Law Won't Protect Unmarried Victims in Rape

[Auggziliary]

I'm for having a law in this case, but not calling it "rape".

Rape is either forced or taking advantage of a minor or mentally incapacitated person.

We should have another law in place, let's call it "sexual fraud". You wouldn't just lump all property offenses under the word "theft" so why lump all sexual offenses under the word "rape"? That cheapens the meaning of the word. Then a woman can say she was "raped" and people won't know that she means she was forced to have sex against her will rather than having been tricked into having sex.

It's rape because she consented to sex with her boyfriend, not the man. Rape doesn't always have to be forced btw, such as in date rape. It means non-consensual sex.

One could easily say if I were to buy something touted as just wonderful that turns out to be defective or even dangerous that it's "theft" because I consented to receiving the product as it was advertised, and not the piece of shit that I receive instead.

As for date rape that's more akin to if someone gave me scopolamine and then ordered me to give them my money. That and date rape involve altered states of mind, conning someone into buying a product and procuring sex through trickery involve distorting the information.

If they didn't give you back your money or what you asked for then that would be theft though. Of course, you can't "return" sex, so that metaphor doesn't work. Also losing some money is not at all comparable to rape, since losing money doesn't have the trauma.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

"Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape. But this qualifier does not mean that a person may make sexual contact with a minor or incapacitated person who actually consented. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim."

Withholding information like that makes her not capable of consenting, since, ya know, knowing who you're having sex with is pretty important.

But to be consistent this should apply to any information withholding that might be relevant to whether or not a person would want to have sex.
And there's some precedent for this. In Israel a man once was convicted of rape because he wasn't Jewish and didn't tell the girl he was having sex with.
And what about whenever a transvestite tricks someone into having sex with them who wouldn't have sex with them if they knew their true sex? Is that rape?
What about when a minor lies about their age? Most states don't allow that as a defense for the adult, but if withholding information that would be relevant to making a decision to have sex and then having sex is rape then you'd have to charge both of them.
If I'm anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, or homophobic and I go out and have sex I consent to with someone who doesn't tell me they are Jewish, Muslim, or bisexual can I then file rape charges once I find out? What about if the person is in the wrong political party and I find out after having sex?
How about if I'm poor but I have some nice clothes a rich friend loans me, I go to the club, I meet a girl, I pretend to be rich, it turns out I'm not rich, if she decides she only liked me for my money then should I be charged with rape?
A woman only wants to have sex with me because I promise her I will give her all the money in my inheritance. I die, and the estate goes to my children. Should she be able to sue my estate for rape?

Maybe there's some valid reasons to make distinctions between these different types of trickery, but so far I'm not seeing it. Unless we want "rape" to get this broad it's better if we label it something else when someone gets an adult, mentally competent person to consent to sex through trickery.

Um, those cases are not comparable, since you still are consenting to that individual. In those cases they lied about a certain trait, but not who they were.
Are you being sarcastic? Because I really can't tell. It's hard to believe someone could think those things are remotely comparable to this case.

What's the difference between an individual and an individual's traits? What are we if not the traits that make us up? Do you mean "the name identity"? In that case we should include anyone who has sex while under another assumed identity (this happens more than you would think and would include most cases of people pretending to be the other gender, people who are identity thieves living as the identity they stole, and anyone under any alias including people in the Witness Protection Program)
If you mean more the whole personality then it would still apply to other cases but it would be vaguer and more difficult but not impossible to define. People playing a completely different personality from who they are, and then the next morning surprising you and making you realize they are not the person you thought they were when you had sex would be akin to what happened in the original case. This could include key components of what an individual is such as political and religious beliefs. Basically anything that motivated her to choose to have sex that was a fabricated part of a person could fall under this.
If you mean the person's body, then that still leaves people dressing up as the opposite sex to trick people into having sex with them.

Are being serious? Do you not understand the difference between traits and different individuals?

[TheReasonator]

I'm for having a law in this case, but not calling it "rape".

Rape is either forced or taking advantage of a minor or mentally incapacitated person.

