We meet again.
You are right, I wrote “example #2” when I meant “example #3.” I will edit accordingly.
I n example # 1 she enjoyed the sex and continued to have fond memories. Although he was older than thirty, she experienced the sex as if it were with a thirty-year-old.
When it comes to sex, I would consider deception in any form prosecutable only when it leads to objective harm. Even then, in most cases, it would be fraud rather than rape. The degree of harm would determine the degree of fraud and the potential legal penalty.
Any harm done in example #1 was purely subjective. No harm occurred as a result of the sexual encounter itself. “Harm” only occurred due to her discovery of the deception rather than the sex itself. Any harm would be a result of her subjective perception.
If she never discovers that he lied about his age, it would seem quite a stretch to claim that someone who enjoyed a sexual encounter and has undisturbed fond memories can be considered a victim of rape.
Some of your reasoning in your response to example #2 seems subjective, arbitrary, and inconsistent. You maintain that a deceptive statement is a lie and should be prosecutable as rape, whereas a deceptive practice is not a lie and not prosecutable. Ethically, a deceptive practice is equal to a deceptive statement, and the line you have drawn between them is arbitrary.
In example #2, I agree that neither party committed a prosecutable offense. However, I maintain that his was a deceptive practice while hers was a deceptive statement. Therefore, to be consistent you would have to consider her deceptive statement prosecutable, whereas I would not.
In court, she might present any argument she chooses. Presenting an argument does not make it valid. If I were a jury member charged with evaluating her argument that when she said she was attracted to him she meant that she was attracted to his money, I would consider that argument prevaricative.
I would concur with a statement once made by a famous feminist whose name I can’t remember: “Rape is not unwanted sex; rape is unavoidable sex”
Unavoidable sex would involve the use of force or coercion. There may be an example or two of a situation where I would agree that rape occurred due to deception, but I can’t think of one. Maybe you can.
Example #3, in my opinion, is an example that illustrates why I consider the entire concept of “too intoxicated to consent” faulty. I would consider anyone capable of expressing consent to be capable of consenting. Only an unconscious person would be too intoxicated to consent. If both parties are unconscious, then obviously no sex could occur.
If two conscious people are considered too intoxicated to consent because their judgment is impaired, then their impaired judgment renders them unable to effectively perceive the other party’s inability to consent. Therefore, neither is responsible.
I see no basis or purpose for claiming that two conscious people who are too intoxicated to consent are both rapists.
