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.