We should have another law in place, let's call it "sexual fraud". You wouldn't just lump all property offenses under the word "theft" so why lump all sexual offenses under the word "rape"? That cheapens the meaning of the word. Then a woman can say she was "raped" and people won't know that she means she was forced to have sex against her will rather than having been tricked into having sex.

It's rape because she consented to sex with her boyfriend, not the man. Rape doesn't always have to be forced btw, such as in date rape. It means non-consensual sex.

One could easily say if I were to buy something touted as just wonderful that turns out to be defective or even dangerous that it's "theft" because I consented to receiving the product as it was advertised, and not the piece of shit that I receive instead.

As for date rape that's more akin to if someone gave me scopolamine and then ordered me to give them my money. That and date rape involve altered states of mind, conning someone into buying a product and procuring sex through trickery involve distorting the information.

If they didn't give you back your money or what you asked for then that would be theft though. Of course, you can't "return" sex, so that metaphor doesn't work. Also losing some money is not at all comparable to rape, since losing money doesn't have the trauma.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

"Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape. But this qualifier does not mean that a person may make sexual contact with a minor or incapacitated person who actually consented. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim."

Withholding information like that makes her not capable of consenting, since, ya know, knowing who you're having sex with is pretty important.

But to be consistent this should apply to any information withholding that might be relevant to whether or not a person would want to have sex.
And there's some precedent for this. In Israel a man once was convicted of rape because he wasn't Jewish and didn't tell the girl he was having sex with.
And what about whenever a transvestite tricks someone into having sex with them who wouldn't have sex with them if they knew their true sex? Is that rape?
What about when a minor lies about their age? Most states don't allow that as a defense for the adult, but if withholding information that would be relevant to making a decision to have sex and then having sex is rape then you'd have to charge both of them.
If I'm anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, or homophobic and I go out and have sex I consent to with someone who doesn't tell me they are Jewish, Muslim, or bisexual can I then file rape charges once I find out? What about if the person is in the wrong political party and I find out after having sex?
How about if I'm poor but I have some nice clothes a rich friend loans me, I go to the club, I meet a girl, I pretend to be rich, it turns out I'm not rich, if she decides she only liked me for my money then should I be charged with rape?
A woman only wants to have sex with me because I promise her I will give her all the money in my inheritance. I die, and the estate goes to my children. Should she be able to sue my estate for rape?

Maybe there's some valid reasons to make distinctions between these different types of trickery, but so far I'm not seeing it. Unless we want "rape" to get this broad it's better if we label it something else when someone gets an adult, mentally competent person to consent to sex through trickery.

Um, those cases are not comparable, since you still are consenting to that individual. In those cases they lied about a certain trait, but not who they were.
Are you being sarcastic? Because I really can't tell. It's hard to believe someone could think those things are remotely comparable to this case.

What's the difference between an individual and an individual's traits? What are we if not the traits that make us up? Do you mean "the name identity"? In that case we should include anyone who has sex while under another assumed identity (this happens more than you would think and would include most cases of people pretending to be the other gender, people who are identity thieves living as the identity they stole, and anyone under any alias including people in the Witness Protection Program)
If you mean more the whole personality then it would still apply to other cases but it would be vaguer and more difficult but not impossible to define. People playing a completely different personality from who they are, and then the next morning surprising you and making you realize they are not the person you thought they were when you had sex would be akin to what happened in the original case. This could include key components of what an individual is such as political and religious beliefs. Basically anything that motivated her to choose to have sex that was a fabricated part of a person could fall under this.
If you mean the person's body, then that still leaves people dressing up as the opposite sex to trick people into having sex with them.

Are being serious? Do you not understand the difference between traits and different individuals?

Everything about who an individual is is by definition a trait.

If you mean the person's name (which yes counts as a trait) that opens up claims of rape against people who use aliases, including if someone in the witness protection program had sex with someone under an alias. I hope that's not what you meant.

If you mean the same physical body (another trait) that opens up claims of rape against people who misrepresent their bodies i.e. faking being the other sex.

[Auggziliary]

I'm for having a law in this case, but not calling it "rape".

