Rape by deception? Lies, immorality and why sin has created this problem

[Rob Osborn]

I was reading an article about this and I am kind of dumbfounded. The definition is- "

Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim's agreement and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions.

Okay, that all makes sense. Cases such as pretending to be someone in the dark who you are not and gaining consent. But what doesnt make sense is cases where a sexual predator lies his way into gaining trust with a woman just to have sex with them such as a married man yet posing as single, never been married who then uses his lies to gain trust with someone and then take advantage of them through mutual consent. Im sorry but that isnt rape. It may take a real scumbag to lie to get sex with unknowing people but even so- it isnt rape. Laws are now being presented around the world and in some places are into law to prosecute people who lie to get sex. I believe this is just one of the problems in our society when you mix immorality, sins, and social justice warriors together. An article by mormon liberal feminist group "Sisters Quorum" https://sistersquorum.com/2017/12/04/the-confessional-and-rape-by-fraud/ highlights how it is even penetrating our religion on the fringes. I completely disagree with these sisters and their stories. The problem first and foremost is that sex is no longer seen as virtuous and holy. It used to be that lies themselves were the crime. In these days lies themselves arent criminal all the time. Nowadays the shift is towards protecting immorality as a just practice and as problems arise from immorality laws go in to protect and harbor further immorality and sin.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Traveler]

Perhaps I have a very different view of sin – and in particular the sin of immorality or the breaking of the law of Chastity.  It seems to me that most try to define sin as something (or act) that one person does to harm another.  The more harm done to the other person the greater we think that such a particular sin is evil.  But I do not see it that way.  I believe sin is not the harm one does to someone else but rather the harm (or damnation) they bring upon themselves.  Thus, sin is something we do to ourselves.

I have come to this conclusion because it would seem to me that the harm we do to others is covered by the atonement of Christ – without any additional action needed.  Any possible harm we cause is taken care of.  What is not taken care of is the harm we do to ourselves.  A good example is forgiveness.  When we forgive someone – it does not change anything they have done and it does not change anything about them.  When we forgive – it changes us.

I would submit that sexual sin is a sin against one’s self.  Some may say that rape may result in an unwanted pregnancy or physical harm.  I do not discount such things – only that if an individual allows themselves to be soiled by unfortunate circumstances they commit sin.   It is the same with a lie – if we allow ourselves to be destroyed by a lie it is because we give power to the liar to destroy us.  It is not being caught in a lie that is a sin – it would be what happens to our heart and the turning from loving others that is the sin and the damage of being caught in a lie.

There is a propensity to blame others for our spiritual pain or the suffering we face because of sin.  The only way to end the suffering from sin is repentance.  That will release us from sin and I believe if someone understands repentance they will understand that forgiveness is an essential element of repentance.

I agree with what appears to be a sediment of blame from the op.  I believe if we are damaged by sin; the road to recovery is forgiveness and repentance – not blame.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 7, 2017 by Traveler

[Anddenex]

Well this quote from their about page says enough, "Together, we assert that the divine feminine is a source of inspiration and empowerment, and we seek Her and God the Father as we seek to understand ourselves," which brings this verse to memory, "Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men—" (Particular emphasized portion). This is obviously the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

I believe this is why we have the commandment, 'No sexual relations except through husband and wife." Keep that commandment and you don't have to worry (excluding extreme conditions) with "sex by fraud."  This is a liberal/progressive stance that again avoids accountability.

Her daughter wasn't "raped" and "rape by fraud/deception"is a foolish principle and deceptive principle (little irony there). If she consented, whether by deception, she consented. Pretty sad, on both accounts.

This lady is showing ignorance also regarding policy and keys of the priesthood, "But you’re her ‘judge in Israel,'” I argued. “Not the Stake President! What’s the point?” And many other things. I wish some members were truly more read, it would solve a lot of ignorance in the Church, especially with simple policies and keys of the priesthood.

The comments of this article are humorous and even show further ignorance.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Anddenex

[Guest]

Quote

Instead of being treated as a victim, my daughter was treated solely as a sinner, even though the priesthood leader who set her on a repentance track understood clearly that she’d been deceived. Instead of getting her counseling for the emotional and spiritual trauma she had experienced, she was reprimanded, denied spiritual blessings, and barred from admittance to the church school of her choice.

On the one hand, I understand all this because, yes, she gave consent to conduct she knew would have repercussions in her Mormon world. But in the aftermath, when reality came crashing down, none of us—not her priesthood leaders, youth leaders, or her parents—were educated enough about rape by fraud to give her the professional support she needed. The training our leaders receive is woefully inadequate, coming as it does from other leaders who are not professionally qualified to give advice, much less provide counseling. At the very least, her repentance track should have been modified and crafted with great sensitivity.

