Woman Believes That Vaginal Cream Is Best Applied By Penis...

Good lord, I hate legalese.

Is it really necessary to addendum "another person" here? Because if he can get his dick in his own ass, mouth and also has a vagina he should forget accusing himself of rape and get into the porn industry.

California and I'm guessing most states have laws against spousal rape. They just appear in a different section of the penal code. In the case of California, spousal rape is under 262, while the main entry is 261.

The woman realized she was having intercourse, but supposedly believed the defendant when he said it was being done to apply the cream. His fraudulent claim made her think the intercourse had a professional purpose/approval to it, when it did not. That would seem to fall under one or the other section that I quoted above, in my non-lawyerly reading.

I might think so too, but then the case is apparently at trial. For it to have gotten this far, one would think that they would have done enough investigation to establish its legitimacy or lack thereof.

Well, one could intentionally penetrate the vagina, anus or mouth of an animal or a corpse. There's (presumably) another statute to cover that, and it's necessary to say "another person" to distinguish rape from bestiality or necrophilia.

If that isn't a disgusting and sad commentary on our world, I don't know what the fuck is.

I've heard worse from young Navy men...and I was one.

It's like the female Dayton.

It was rape IMNSHO. She was duped, evidently quite easily.
And for the perp, what the fuck. Pretty desperate and decietful actions on his part. Burn 'em.

Maybe in jail someone can help him with a suppository

Just to stir the pot...

If a man having sex with a woman by telling her an untruth is rape...

...is it also rape for untruths like "Oh, of course I'll marry you" and the like?

If duping people into sex was a crime, at least half the population would be behind bars. However immoral it may be, there's nothing illegal about lying to get sex. Unless you're lying about something like having AIDS, it's not rape, just creepy and immoral. If you consent to sex with someone you don't really know, you do so on the presumption he or she is lying to get you in bed. That's just the way of the world.

There's got to be a "reasonable person" standard applied to the deception. As in, "Would a reasonable person believe penetrating her vagina with his penis served a legitimate medical function?"

Agreed.

http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=1223483&postcount=17

Only if that person writes bad porn. I'm sure you could find that on video somewhere.

..........

*Crumples and flings latest work*....

Yes, it must stand up in court...

Our world is all too often disgusting and sad.

Can't be. No M&Ms were involved.

It's not just any untruths. It's certain types of untruths. Namely, those that rise to the level of fraud and that might obscure the nature of intercourse.

You would never be able to prove that the person didn't intend to marry the girl and then change his mind, that the guy really knew he wouldn't respect her in the morning, that he'd leave his wife for her, etc.

And even if you could, those lies wouldn't change in the woman's mind the essential nature of what they were doing, i.e., intercourse for fun.

Whereas supposedly this woman thought that she was engaging in a doctor-sanctioned medical procedure.

*Sigh*...see, in porno land, the magic of having her twat twiddled would erase her impulses to sue.

She'd be all like "*slappa, slappa, slappa* ohhh, yes!! Who are we kidding? This is fuckin, and I love it!! I'm in love with you now, Satan!! ".

Well, we now know to what extent you'll go to get laid.

Back in the good ol' days, doctors treated hysteria in women by masturbating them to orgasm.

Psst...that wasn't a porn movie....

Rape: the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. (from dictionary.com)

I'd expand that definition as follows: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse or engaging in sexual acts with a person who lacks the ability to consent.

Was the woman forced? Put under duress? Did she lack the ability to consent? No on all counts.

True. And you could never show that the woman who consented to sex really believed it was medicinal or whether that was a lie she tells everyone (and perhaps even herself).

The problem is that whether a crime is committed depends on what was in a person's mind during the act, not the nature of the act. That's untenable. If person A and person B engage in act C, then whether C is a crime cannot rest on what A and/or B were thinking during the act.

Okay, even given that this woman must have the IQ of a potted plant, the guy is certainly not guilty of rape. He's guilty of practicing medicine without a license.

There's no other crime to cover what this guy has done, really. Do we need to invent a new one: sexual fraud?

First off, this woman is a tard....

Second off, it just goes to show how anti-man laws are these days if this case goes through...

I mean sure, the guy is a fucking looser, but the precedent set by said case basically puts all men who lie in any way to a chick to bed her at risk of rape charges post act... Consent or no.

Oy.

1) I don't really fancy being creepy and immoral, and
2) no one's going to be convicted of rape just for lying to get sex.

People lie to get sex. It happens all the time, and is, quite disturbingly, an aspect of our culture that is widely encouraged in boys and widely tolerated in everyone. Frankly, I think it should be considered rape a lot more often than it is, but the fact is that, except for the case of lying about sexually transmitted diseases, I've never heard of lying to get sex being prosecuted as rape in modern America. Unless the fraud in getting sex arises to the level of an independent assault charge, there's no rape with consent, whatever reason consent was given.

So...the movie star hologram belt I'm working on is a rape thing now?

Depends on who you're emulating.

You have to delete it in 24 hours, or it's rape.

The laws are on the books... all it takes is a lawyer to attempt it and a judge/jurry to agree with it and bingo.

I lied to a woman and promised I wouldn't cum in her mouth.

HEAD ON, APPLY DIRECTLY WITH THE PENIS!!!

Your personal definition of rape is less important for the purposes of this discussion than what the legal definition of rape is.

And while that varies from state to state, I'm guessing most parallel California's to include certain forms of deception.

It's rare that someone has sexual intercourse with someone by pretending to be that person's spouse. But if they do, it's legally rape, even if the woman wasn't forced, put under duress or incapable of consenting.

It's unfortunately not rare that a 17-year-old has sex without being forced, without being put under duress or without consenting. But by law, a 17-year-old cannot consent, and so that too is considered rape.

Actually, you could. Whereas you as a prosecutor would not be able to put the defendant on the witness stand, you are obligated to put the accuser on. We'll see if the jury in this case believes her.

There's all sorts of crimes that depend both on what is in a person's mind and the nature of the act, or when what is in a person's mind changes the nature of the act.

If I say that I want Person X dead, it's not a crime if I'm joking. But if I use the same exact words, but am serious, then it's conspiracy.

I pointed to the California law that says that what he's done (assuming she's correctly stating the facts, and the article gives no mention of the guy's defense) means he's guilty of rape.

Other states can and do vary.