So any woman who says they are on the pill when they aren't and gets pregnant has raped the father of their child???

el_flel

4th Aug 2010, 12:58 PM

And, again - how is attempted murder/manslaughter more suitable as a verdict? Or assault? How can someone be assaulted if they were willing, like you said? Or how can someone be murdered or attempted to be murdered or accidently murdered if they were not under any duress at the time, and potentially walked away from the "scene of the crime" relatively happy?

At the end of the day, you can argue that it's not rape but it's not like the alternative makes much more sense.The alternative being manslaughter, attempted murder, or murder (to save my hands I'll abbreviate to MAMM)? That makes way more sense because - in most countries - people cannot ever consent to death, even if they want to die. That's why those charges can be applied. Duress isn't necessary at all for a conviction of either offence. People who are uknowingly poisoned, for example, aren't under duress but the poisoner is still guilty of one of those crimes (which crime is obviously dependant on the outcome). Criminal transmission of HIV is classed as MAMM because the defendant knowingly gave the victim a virus which is likely to kill them.

jooxis

4th Aug 2010, 01:08 PM

But they were not given an INFORMED DECISION which, like it or not, is the legal definition of consensual sex. Might be different to your opinion but that's life.

From what I've read on Wikipedia about rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) and informed consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent), it mentions nothing that you speak of. Even if it did, it doesn't matter, I am arguing that it's not rape. It may as well be just as bad of a crime, equally punishable, I'm completely fine with that, I am arguing about the semantics being used here.

They were not given the decision on whether or not to have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive, therefore consent could not be given as a defence.

They were given the decision to sleep with someone who may or may not be lying about anything and everything. The decision also entails the use or non-use of condoms. These are decisions rape victims cannot make - which is what makes it rape in the first place, you weren't given a choice. If none of this was forced, then, well I'm tired of repeating myself.

edit: by the way, you mentioned "defence" in that sentence - why don't you understand that none of us are defending the criminal in any way, shape or form? I do not think a person who knowingly infects someone with HIV is any better than a rapist. They both deserve to be behind bars.

CormorantEnt

4th Aug 2010, 02:23 PM

Deception into getting an STD is not rape. It is, however, an act of endangerment; which in most American districts, is a misdemeanor crime.

If done to enough targeted victims, it could be considered an act of biological warfare. To attack someone with an AIDS syringe in a nightclub is no different than taking an AK47 to the place: it's murder in slow motion. To knowingly seduce women and give them STDs is either reckless endangerment or attempted murder, depending on the disease. But to call it rape when no actual force of will is used is just silly. It's defilement, yes, but it's not rape.

Lemon&Lime

4th Aug 2010, 07:20 PM

edit: by the way, you mentioned "defence" in that sentence - why don't you understand that none of us are defending the criminal in any way, shape or form?

Read my post!

By "could not be used as defence" I mean the accused could not use the fact that the woman gave consent to the sex as a defence for her contracting HIV in court. For future reference; do not insult my intelligence.

el_flel - it was not aimed at you.

For the last time, I am going to clarify my points in nice, simple sentences.

1. People have definately implied on this thread that the victim shares some if not all of the responsibility for sleeping with someone who lied about their HIV status. So for some of you to then turn around and then say that at no point you've said its the victims fault is ridiculous; as many on here have said "they should know that some people lie to get someone into bed", and that the victim had a conscious decision to have sex. Therefore, you are putting some blame on the victim, as you are implying that they have some responsibility for what happened. Which is true.

2. The definition of rape is sex without (full/informed) consent. As ruled in several high-profile courts; someone is not able to give full informed consent if the HIV status is lied about. This allows the prosecution to attack the defence if they try to say that as the victim consented to the sex, they have full responsibility. Read back on my earlier posts for the source.

3. I believe that a conviction of rape will be fair if for example the accused lied about their HIV status. In this case, I believe the victim will have some blame for agreeing to sex without protection as they have some responsibility, however the accused has done a horrible, disgusting crime. The sex was still without full/informed consent, no matter how you look at it - as the victim was not informed of the accused HIV status.

4. I do not however believe that rape is the most appropriate conviction for each case, and that to be honest attempted murder/manslaughter is just as odd. To say that it makes sense because "no one can legally consent to being murdered, therefore if you knowingly infect someone with HIV you should get charged with murder" is just a little bit bizarre. Not exactly a clear trail of thought.

Purity4

4th Aug 2010, 07:25 PM