It appears pretty clear that there is the attempt to excuse her behavior by making her a victim.  Hmmm.  Where have we heard that before?

Yes, I'm sure she was traumatized.  But really.  The only lie that the boy apparently perpetrated is that he put forth himself as a virgin (that's what the article said).  And he was not.  She still knowingly consented under conditions that they both agreed upon.  This is not in dispute.  This is not rape.  Did it make her feel bad?  Of course.  And I have nothing but sympathy for her because of her grief.  But to call it "rape"?

What would have been different if she had known he was NOT a virgin?  Would she have shied away because she could get a disease?  So, she's ok with violating a sacred boundary.  But she just doesn't want to get a disease?  And the mother doesn't think she needs to get her head turned around?

When listening to people make excuses, one of the most common phrases used to justify violating a rule is by asking if a rule makes sense "Even Though..."  Yes, the rule makes sense... even though...

The introduction to their forum (that @Anddenex posted) reveals them to be Ashera worshippers.  Yup.  Just a bastion of orthodox Mormon thought and sound doctrine they are.

<pbdfftt>.   < -------  Raspberry.

[Guest]

Quote

 My young and naive daughter had never been given any reason to believe that, at church, she had a voice that could say “Stop. I’m leaving. I’m not going to talk to you.” I had failed to teach her this, but I repented, making sure I told her she had that voice and that power of self-determination.

And she needed that newly found voice. Several months later, her sexual experience was once again brought up in a private meeting with the same bishop. But she didn’t sit for it. She stormed out of his office, and I drove her home, telling her how very proud of her I am. That may have been the last conversation she ever had with any bishop. It’s a wonder to me how she managed to stay active in the church for as long as she did. She tried. She really did. But she no longer identifies as a Mormon.

Every Sunday that I see the man who had been our bishop, he asks me, with such concern in his eyes, how my daughter is doing. It takes every sinew in my being not to slap him the moment her name falls from his lips.

So, she first teaches her daughter to be rebellious to her priesthood leaders for doing their jobs, and she, herself, wants to slap the bishop in the face for doing his job, and she blames others for her daughter's falling away?

This article was written by one "Deborah".  If it is the same woman I think it is, I know her personally.  Everyone in her ward knows her (previous ward I used to live in).  They know her to be exactly like she is in her article.  At least she's open about it and very consistent in her behavior.  Most of the people tend to shy away from her.  They just don't want to get accosted with another rant about how great communism is or how we should be praying to Heavenly Mother or a dozen other things.

I know the bishop that she would be talking of.  He really is a kind-hearted soul who takes his stewardship very seriously.  To think that she would find it in herself to slap that man really outrages me.

This is really sad because if you just don't talk to her about religion or politics (or anything related to them) she's really a very kind-hearted woman.  She's generous and hard working.  Very well educated and she's quite talented.  But when you get into religion or politics she's just a nutcase.

[Fether]

Article Summary:

Daughter: “Mom I slept with a guy”

Mom: “Oh no!”

Daughter: “we were both virgins”

Bishop: “Actually he has slept with a lot of girls”

Mom: “Then it isn’t your fault daughter, he raped you”

Biahop: “Wait what??? No, actually she still sinned and needs to repent”

Mom: “No she didn’t, he lied to her about his sexual life, her agency was compromised”

Daughter: “I’m offended, I don’t believe this is the true church”

Mom: “I’m offended too, I hate the bishop.”

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Fether said:

Article Summary:

Daughter: “Mom I slept with a guy”

Mom: “Oh no!”

Daughter: “we were both virgins”

Bishop: “Actually he has slept with a lot of girls”

Mom: “Then it isn’t your fault daughter, he raped you”

Biahop: “Wait what??? No, actually she still sinned and needs to repent”

Mom: “No she didn’t, he lied to her about his sexual life, her agency was compromised”

Daughter: “I’m offended, I don’t believe this is the true church”

Mom: “I’m offended too, I hate the bishop.”

Nice summary. Spot on.

[Grunt]

People really like to call other people sinful.

[estradling75]

From a church perspective the only way that deception might be a valid defense is if you thought you were having sex with your spouse... and some how that wasn't the case.

From a worldly perspective this case seems very weak but the idea itself has some merit.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

26 minutes ago, Grunt said:

People really like to call other people sinful.

Something that helps keep me humble: "Lord, please bless those people who sin differently than I do."

I just think about saying that prayer.  More often than not, I end up offering a different one.

[zil]

55 minutes ago, Grunt said:

People really like to call other people sinful.

