[disc] Rape by fraud? N.J. lawmaker introduces bill to make it a crime

[WJMorris3]

Taking a somewhat suggestion to split something off so that it can be more properly discussed, rather than clog up a Joys and Good News thread.

Rape by fraud? N.J. lawmaker introduces bill to make it a crime

Personally, I think it empowers women and this is where I'm all for it. Put simply, you can't deceive someone to get consent anymore. We're all taught to be honest and anything that promotes more honesty and openness in the world has to be a good thing.

[The Wisp]

This law is so vague it will be abused. I don't think people should be thrown in jail for little white lies or lies of omission that lead to sex. Should a bisexual person who represents themselves as straight to their partner be subject to criminal prosecution?  What about somebody who exaggerates their wealth?

[eselle28]

It seems like the set of facts that inspired this proposal is already covered by existing fraud statutes.

Personally, I would rather law enforcement concentrate on enforcing the sexual assault statutes that are already on the books. There's a lot of ground to make up there.

[WJMorris3]

It seems like the set of facts that inspired this proposal is already covered by existing fraud statutes.

Personally, I would rather law enforcement concentrate on enforcing the sexual assault statutes that are already on the books. There's a lot of ground to make up there.

I'd love to see this too, mind you. It's criminal that people can sexually assault women and people turn a blind eye.

[BasedBuzzed]

>empowers women
>rape by fraud only ever goes one way

It's draconian, perhaps optimistic for cases when there's lies about STDs or in case of cheating-as-emotional-abuse, but the wording of the article already spells it will suffer from the Women Are Wonderful effect.

[nearly_takuan]

It's criminal that people can sexually assault women and people turn a blind eye.

Remember when VAWA got that revision that clarified* the bill wasn't supposed to be used to deny funding/support to male victims?

*Well, except for the part where it's buried in Section 40002.b.8. and the rest of the document continues to use "women" as shorthand for "people who can possibly ever be rape victims".

[Mel]

I'd just like to point out that the article about the bill gives examples of women doing this to men as well as vice versa, and says "person" not "man" or "woman" in every instance when referring to perpetrators and victims in general. BasedBuzzed, what wording in the article do you object to? The first phrase in your quoted bit was said by a poster here, not the article, and I don't see the second anywhere at all.

[Conreezy]

Would loads of makeup be considered fraud?

[Spiffo]

Would loads of makeup be considered fraud?

No

[nonA]

If you believe that laws are usually applied fairly and without any bias, you clearly haven't been watching the news lately. There's already tons of discussion out there about the pressures against male victims reporting.

The bigger question for me, assuming that by some dark act this law actually passes, is how long until it's invoked as part of a "trans person's obligation to disclose" case. Even laws passed with the best of intentions will have unintended consequences. (E.G: sexual offender registry laws are part of a growing problem with prosecutors having too many tools to bring to bear.) Given how difficult consent is to prove after the fact, and how most of the fraud based issues are already covered by other laws, I can't see this law being anything other than unintended consequences.

[Mel]

If you believe that laws are usually applied fairly and without any bias, you clearly haven't been watching the news lately.  There's already tons of discussion out there about the pressures against male victims reporting.

I was referring to BB's comment that "the wording of the article already spells it will suffer from the Women Are Wonderful effect." which specifically references the article, not how laws are applied. Not having read the bill, and having relatively little legal knowledge, I don't feel qualified to discuss the implications of the bill, but I definitely can see how it could be problematic in application. (I'd just rather read what other people with more knowledge have to say about that than try to make uneducated points of my own.)

I will add that, WJMorris, I think it's wrong of you to characterize this is a step toward protecting women specifically. Regardless of how it pans out, it sounds to me as if this bill is intended to protect victims of both genders, and it should be, because men can be victims of rape (of whatever sort) as well. We shouldn't erase that from the discussion.

[WJMorris3]

I will add that, WJMorris, I think it's wrong of you to characterize this is a step toward protecting women specifically.  Regardless of how it pans out, it sounds to me as if this bill is intended to protect victims of both genders, and it should be, because men can be victims of rape (of whatever sort) as well. We shouldn't erase that from the discussion.

By no means was I thinking a women exclusivity there. It's precisely because we very rarely see men come forward as victims of rape that I tend to think of women first when it comes to victims. But yeah, it's good to see that men are protected too.

Of course, now I'm starting to see the comment section and I am sickened and thankful I'm an ace.

[Conreezy]

Would loads of makeup be considered fraud?

No

Thank God. I've got to hide these crow's feet somehow.

Seriously, though, how could the examples in the article be proven?

[nearly_takuan]

Of course, now I'm starting to see the comment section and I am sickened and thankful I'm an ace.

Hate to be a downer, but this is also not a reason to be thankful to be ace.

It's going to be basically impossible to discuss the bill itself, since it doesn't appear to be available online yet. But honestly, even if the wording of the bill is approximately sound, the outcome of a case will depend on the judge's interpretation/understanding of it, and that can muck things up too.

I think Amanda Marcotte makes some pretty good points about why this bill is probably not a good thing for rape victims, though.

[BasedBuzzed]

They opened with one example of a dude, and the rest of the cases were dudettes as the victim.

I now have the bizarre scenario in my head of rapists who sue their victims because "they lied about being into it".

[Sponsored content]