Imagine...

[sledger]

Person A tells Person B that if they have *** with them, Person A will pay Person B £100.

Person B agrees to have *** with Person A on this basis, and consents.

*** is had, but upon conclusion Person A refuses to pay Person B the money.

Person B then claims that their consent was induced by way of a misrepresentation, which vitiates the consent that had previously been given. By virtue of there being no consent, the sexual intercourse that occurred was therefore rape.

In this situation, the law in the UK is very clear. This would not be rape, as although the consent was acquired by way of a misrepresentation, there was no deception as to the nature of the act. Person B was not, for instance, deceived as to what was to happen (i.e. sexual intercourse), nor was Person B deceived as to the identity of Person A.

But is this right?

 

[harsh.ag]

Not right. And Person A should be ordered to pay Person B. Not rape though.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

this is where my inner anti-*** work radical feminist comes to play, so i'll sit this one out

 

[Spark]

Yeah this screams fraud to me rather than rape.

 

[sledger]

this is where my inner anti-*** work radical feminist comes to play, so i'll sit this one out

Let's hear it MG

 

[harsh.ag]

We've had this discussion before, haven't we

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Let's hear it MG

No. Hate the player *and* the game, me.

 

[Cow]

Hence why dem biatches need pimpin yoo

 

[Dan]

I see two lines of thought here.

Firstly, that because of the condition in the first place, consent was not freely given (as there was an inducement), and therefore it is rape (irrespective of whether one actually pays). Alas, 'no such thing as altruism' hits here and we all become Shakers.

So if we assume the consent is freely given and legitimate, I don't think it can legally be considered rape. In my mind, consent exists in the moment and is an ongoing process - it can be withdrawn mid-***, sure, but that doesn't retroactively change that it was given when the *** was happening. It may be regrettable that it was given, in the first place, but I can't think of a workable legal model involving retroactive withdrawal of consent.

Even a fraud model could have it's challenges in its design/interpretation, even if it's clearly worth pursuing. Obviously in the OP's case it's clear cut. But what if, say, person A said they were a rich lawyer named Julius but they were actually a poor student named Bruce? Is that fraud too? What, I suppose, is the quantum of deception required to shift from Person A being a selfish dick to being criminally liable?

 

[Dan]

Open to other POVs that shift this, obvs. Not a hugely developed area of thought.

 

[Anil]

Person A tells Person B that if they have *** with them, Person A will pay Person B £100.

Person B agrees to have *** with Person A on this basis, and consents.

*** is had, but upon conclusion Person A refuses to pay Person B the money.

Person B then claims that their consent was induced by way of a misrepresentation, which vitiates the consent that had previously been given. By virtue of there being no consent, the sexual intercourse that occurred was therefore rape.

In this situation, the law in the UK is very clear. This would not be rape, as although the consent was acquired by way of a misrepresentation, there was no deception as to the nature of the act. Person B was not, for instance, deceived as to what was to happen (i.e. sexual intercourse), nor was Person B deceived as to the identity of Person A.

But is this right?

Does the law actually call this rape anywhere?

 

[GIMH]

Not fraud either for me. It’s like refusing to pay a plumber after he’s put a new bathroom in. It’s a breach of contract.

 

[Flem274*]

hahahaha dan you troll

 

[TNT]

You should have got the money first Sledger.

 

[hendrix]

Clearly not rape.

Clearly failure to deliver on contract. Take to small claims court.

 

[Maximas]

Very slippery slope if this becomes rape in the eye of the law - what other supposed pre-conditions could be breached that constitute fraudulent consent?

 

[sledger]

Clearly not rape.

Clearly failure to deliver on contract. Take to small claims court.

Well, negotiating sexual activity on a commercial basis is a criminal offence, so such a contract wouldn't be enforceable anyway.

 

[sledger]

I see two lines of thought here.

Firstly, that because of the condition in the first place, consent was not freely given (as there was an inducement), and therefore it is rape (irrespective of whether one actually pays). Alas, 'no such thing as altruism' hits here and we all become Shakers.

So if we assume the consent is freely given and legitimate, I don't think it can legally be considered rape. In my mind, consent exists in the moment and is an ongoing process - it can be withdrawn mid-***, sure, but that doesn't retroactively change that it was given when the *** was happening. It may be regrettable that it was given, in the first place, but I can't think of a workable legal model involving retroactive withdrawal of consent.

Even a fraud model could have it's challenges in its design/interpretation, even if it's clearly worth pursuing. Obviously in the OP's case it's clear cut. But what if, say, person A said they were a rich lawyer named Julius but they were actually a poor student named Bruce? Is that fraud too? What, I suppose, is the quantum of deception required to shift from Person A being a selfish dick to being criminally liable?

Yeah I largely agree.

In contexts such as the above, I think the question that needs to be asked is: Regardless of all other contextual peculiarities, did Person A agree to have *** with Person B? If yes, consent is present. As long as there was no deception as to the nature of the act, this is not enough to destroy consent.

It is interesting, however, that there are other areas where the law does allow for conditional consent.

 

[hendrix]

Well, negotiating sexual activity on a commercial basis is a criminal offence, so such a contract wouldn't be enforceable anyway.

Nah over here prostitution is 100% legal (and taxable), as it should be.

But even if it weren't I think i'd still say the same thing.

 

[sledger]

Yeah agree that it should be. But I very much doubt there is a jurisdiction in the world that would allow you to sue for breach of contract in relation to a contract that you were not legally allowed to make in the first place.