Rape is either forced or taking advantage of a minor or mentally incapacitated person.

We should have another law in place, let's call it "sexual fraud". You wouldn't just lump all property offenses under the word "theft" so why lump all sexual offenses under the word "rape"? That cheapens the meaning of the word. Then a woman can say she was "raped" and people won't know that she means she was forced to have sex against her will rather than having been tricked into having sex.

It's rape because she consented to sex with her boyfriend, not the man. Rape doesn't always have to be forced btw, such as in date rape. It means non-consensual sex.

One could easily say if I were to buy something touted as just wonderful that turns out to be defective or even dangerous that it's "theft" because I consented to receiving the product as it was advertised, and not the piece of shit that I receive instead.

As for date rape that's more akin to if someone gave me scopolamine and then ordered me to give them my money. That and date rape involve altered states of mind, conning someone into buying a product and procuring sex through trickery involve distorting the information.

If they didn't give you back your money or what you asked for then that would be theft though. Of course, you can't "return" sex, so that metaphor doesn't work. Also losing some money is not at all comparable to rape, since losing money doesn't have the trauma.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

"Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape. But this qualifier does not mean that a person may make sexual contact with a minor or incapacitated person who actually consented. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim."

Withholding information like that makes her not capable of consenting, since, ya know, knowing who you're having sex with is pretty important.

But to be consistent this should apply to any information withholding that might be relevant to whether or not a person would want to have sex.
And there's some precedent for this. In Israel a man once was convicted of rape because he wasn't Jewish and didn't tell the girl he was having sex with.
And what about whenever a transvestite tricks someone into having sex with them who wouldn't have sex with them if they knew their true sex? Is that rape?
What about when a minor lies about their age? Most states don't allow that as a defense for the adult, but if withholding information that would be relevant to making a decision to have sex and then having sex is rape then you'd have to charge both of them.
If I'm anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, or homophobic and I go out and have sex I consent to with someone who doesn't tell me they are Jewish, Muslim, or bisexual can I then file rape charges once I find out? What about if the person is in the wrong political party and I find out after having sex?
How about if I'm poor but I have some nice clothes a rich friend loans me, I go to the club, I meet a girl, I pretend to be rich, it turns out I'm not rich, if she decides she only liked me for my money then should I be charged with rape?
A woman only wants to have sex with me because I promise her I will give her all the money in my inheritance. I die, and the estate goes to my children. Should she be able to sue my estate for rape?

Maybe there's some valid reasons to make distinctions between these different types of trickery, but so far I'm not seeing it. Unless we want "rape" to get this broad it's better if we label it something else when someone gets an adult, mentally competent person to consent to sex through trickery.

Um, those cases are not comparable, since you still are consenting to that individual. In those cases they lied about a certain trait, but not who they were.
Are you being sarcastic? Because I really can't tell. It's hard to believe someone could think those things are remotely comparable to this case.

What's the difference between an individual and an individual's traits? What are we if not the traits that make us up? Do you mean "the name identity"? In that case we should include anyone who has sex while under another assumed identity (this happens more than you would think and would include most cases of people pretending to be the other gender, people who are identity thieves living as the identity they stole, and anyone under any alias including people in the Witness Protection Program)
If you mean more the whole personality then it would still apply to other cases but it would be vaguer and more difficult but not impossible to define. People playing a completely different personality from who they are, and then the next morning surprising you and making you realize they are not the person you thought they were when you had sex would be akin to what happened in the original case. This could include key components of what an individual is such as political and religious beliefs. Basically anything that motivated her to choose to have sex that was a fabricated part of a person could fall under this.
If you mean the person's body, then that still leaves people dressing up as the opposite sex to trick people into having sex with them.

Are being serious? Do you not understand the difference between traits and different individuals?

Everything about who an individual is is by definition a trait.

If you mean the person's name (which yes counts as a trait) that opens up claims of rape against people who use aliases, including if someone in the witness protection program had sex with someone under an alias. I hope that's not what you meant.