Are you calling me sinful!?  Cuz I'm pretty sure that would be a sin (on your part).  And it might absolve me from every sin I ever committed.  So please, call me sinful!

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Are you calling me sinful!?  Cuz I'm pretty sure that would be a sin (on your part).  And it might absolve me from every sin I ever committed.  So please, call me sinful!

Wanting to be called sinful is sinful. Sadly, it self-negates the inherent absolution. Bummer.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Wanting to be called sinful is sinful. Sadly, it self-negates the inherent absolution. Bummer.

[Joyce Short]

Rob Osborn-

"But what doesn't make sense is cases where a sexual predator lies his way into gaining trust with a woman just to have sex with them such as a married man yet posing as single, never been married who then uses his lies to gain trust with someone and then take advantage of them through mutual consent. I'm sorry but that isn't rape."

You're incorrect.... Using any device or manipulation to undermine a person's self determination over their reproductive organs is a sexual assault. You are confusing the definition of "assent" with "consent." The victim assented, but did not consent. Consent is not simply agreement on the face of it, it's "freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement." There is no possible way that a person who lies to another in order to induce sex can consider the victim's "assent" as "consent." It's an oxymoron.

Not all sexual assaults can be prosecuted. A person who lies and whose victim does not have a reasonable basis upon which to believe their lie, can't be prosecuted. Also, cases that lack significant, verifiable proof can't be prosecuted. That does not mean the victim was not sexually assaulted. It simply means that the offender won't go to jail for the crime.  Readers can understand this better once they read, "Combating Romance Scams, Why Lying to Get Laid Is a Crime!"

Readers should also be aware that there are degrees to every crime. Violent rape is the most heinous form of sexual assault, and therefore carries the stiffest punishment. A rape by fraud case, depending on the state criminal code,. could be a Class B misdemeanor or a low level felony. Both are crimes, but not treated as harshly as violent rape. 

 

[anatess2]

Rape by deception - you consent to have sex with a woman with full make-up on.  you wake up the next day with her make-up all melted and crusty and you do a coyote ugly.

Law of Chastity people.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Joyce Short said:

Using any device or manipulation to undermine a person's self determination over their reproductive organs is a sexual assault.

Having a hard time taking this new poster seriously.  By this definition, offering someone a beer is sexual assault. 

Tell us a little about yourself, Joyce.  Are you LDS?  What brings you to this site?

Edited December 8, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Joyce Short said:

Rob Osborn-

"But what doesn't make sense is cases where a sexual predator lies his way into gaining trust with a woman just to have sex with them such as a married man yet posing as single, never been married who then uses his lies to gain trust with someone and then take advantage of them through mutual consent. I'm sorry but that isn't rape."

You're incorrect.... Using any device or manipulation to undermine a person's self determination over their reproductive organs is a sexual assault. You are confusing the definition of "assent" with "consent." The victim assented, but did not consent. Consent is not simply agreement on the face of it, it's "freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement." There is no possible way that a person who lies to another in order to induce sex can consider the victim's "assent" as "consent." It's an oxymoron.

Not all sexual assaults can be prosecuted. A person who lies and whose victim does not have a reasonable basis upon which to believe their lie, can't be prosecuted. Also, cases that lack significant, verifiable proof can't be prosecuted. That does not mean the victim was not sexually assaulted. It simply means that the offender won't go to jail for the crime.  Readers can understand this better once they read, "Combating Romance Scams, Why Lying to Get Laid Is a Crime!"

Readers should also be aware that there are degrees to every crime. Violent rape is the most heinous form of sexual assault, and therefore carries the stiffest punishment. A rape by fraud case, depending on the state criminal code,. could be a Class B misdemeanor or a low level felony. Both are crimes, but not treated as harshly as violent rape. 

 

Well, I disagree. 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Joyce Short said:

You're incorrect.... Using any device or manipulation to undermine a person's self determination over their reproductive organs is a sexual assault. You are confusing the definition of "assent" with "consent." The victim assented, but did not consent. Consent is not simply agreement on the face of it, it's "freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement." There is no possible way that a person who lies to another in order to induce sex can consider the victim's "assent" as "consent." It's an oxymoron.

Behold the feminist Nirvana: All sexual activity is rape. This feminist article of faith, long derided by any intelligent individual, is now in the process of being baked into public conscience. Because there is no possible way to present every nuance of yourself to another, even a spouse -- and of course, anything less than fully informed "assent" isn't "consent". Ergo, rape.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Joyce Short said:

A rape by fraud case, depending on the state criminal code,. could be a Class B misdemeanor or a low level felony.

