Comments on Re: When Is Rape Not Rape?

Sex through fraud is certainly fucked up, but note that Massachusett's law does qualify sex against one's will as rape, which would at least cover the drugging. So hey, that's one thing.

Yah, but to rule otherwise would not be in accordance with the law in the State. Perhapses that law should be changed, but the fault lies not with the Court but with the legislature and the Gov.

"as long as they drug or otherwise trick her into fucking them" So you consider drugging someone as just another type of "trick"ing someone? Seriously? Man, I'd hate to be at your house on April Fool's. Drugging someone is not fraud; it's assault and not exempted under this ruling or Mass. law, I believe.

Good thing we don't live in Massachusetts.

Still illegal here.

Your irrational mention of drugs is in error; that's not the ruling. And the problem is state law, not courts, which essentially cuts the baby in half - it can't be rape if a woman consents to the act - not even if it's with the wrong guy (which we all have to agree, is a foolish law and must be changed).

So if you give the horse a roofie first, it's OK?

Cool!

Come on, Erica, you know very well that the drugging scenario still meets the legal definition of rape, regardless of this unrelated case. You're just trying to make the ruling seem more extreme than it is so you can feel that rush of victimized self-righteousness that you seem to be addicted to.

Am I seeing this right? They used a picture of a black man and white woman to depict rape???

Based on the lighting, that woman could be pretty much any complexion.

Careful, #7. ECB may decide to delete your comments if she feels that you are being too personal towards her or say something she doesn't like.

ECB has deleted 2 of my posts in the past 24 hours! Can we make it 3?

Hey, Montex: Our blog, our rules. Grow up and stop making personal attacks, and you won't get banned.

Okay, I don't think drugs would count under this definition of "fraud" at all--that seems way blown out of proportion!

And while this particular case ended up being really fucked up, I can actually see the usefulness in saying that fraud doesn't make it rape. I mean, what if a woman says she'll only have sex with a guy if he really loves her and wants to marry her, so he says that, and the next morning he disappears. Asshole? Yes. Criminal? No. I would guess this is the sort of he-said/she-said situation that the law is trying to prevent from going to court.

What would be a good example of sex by fraud? I mean really, other than an identical twin faking it what fraud would constitute rape?

My confusion is that I feel like entering someone's bed without permission is like a burglary at minimum, or an assault, or perhaps attempted assault - something about it should be illegal. Is the idea that the brother had permission to be in the home and therefore is considered to have permission to be anywhere in the home, including other people's bed's unless they say no?

"Our blog - our rules"? Now that IS mature. I wonder, have you even heard of journalistic integrity? Saying to your opponents that "It's my blog and I'll ban if I want to" is not in any way, shape or form professional. I would have thought a published "journalist" would understand this. Perhaps not.

You really are Bill O'Rielly in a dress.

Clearly the case in Massachusetts was rape, but how about the following scenario: My old roommate met a guy at a bar. He told her that he was a professional soccer player from Europe. They got drunk together and ended up sleeping together. The next day, she told me she had slept with a pro soccer player, and we went on his team's website to find his picture. We didn't find anything-- obviously he had lied. In all likelihood, my friend would not have slept with this guy if she knew he was a plumber or whatever. It could be argued that he obtained sex from her by fraud. Does that make it rape?

You called me "ugly" and said I "couldn't get a man." I'm THRILLED to delete comments like that (and it's standard practice in the blog world). Talk about "maturity" and "integrity."

I'm not a journalist, ECB. Nor do I pretend to be. You on the other hand seem to think you can write. And therefore you have to live up to a higher standard in order to call yourself a Journalist.

Besides that, I am posting what is my opinion. Now, if you think that one's personal opinion is equal to a "personal attack" then perhaps you are too fragile to be a journalist. I'd also point out that you fell into the predictable trap of female conceit: you heard "ugly" when I said "not pretty enough". You invented an attack simply because I have a disagreeable opinion.

My heroes Keith Olberman and Stephanie Miller have had far worse things said about them by much meaner and cleverer people than I, but they can take it. You put yourself in the public space and that leaves you open for criticism. As for the SLOG, you claim that it is standard practice to delete comments. Which is exactly what I would expect a Bill O'Rielly clone to say. Here's the thing -- Liberals are SUPPOSED to be tolerant! As long as no profanity is used then any and all comments should be allowed. Including the ones which you don't like.

no profanity!

right on dude, fuck that other shit I say, if theres no profanity, its all cool, regardless of all the other odious, imbecile, thretening bile I spew...

as long as I dont fucking curse while I do it, that shits different...right???

The Massachusetts ruling does not include drugging in this ruling, and it behooves Erica C. Barnett to print a correction. You know, like an actual journalist would.

All men are allowed to pretend to be soccer players from Europe, it's the law - deal with it.

In the original case, if the guy really entered the room without permission, then had sex in manner designed to cover who he was, that would be some sort rape - the issue, of course, remains that he could say that she knew who it was and had suggested he come in and then afterward changed her mind when caught or feeling guilty.

I have already deleted my comments because I disagree with you.

If I truly deleted all comments I disagreed with, this thread would be empty. I will continue to delete personal attacks. Thank you.

What I find disturbing is that Dan's thread on the same topic has comments that relate to the article in question. When Erica posts it, the thread is full of personal attacks on Erica. That, to me, says rather more about the commenters following ECB around the Slog than it does anything else.

ECB gets more comments because she puts things that she doesn't like, obtaining sex by fraud, along side of rape, druging people, and says they are the same thing. Of course they are not, she is trying to trick people into sharing her values.

She does this often.

ihuo kacdrmf lwsuxd qivmhu lghpvkf vtlkhodzs tojsg

ihuo kacdrmf lwsuxd qivmhu lghpvkf vtlkhodzs tojsg

mrtzsn wosbzeg wbycgu viqx asprhol ketysf wtulicq ecry udnkpelbr

mrtzsn wosbzeg wbycgu viqx asprhol ketysf wtulicq ecry udnkpelbr