Deceiving Your Sex Partner Would Be a Crime Under Bill Backed by New York Democrats

BeamMeUpScotty

2022-05-09 21:30:11 UTC

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://reason.com/2021/04/08/deceiving-your-sex-partner-would-be-a-crime-
under-bill-backed-by-new-york-democrats/
Obtaining sex through "deception," "concealment," or "artifice" could
violate consent. A group of New York lawmakers is trying to redefine
consent in a way that would make it a crime to be less than fully truthful
with sex partners. Under the new proposal, antics now considered merely
caddish or immoral—like lying to a prospective sex partner about one's
relationship status, social standing, or future intentions—would count as
criminal sexual misconduct.

Already had those laws for "respectable people" in the bigamy and other
laws pertaining to leaving a woman at the alter causing social and
financial damage or lying and not living up to a promise to marry or
once you are married and you marry another woman and have two wives at
the same time secretly or have secret families that the other wives
don't know about....

I know Democrats are new to the whole SOCIAL MORALITY type of laws
because Democrats don't understand morality... but it's all at least
2000 years old. They wrote a book on it almost that long ago if you want
to read it.

Who would expect the Democrats who kill their own children in the
uterus, to be able to comprehend morality.

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Now in committee, Assembly Bill A6540—sponsored by Assembly Member Rebecca
Seawright (D–New York City) and co-sponsored by three other Democratic
lawmakers—would amend New York state's penal code to define consent as
"freely given knowledgeable and informed agreement" that is "obtained
without the use of malice such as forcible compulsion, duress, coercion,
deception, fraud, concealment or artifice."
Sex through "forcible compulsion" is already considered rape in the first
degree under New York law. The biggest change Seawright's bill would have
is on the state's law against sexual misconduct.
A person becomes guilty of sexual misconduct if "he or she engages in
sexual intercourse with another person without such person's consent; or
he or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with
another person without such person's consent." Thus, if consent is defined
as sex obtained without any deception, concealment, or artifice, anyone
who lies to or omits information from a prospective sexual partner would
be guilty of sexual misconduct (a class A misdemeanor).
This could open the floodgates of criminal prosecution (and civil suits)
involving any number of wrong but incredibly common situations among
sexual partners. Telling a prospective sex partner that you're single when
you're actually married or in a relationship would seem to fit the bill.
So, too, would trying to get laid by professing more interest in a future
relationship than one actually has.
Women could be guilty for lying about contraceptive use or menstrual
cycles, and men for lying about having a vasectomy.
Trying to win over a date by saying you have a better job than you
actually do, live in a nicer place, or went to a better school could
become a crime if that date sleeps with you. Any half-truths—or even
omissions—about your social or financial status could possibly count as
artifice or "concealment." So could lying or concealing information about
one's race, ethnicity, religion, etc.
Someone might try to sue or press charges based on the idea that makeup,
Botox, boob jobs, and similar measures to enhance one's appearance should
count as illegal artifice that negates consent. It also seems likely that
people could attempt to use the law against transgender or gender non-
conforming people.
The New York bill isn't the first time lawmakers have tried something like
this; for a while, there's been a consistent but marginalized attempt to
make "rape by deception" or "rape by fraud" crime. For instance, a New
Jersey legislator attempted in 2014 to criminalize "an act of sexual
penetration to which a person has given consent because the actor has
misrepresented the purpose of the act or has represented he is someone he
is not." (The attempt failed.)
But "'rape-?by-deception' is almost universally rejected in American
criminal law," as Yale University law professor Jed Rubenfeld noted in the
2013 article "The Riddle of Rape-by-?Deception and the Myth of Sexual
Autonomy."
As UCLA law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh noted back in 2010, it's
Note that under American law, sex for which consent is procured by a lie
is generally a crime only (1) when the fraud relates to the nature of the
act (i.e., the defendant claimed he was a doctor who was going to
medically examine the woman's genitals, or perhaps even administer a
medical cure by having sex with her), or (2) in some states, when the
defendant impersonated the woman's husband. There was a proposal last year
in Massachusetts that would have generally criminalized rape by fraud, and
I blogged about it here; but to my knowledge it didn't go anywhere. And
while a few American rape statutes might already criminalize sex procured
through false statements (or provide as to crimes generally that "assent
does not constitute consent if … [i]t is induced by force, duress, or
deception"), I know of no cases applying those statutes in the typical
lying-to-get-sex case.
Will New York change that?
Seawright apparently hopes so. "The proper definition of consent in New
York's laws will clarify lawful sexual conduct, guide behavior, and make
it possible to hold sexual predators accountable," she said in a
statement.
Seawright's measure is being championed by two women, Tarale Wulff and
Dawn Dunning, who testified at Harvey Weinstein's rape trial last year.
"In part of Harvey's final statement at his sentencing, he commented that
he felt confused, and he thinks that most men are confused. So by defining
this consent, there will be no more confusion," Wulff told ABC News. The
change would "make sexual assault crimes…easier to prosecute," Dunning
said.
It's hard to see how adding all sorts of new layers to the definition of
consent, and vague new ways to violate it (what exactly is artifice in
this context?), will make things less confusing. There's no doubt,
however, that it would make it easier for law enforcement to define people
as sex offenders and attempt to prosecute them.
When will people learn that defining a broader and broader category of
behavior as sex crimes doesn't actually help stop sexual assaults or
increase justice, it just funnels more people into the criminal justice
system and creates new opportunities for law enforcement harassment,
discrimination, and abuse?

--
2000-mules
https://videopress.com/v/xD1TvlYl
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-That's karma-