Is Lying to Get Laid a Form of Sexual Assault?

Sorry but it was on her to do her homework to see if all of that was true. Such Third wave feminist bullshit. And just wait until it is a woman who 'deceives' and is brought up on charges...yeah right.

 

Of ALL the flavor's, you choose Salty!?!
Rape by Fraud!?!

Speaking of Fraud let's take off ALL the 8 layers of makeup, the 301's and 501 lashes, the hair extensions, the Peruvian bundle hair, the MAC nude lip 'Decay' gloss, the Victoria Secret Miracle push up bra, Wipe the contour off your upper 'imagined' cleavage, take off those heels and go to that same bar.

 

The appropriate answer given the article:

And it is the woman's responsibility to require the man to provide the proof that he is what he says he is(such as being Jewish, single, and has a degree in accounting...exactly as in the original post)to ensure that SHE still wants to sleep with him.

The utter lack of logic is amazing and astounding. Logical thinking goes out the window when one is only driven and blinded by dogma, ideology, and agenda.

 

Once Clinton gets in, there'll be non-stop liberal dweeb privilege nonsense like this...everyone's a VICTIMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!

 

No. It's just lying.

This is one of the reasons why I think HIV criminalization is so dangerous- once you criminalize it, and by the way, the huuuuuuuge proportions of black MSM in Maryland, GA, NYS, SC, LA and VA (look at the numbers people-it's bad) who have HIV, it's a stepping stone to the next thing. This is the next thing. It needs to be resisted.

This is why the law is so important- new laws aren't made from scratch, they're built on precedent, and the blocks that came before it. Mission creep you say? I call it the law. That's my layman, non-lawyer's take on it.

 

Are you equating lying about being 'Jewish, single, with a degree in accounting from NYU' in a bar, something that when the truth comes out does not have a long time damaging effect to the receiver, to someone lying about their HIV status???

 

Ahhh, law, my arena. But I'm just going to just consign because it's too early for a treatise, lol. Seriously @NikR is right and it's great to hear a doctor say this. We will never be able to realistically deal with HIV transmission and rates as long as we have this idiotic, puerile "Scatlet Letter" mentality in dealing with people who are positive and their social standing and daily lives. There's the rarities of some disturbed person who deliberately seeks to infect people with HIV, which ALWAYS grabs headlines, but doc raises a point; if you agree to have sex with someone, at what point do you take responsibility? Is HIV transmission better categorized as a tort on the part of the recipient (civil vs criminal damage)? The criminalization of HIV is the medical equivalent of categorizing black men as "super predator" ("super vectors"?)

And on the original subject of "lying for sex" even the law differentiates among exaggeration and deception of various kinds, such as "puffery" ( in advertising, which I would compare to the bugaboo of "lying for sex" in the original topic) as opposed to other categories like perjury ( lying under oath) or the misprision of a felony, etc.

Sorry, 5 am response, probably half coherent. As a side note, I keep forgetting the acronym "MSM" is medical speak for "men having sex with men". I use it for Mainstream Media. Which probably must make some of my responses in the parts head scratchers lol

 

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you never really, really know anyone, so if you're having sex, you take a risk. Protect yourself accordingly. I think that using the law as a cudgel after the fact can have far-reaching implications that we sometimes don't even recognize until later. And once the precedent is set in terms of lawful disclosure...well, all bets are off. Where does it end?

Also, doesn't "sexual assault by nondisclosure" somewhat dampen or dilute the power of a conviction for actual, honest-to-God sexual assault and rape? It almost feels like "you lied about something" cheapens/weakens the definition of sexual assault. Sure, it could be argued that this type of mission creep makes it more inclusive, but yeah....I'm not really buying into it yet.

For clarity- everyone should share their health status before any sexual activity. But sometimes, it doesn't happen. Sometimes that's because of benign neglect. Sometimes it's something much more sinister. I'm not perfect with it. Neither are a lot of people. Using the law doesn't make these conversations easier- again, it's after the fact.

 

Also I realize now that I somewhat misfired on the stats. What I should have said was..DC, Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, NYS, Texas in that order. Virginia is in the second tier. Sure, more correct that incorrect, but still, I wanna clear that up. Lifetime risk for everyone in these areas: 1/13 (!!!!!!), 1/49, 1/51, 1/54 respectively. The CDC recently said that at current rates, 1/2 black MSM will have HIV. I can't imagine 1/2 potentially being criminalized for nondisclosure (yes, with caveats!). It just seems...wrong. Again, more on HIV stuff later, in a different thread.

 

Just wanted to add that I agree with everyone this was not sexual assault. just poor judgment on her part

 

Look forward to the new thread. That's what I'd like to see more expertise driven threads, like you or @African King doing medical and health, other members expressing their expertise, etc. That DC rate us shameful considering the number of degreed black gay men in this city. Guess that's why I put on my Unclockable Face the whole time I've been here. I'm actually surprised that back in Chicago the rates of black MSM HIV transmission are lower than DC. As a side note, the rates in a lot of white rural areas are horrible too; NW Indiana near Chicago shocked the hell out of me. Sadly, these same folk have been brainwashed against their own health interests in the name of conservatism, "the evils of national health", and making sure we keep "those people" off public assistance. Smh