Talk:Rape by deception

Untitled

How is a blog post from an anonymous guest writer on a website named for people not yet qualified to give legal advice a valid source? 108.249.235.44 (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The entire "transgender" section is extremely poorly written with poor sources. Pingpong947 (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Some guy who thinks someone being acquitted because what he did is not illegal is a mere technicality ( you know, like signing a contract on the wrong line or submitting a brief to the court with the wrong font) told me to complain about his POV here,so I will leave it to you guys. It seems fine to him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.235.44 (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2018

In India

This article is relevant to this topic. --177.159.222.41 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Kashur

the Kashur case was not what was Initially reported, he did in fact brutally rape her and left her bleeding to be hospitalized http://www.mideastyouth.com/2010/09/05/israel-rape-by-deception-turns-out-to-be-brutal-rape-of-a-vulnerable-and-abused-woman/?ref=nf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.208.141 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's if you take her word for it. His side of the story is different. Ultimately, he was convicted of rape by deception, that fact that her initial report alleged something different is immaterial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.11.195 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Woman's allegations are supported by physical evidence - she was found in a dirty staircase of a building, half-naked, hysterical, with scratches and bruises, consistent with rape. The rape by deception was suggested by the defense and accepted by the prosecutor who did not want to subject the woman to hard questioning by the defense. The woman was sexually abused by her father, was forced into prostitution, and the defense showed inclinations to question the woman about this side of her life. At the time of the rape, the woman lived in the shelter for battered women. http://www.mideastyouth.com/2010/09/05/israel-rape-by-deception-turns-out-to-be-brutal-rape-of-a-vulnerable-and-abused-woman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.193.179 (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

She was found to be bruised only by doctors after the incident. She was hospitalized at a mental hospital.The charge and conviction mention and are hinged on the rapist being Muslim. That may make the appeal case strong. Previous sexual history and lifestyle of alleged rape victims are not admitted as evidence in some jurisdictions,but the rules may differ for rape by deception,and may differ under Israeli law and practice.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all - it was stated from the start that the prosecutors had first tried to prove forcible rape, and failed.

Second and most importantly - this page goes into almost too much length on speculations as to what really happened between Mr. Kashur and his accuser. What is relevant here is that the court held "rape by deception" to be an acceptable charge - and the charge did not rely on his pretending to be, say, some other specific person rather than himself - as in the case of the twin brothers - but rather in his not explicitly stating which of two racially constructed categories in his society he fell into. Does this mean that, in the jurisdiction where Mr. Kashur was convicted, anybody letting his sexual partner have any mistaken ideas about him is guilty of rape? Or is it rather than "Jew" and "Arab" are defined there by law to be essential components of someone's identity, rather than attributes or socially constructed categories? Feketekave (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point, although I would suggest 'historically constructed categories' rather than 'socially'; the latter suggests created by this particular society whereas the terms used here have been relevant legally far longer.

MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tennessee etc

I deleted this because it is irrelevant, referencing only two very small jurisdictions. This 'form' of rape can be called various things around the globe. Yet we do not need a list of synonynous legal terms from around the world do we...? No offence to the good people of Dixie of course :p

MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal status by US state, or US overall?

Hi. I'm not super comfortable creating pages, and wondering why there is no overarching "Rape law in the US" or one page for each of the states, just one for AL. I would like to feature information from the following sources: https://consentawareness.net/state-by-state-information-on-rape-by-fraud/ and https://consentawareness.net/2018/02/27/sexual-battery-by-ruse-in-virginia/ . Also, why does this page only list notable cases, not laws and incidents state-by-state? Oathed (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sexual trickerie

It's so s7s you sex 119.12.223.193 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Rewrite of Transgender Section

The section contains several violations of Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore, it's very clear that people don't appreciate being duped into non-consensual sex, hence the article existing in the first place. Why does the entire section disproportionately focus on defending this deception from the perspective of those who'd presumably be engaging in it?

1. Section: "since trans men are men and trans women are women, it is not misleading for them to present as they do."

This presents a highly contested opinion as though it were accepted as fact, violating WP:NPOV. Florence Ashley is not a scientist or scholar in a relevant field.

2. Section: "Some may believe post-op transsexuals to be exempt from claims of rape by deception, due to having fully transitioned sex characteristics not noticeably different from a biological male or female."

The statement uses vague, unsourced attributions, violating WP:WEASEL. The phrase "some may believe" is speculative and not supported by reliable sources. Attribution or reliable sourcing is required, or the statement should be removed.

Furthermore, the idea that individuals can "fully transition" to the opposite sex is scientifically unsupported. Humans are gonochoristic and cannot fully change biological sex. The section should be revised to reflect accurate scientific consensus and avoid speculative language. As there isn't scientific consensus on this, it should be removed.

3. Section: "Debate on what makes a transgender person fully transitioned factors into the conversation around deceptive rape."

This statement lacks any sourcing and introduces speculative content, violating WP:OR. It presents a discussion that is not backed by reliable citations, making it original research. Reliable sources need to be provided, or the statement should be removed. There is legitimately zero debate that humans can "transition" into the other sex, which is the issue at hand.

4. Section: "arguments against this criminalisation have focused on the realness of trans people's genders."

The use of the term "realness" introduces bias, as it assumes a particular stance on gender identity, violating WP:NPOV. The phrasing should be made neutral and acknowledge that this is a contested view, or it should be attributed properly to those who hold this perspective.

5. Section: Sophie Cook's statement about rape charges under the Sexual Offences Act:

This section disproportionately emphasizes the perspective of Sophie Cook, a trans activist, without providing balance from other legal experts or perspectives. Like most of this article, it violates WP:DUE, as it gives undue weight to one viewpoint without considering the broader legal context. Counterpoints or additional legal interpretations should be included.

6. Section: "some feminist activists"

More weasel words. It needs to either be properly sourced or removed.

Pingpong947 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried to trim the weasel terms and one odd reference to an irrelevant book, but overall I think the section is rather well written, just lacking in more authoritative sources, preferably legal ones that can cover more than just the USA and UK. XeCyranium (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)