Curious, Joyce: Suppose a woman makes up her face, goes to a bar, and picks up a guy for the night. The next morning, the man awakens to find himself lying next to an ugly person who deceptively wore makeup to appear more beautiful than she really was. Is the man a victim of rape?

Because according to your definition, he is. The woman committed a misdemeanor or felony by wearing makeup to seduce him. I assume you agree. If not, please explain.

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, Joyce Short said:

Rob Osborn-

"But what doesn't make sense is cases where a sexual predator lies his way into gaining trust with a woman just to have sex with them such as a married man yet posing as single, never been married who then uses his lies to gain trust with someone and then take advantage of them through mutual consent. I'm sorry but that isn't rape."

You're incorrect.... Using any device or manipulation to undermine a person's self determination over their reproductive organs is a sexual assault. You are confusing the definition of "assent" with "consent." The victim assented, but did not consent. Consent is not simply agreement on the face of it, it's "freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement." There is no possible way that a person who lies to another in order to induce sex can consider the victim's "assent" as "consent." It's an oxymoron.

Not all sexual assaults can be prosecuted. A person who lies and whose victim does not have a reasonable basis upon which to believe their lie, can't be prosecuted. Also, cases that lack significant, verifiable proof can't be prosecuted. That does not mean the victim was not sexually assaulted. It simply means that the offender won't go to jail for the crime.  Readers can understand this better once they read, "Combating Romance Scams, Why Lying to Get Laid Is a Crime!"

Readers should also be aware that there are degrees to every crime. Violent rape is the most heinous form of sexual assault, and therefore carries the stiffest punishment. A rape by fraud case, depending on the state criminal code,. could be a Class B misdemeanor or a low level felony. Both are crimes, but not treated as harshly as violent rape. 

 

Parse it all you want.

 

All the more reason to preserve one’s virtue for marriage. That way one will never be in the position of being “assaulted”.

Sorry, but modern society cannot repeal a 6,000 year history of rules designed to protect, particularly women, in their interactions with the male of the species.  Human nature has not changed.  

Interestingly no one has mentioned the greatest and most effective lie of all. I love you.❤️ 

Edited December 8, 2017 by mrmarklin

[Anddenex]

48 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I love you.❤️ 

A sad but true truth when used as such.

[Just_A_Guy]

@Joyce Short is right; “rape by deception” is a thing in the common law; though many jurisdictions have redefined/limited/abolished it.  

The issue, of course, is that the wooing process often includes deliberately puffed-up expectations of one sort or another (“he said he’d always love me!”); and the devil always lay in determining what kind of lies were egregious enough to give rise to an actual crime.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@Joyce Short is right; “rape by deception” is a thing in the common law; though many jurisdictions have redefined/limited/abolished it.  

The issue, of course, is that the wooing process often includes deliberately puffed-up expectations of one sort or another (“he said he’d always love me!”); and the devil always lay in determining what kind of lies were egregious enough to give rise to an actual crime.

I was wondering... I remember watching a TV (Not a good source I know) show set in the 1800's  A guy was on trial because he promised to marry and then did not.

There is a problem trying to figure out how bad it is...  With fraud you have financial loss, and the greater the lost the greater the crime...  A reasonably sensible metric for damage done.

How do we quantify damage done in cases like these?  What level is not criminal?  What level is a misdemeanor?  What level is a felony?  Right now its all called rape and that is inherently flawed

(Please note I am only talking about the legal issues not the church ones)

Edited December 9, 2017 by estradling75

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I was wondering... I remember watching a TV (Not a good source I know) show set in the 1800's  A guy was on trial because he promised to marry and then did not.

There is a problem trying to figure out how bad it is...  With fraud you have financial loss, and the greater the lost the greater the crime...  A reasonably sensible metric for damage done.

How do we quantify damage done in cases like these?  What level is not criminal?  What level is a misdemeanor?  What level is a felony?  Right now its all called rape and that is inherently flawed

(Please note I am only talking about the legal issues not the church ones)

Heh. There's a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta called Trial by Jury about a breach of promise suit (see below, it's only a half hour in length). When it comes time to assess damages (28:00) the would-be bride goes overboard in proclaiming her love (and the greater heartbreak the breach brings) while the would-be-groom declares he would make an awful husband and would beat her whenever he got drunk. The judge, with Solomon-like wisdom (or perhaps just typical G&S silliness) suggests the court should get the man drunk to test their claims.

 

[NightSG]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

puffed-up expectations of one sort or another (“he said he’d always love me!”);

Women need to learn the important difference between "I'll always love you" and "I'll always tolerate your c__p."