If you mean the same physical body (another trait) that opens up claims of rape against people who misrepresent their bodies i.e. faking being the other sex.

Individual is not the same thing as a trait. Yes, they do have traits, but different individuals are not comparable to different traits of the same person.  Do you seriously not understand this?

[TheReasonator]

I'm for having a law in this case, but not calling it "rape".

Rape is either forced or taking advantage of a minor or mentally incapacitated person.

We should have another law in place, let's call it "sexual fraud". You wouldn't just lump all property offenses under the word "theft" so why lump all sexual offenses under the word "rape"? That cheapens the meaning of the word. Then a woman can say she was "raped" and people won't know that she means she was forced to have sex against her will rather than having been tricked into having sex.

It's rape because she consented to sex with her boyfriend, not the man. Rape doesn't always have to be forced btw, such as in date rape. It means non-consensual sex.

One could easily say if I were to buy something touted as just wonderful that turns out to be defective or even dangerous that it's "theft" because I consented to receiving the product as it was advertised, and not the piece of shit that I receive instead.

As for date rape that's more akin to if someone gave me scopolamine and then ordered me to give them my money. That and date rape involve altered states of mind, conning someone into buying a product and procuring sex through trickery involve distorting the information.

If they didn't give you back your money or what you asked for then that would be theft though. Of course, you can't "return" sex, so that metaphor doesn't work. Also losing some money is not at all comparable to rape, since losing money doesn't have the trauma.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

"Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape. But this qualifier does not mean that a person may make sexual contact with a minor or incapacitated person who actually consented. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim."

Withholding information like that makes her not capable of consenting, since, ya know, knowing who you're having sex with is pretty important.

But to be consistent this should apply to any information withholding that might be relevant to whether or not a person would want to have sex.
And there's some precedent for this. In Israel a man once was convicted of rape because he wasn't Jewish and didn't tell the girl he was having sex with.
And what about whenever a transvestite tricks someone into having sex with them who wouldn't have sex with them if they knew their true sex? Is that rape?
What about when a minor lies about their age? Most states don't allow that as a defense for the adult, but if withholding information that would be relevant to making a decision to have sex and then having sex is rape then you'd have to charge both of them.
If I'm anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, or homophobic and I go out and have sex I consent to with someone who doesn't tell me they are Jewish, Muslim, or bisexual can I then file rape charges once I find out? What about if the person is in the wrong political party and I find out after having sex?
How about if I'm poor but I have some nice clothes a rich friend loans me, I go to the club, I meet a girl, I pretend to be rich, it turns out I'm not rich, if she decides she only liked me for my money then should I be charged with rape?
A woman only wants to have sex with me because I promise her I will give her all the money in my inheritance. I die, and the estate goes to my children. Should she be able to sue my estate for rape?

Maybe there's some valid reasons to make distinctions between these different types of trickery, but so far I'm not seeing it. Unless we want "rape" to get this broad it's better if we label it something else when someone gets an adult, mentally competent person to consent to sex through trickery.

Um, those cases are not comparable, since you still are consenting to that individual. In those cases they lied about a certain trait, but not who they were.
Are you being sarcastic? Because I really can't tell. It's hard to believe someone could think those things are remotely comparable to this case.

What's the difference between an individual and an individual's traits? What are we if not the traits that make us up? Do you mean "the name identity"? In that case we should include anyone who has sex while under another assumed identity (this happens more than you would think and would include most cases of people pretending to be the other gender, people who are identity thieves living as the identity they stole, and anyone under any alias including people in the Witness Protection Program)
If you mean more the whole personality then it would still apply to other cases but it would be vaguer and more difficult but not impossible to define. People playing a completely different personality from who they are, and then the next morning surprising you and making you realize they are not the person you thought they were when you had sex would be akin to what happened in the original case. This could include key components of what an individual is such as political and religious beliefs. Basically anything that motivated her to choose to have sex that was a fabricated part of a person could fall under this.
If you mean the person's body, then that still leaves people dressing up as the opposite sex to trick people into having sex with them.

Are being serious? Do you not understand the difference between traits and different individuals?

