I’ll respond, and hopefully I can do it without triggering or upsetting anyone also. I in no way intend to gainsay anyone’s perceptions of what happened to them.
Webster definition: sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of - mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
Notice the last word, deception. I am not trying to make anyone uncomfortable or triggered, and I believe anyone can feel what was done to them in any term possible. The uncomfortable truth is, it meets the definition to a tee.
I saw that, too, and actually googled rape by deception to see if there were good explications of it. Because on the plain language of that definition, it means any deception that invalidates consent. It picks up every lie that matters to the victim.
I see no problem with the idea that infidelity is a consent-invalidator. But surely other deceptions are too. I gave some examples that were implausible because I thought it’d illustrate the issue I’m seeing. So here’s an example that I’ll proffer that I saw once on a website that rhymes with credit. It’s at least plausible, and probably even true.
A man (OP) was seeking advice on how to co-habitate/parent with his wife (OPW) for the next 15 years. He did not want to divorce for financial reasons and because he didn’t want to lose time with his children, the youngest of which was 3. He had been happily married. But what happened was that he discovered that OPW had lied to him about her sexual history. He had been very explicit about wanting a chaste bride. I can’t find the post, but from memory, she’d told him she had 2 partners before him, when in reality it was more like 22. To make matters worse, some of the men were people he knew and hated. She admitted to lying to him because she knew he would have considered her promiscuous, and that given his views on promiscuity, she knew that he would not have married her had he be in possession of the truth.
For OP, this was a complete deal-breaker. Would never have married her had he known. Would never have slept with her had he known, and was vowing to never do so again.
Are we comfortable calling OPW a rapist, of all the labels available to us for what she did? It fits the definition to a tee as well. As long as we could establish that the deception was sufficient to make his consent invalid, she’s a rapist.
That would be very incongruous to how I think of rape. I just cannot imagine a prosecutor bringing that case, and I would be very troubled to see her get jail time for it.
I see no way to distinguish OPW’s deception from a WS’s deception, or really any other kind of deception provided we were certain that it was sufficiently consent-invalidating.
I recognize that the right answer might just be, "yes, Frank, they’re both rape." Maybe they are and I need to adjust my thinking. I’ll noodle on it, but I have to say it feels like the wrong answer intellectually to me.
Anyway, notwithstanding anything I just wrote, I fully endorse and adopt this statement: "I am not trying to make anyone uncomfortable or triggered, and I believe anyone can feel what was done to them in any term possible."
[This message edited by Letmebefrank at 9:23 PM, Wednesday, November 4th]