Everything about who an individual is is by definition a trait.

If you mean the person's name (which yes counts as a trait) that opens up claims of rape against people who use aliases, including if someone in the witness protection program had sex with someone under an alias. I hope that's not what you meant.

If you mean the same physical body (another trait) that opens up claims of rape against people who misrepresent their bodies i.e. faking being the other sex.

Individual is not the same thing as a trait. Yes, they do have traits, but different individuals are not comparable to different traits of the same person.  Do you seriously not understand this?

There is the whole individual and then there are the traits.

But the individual as a whole contains the traits, so if you mean the whole individual then you'd have to mean in every case he deceived her about a trait, unless we are limiting and defining the "central" traits of what makes an individual. Is not personality central? If a person impersonates a different personality than who they really are you could argue that they are having sex under false pretenses as she is consenting to have sex with an individual with one personality when in reality he has a different personality.

[RavynousHunter]

Holy nested quotes, Batman!

[Auggziliary]

There is the whole individual and then there are the traits.

But the individual as a whole contains the traits, so if you mean the whole individual then you'd have to mean in every case he deceived her about a trait, unless we are limiting and defining the "central" traits of what makes an individual. Is not personality central? If a person impersonates a different personality than who they really are you could argue that they are having sex under false pretenses as she is consenting to have sex with an individual with one personality when in reality he has a different personality.

She had sex with an ENTIRELY different person. It's not like she had sex with a guy she thought was Catholic and then wasn't or some shit.
Yeah, individuals have different traits. But in this case traits have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that she had sex with a person that she didn't want to have sex with because she thought he was her boyfriend.

[Jack Mann]

Actually, there was a guy in Israel who was going to be charged with rape for claiming to be Jewish when he wasn't.

[Auggziliary]

Actually, there was a guy in Israel who was going to be charged with rape for claiming to be Jewish when he wasn't.

Yeah he mentioned that already.

[TheReasonator]

There is the whole individual and then there are the traits.

But the individual as a whole contains the traits, so if you mean the whole individual then you'd have to mean in every case he deceived her about a trait, unless we are limiting and defining the "central" traits of what makes an individual. Is not personality central? If a person impersonates a different personality than who they really are you could argue that they are having sex under false pretenses as she is consenting to have sex with an individual with one personality when in reality he has a different personality.

She had sex with an ENTIRELY different person. It's not like she had sex with a guy she thought was Catholic and then wasn't or some shit.
Yeah, individuals have different traits. But in this case traits have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that she had sex with a person that she didn't want to have sex with because she thought he was her boyfriend.

Still leaves what if I meet some hot woman online let's call her "Sally Wintergreen" and start to chat with her, and she invites me over to her place, let's me in, room stays dark, we have sex (but she says her vagina hurts so she doesn't want to do anything with that), and then the next day it turns out to be a man wearing a padded bra who's great at disguising his voice and kept his junk tied up in a way so I wouldn't notice. It turns out "Sally Wintergreen" is really a man named "Rob Kleider". Completely different person. Should I be able to charge him with rape?

[Auggziliary]

There is the whole individual and then there are the traits.

But the individual as a whole contains the traits, so if you mean the whole individual then you'd have to mean in every case he deceived her about a trait, unless we are limiting and defining the "central" traits of what makes an individual. Is not personality central? If a person impersonates a different personality than who they really are you could argue that they are having sex under false pretenses as she is consenting to have sex with an individual with one personality when in reality he has a different personality.

She had sex with an ENTIRELY different person. It's not like she had sex with a guy she thought was Catholic and then wasn't or some shit.
Yeah, individuals have different traits. But in this case traits have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that she had sex with a person that she didn't want to have sex with because she thought he was her boyfriend.

Still leaves what if I meet some hot woman online let's call her "Sally Wintergreen" and start to chat with her, and she invites me over to her place, let's me in, room stays dark, we have sex (but she says her vagina hurts so she doesn't want to do anything with that), and then the next day it turns out to be a man wearing a padded bra who's great at disguising his voice and kept his junk tied up in a way so I wouldn't notice. It turns out "Sally Wintergreen" is really a man named "Rob Kleider". Completely different person. Should I be able to charge him with rape?

Ok for the 29384th time: there is a difference between 2 different people and 1 person who lies about their traits.

[TheReasonator]

There is the whole individual and then there are the traits.

But the individual as a whole contains the traits, so if you mean the whole individual then you'd have to mean in every case he deceived her about a trait, unless we are limiting and defining the "central" traits of what makes an individual. Is not personality central? If a person impersonates a different personality than who they really are you could argue that they are having sex under false pretenses as she is consenting to have sex with an individual with one personality when in reality he has a different personality.

She had sex with an ENTIRELY different person. It's not like she had sex with a guy she thought was Catholic and then wasn't or some shit.
Yeah, individuals have different traits. But in this case traits have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that she had sex with a person that she didn't want to have sex with because she thought he was her boyfriend.

Still leaves what if I meet some hot woman online let's call her "Sally Wintergreen" and start to chat with her, and she invites me over to her place, let's me in, room stays dark, we have sex (but she says her vagina hurts so she doesn't want to do anything with that), and then the next day it turns out to be a man wearing a padded bra who's great at disguising his voice and kept his junk tied up in a way so I wouldn't notice. It turns out "Sally Wintergreen" is really a man named "Rob Kleider". Completely different person. Should I be able to charge him with rape?

Ok for the 29384th time: there is a difference between 2 different people and 1 person who lies about their traits.

This is two different people. The person I get to know online doesn't even exist, is a complete lie. I go and have sex with someone who I think is that person and it turns out to be a completely different person.

I concede that things like religion, party affiliation would just be "traits". But surely if someone is making an effort to pretend they are a completely different person, a totally different individual than who they really are then that is 2 different people not just 1 person who lies about their traits.

Would it change things if say someone else made the profile to seduce me and then the guy who dressed up as a girl was his friend? Would you consider it rape then since it's not even the same person I was talking to online? What if the profile is fake and run by the guy, but the girl is really who it says in the profile and that's who I meet in the apartment? Would that make it rape since it's a different person from who I was talking to?

What if I loudly proclaim that my consent is invalid if "X" trait isn't true then could we consider deception over that trait to be rape? How about when it comes to a whole person? I say "I come here consenting to have sex with Sally Wintergreen, if you are not her I do not consent to sex." Would you then call it rape?

[Auggziliary]

There is the whole individual and then there are the traits.

But the individual as a whole contains the traits, so if you mean the whole individual then you'd have to mean in every case he deceived her about a trait, unless we are limiting and defining the "central" traits of what makes an individual. Is not personality central? If a person impersonates a different personality than who they really are you could argue that they are having sex under false pretenses as she is consenting to have sex with an individual with one personality when in reality he has a different personality.

She had sex with an ENTIRELY different person. It's not like she had sex with a guy she thought was Catholic and then wasn't or some shit.
Yeah, individuals have different traits. But in this case traits have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that she had sex with a person that she didn't want to have sex with because she thought he was her boyfriend.

Still leaves what if I meet some hot woman online let's call her "Sally Wintergreen" and start to chat with her, and she invites me over to her place, let's me in, room stays dark, we have sex (but she says her vagina hurts so she doesn't want to do anything with that), and then the next day it turns out to be a man wearing a padded bra who's great at disguising his voice and kept his junk tied up in a way so I wouldn't notice. It turns out "Sally Wintergreen" is really a man named "Rob Kleider". Completely different person. Should I be able to charge him with rape?

Ok for the 29384th time: there is a difference between 2 different people and 1 person who lies about their traits.

This is two different people. The person I get to know online doesn't even exist, is a complete lie. I go and have sex with someone who I think is that person and it turns out to be a completely different person.

I concede that things like religion, party affiliation would just be "traits". But surely if someone is making an effort to pretend they are a completely different person, a totally different individual than who they really are then that is 2 different people not just 1 person who lies about their traits.

Would it change things if say someone else made the profile to seduce me and then the guy who dressed up as a girl was his friend? Would you consider it rape then since it's not even the same person I was talking to online? What if the profile is fake and run by the guy, but the girl is really who it says in the profile and that's who I meet in the apartment? Would that make it rape since it's a different person from who I was talking to?

What if I loudly proclaim that my consent is invalid if "X" trait isn't true then could we consider deception over that trait to be rape? How about when it comes to a whole person? I say "I come here consenting to have sex with Sally Wintergreen, if you are not her I do not consent to sex." Would you then call it rape?

Ok that lady never even existed in the first place, so how the hell is that comparable? Did you seriously not read what I posted before? That's still 1 person lying about their traits.
Ok answer this: If I change my gender(I'm genderfluid btw) am I a different person? Like did the old Auggziliary suddenly dissappear and the new one was born or something? I mean that in an almost literal sense, I'm not talking about people who are metaphorically reborn.

[TheReasonator]

There is the whole individual and then there are the traits.

But the individual as a whole contains the traits, so if you mean the whole individual then you'd have to mean in every case he deceived her about a trait, unless we are limiting and defining the "central" traits of what makes an individual. Is not personality central? If a person impersonates a different personality than who they really are you could argue that they are having sex under false pretenses as she is consenting to have sex with an individual with one personality when in reality he has a different personality.

She had sex with an ENTIRELY different person. It's not like she had sex with a guy she thought was Catholic and then wasn't or some shit.
Yeah, individuals have different traits. But in this case traits have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that she had sex with a person that she didn't want to have sex with because she thought he was her boyfriend.

Still leaves what if I meet some hot woman online let's call her "Sally Wintergreen" and start to chat with her, and she invites me over to her place, let's me in, room stays dark, we have sex (but she says her vagina hurts so she doesn't want to do anything with that), and then the next day it turns out to be a man wearing a padded bra who's great at disguising his voice and kept his junk tied up in a way so I wouldn't notice. It turns out "Sally Wintergreen" is really a man named "Rob Kleider". Completely different person. Should I be able to charge him with rape?

Ok for the 29384th time: there is a difference between 2 different people and 1 person who lies about their traits.

This is two different people. The person I get to know online doesn't even exist, is a complete lie. I go and have sex with someone who I think is that person and it turns out to be a completely different person.

I concede that things like religion, party affiliation would just be "traits". But surely if someone is making an effort to pretend they are a completely different person, a totally different individual than who they really are then that is 2 different people not just 1 person who lies about their traits.

Would it change things if say someone else made the profile to seduce me and then the guy who dressed up as a girl was his friend? Would you consider it rape then since it's not even the same person I was talking to online? What if the profile is fake and run by the guy, but the girl is really who it says in the profile and that's who I meet in the apartment? Would that make it rape since it's a different person from who I was talking to?

What if I loudly proclaim that my consent is invalid if "X" trait isn't true then could we consider deception over that trait to be rape? How about when it comes to a whole person? I say "I come here consenting to have sex with Sally Wintergreen, if you are not her I do not consent to sex." Would you then call it rape?

Ok that lady never even existed in the first place, so how the hell is that comparable? Did you seriously not read what I posted before? That's still 1 person lying about their traits.
Ok answer this: If I change my gender(I'm genderfluid btw) am I a different person? Like did the old Auggziliary suddenly dissappear and the new one was born or something? I mean that in an almost literal sense, I'm not talking about people who are metaphorically reborn.

So you are saying it's rape if the person I got to know who I thought I was about to sleep with was different from the actual person I was about to sleep with and the person I'm about to sleep with is pretending to be that person?

So, then some of my examples would still apply. In fact the implication is that if someone else pretended they were her and that was the person I interacted with and then I slept with the real her and then found out they were actually different people then it would be rape.

[Auggziliary]

There is the whole individual and then there are the traits.

But the individual as a whole contains the traits, so if you mean the whole individual then you'd have to mean in every case he deceived her about a trait, unless we are limiting and defining the "central" traits of what makes an individual. Is not personality central? If a person impersonates a different personality than who they really are you could argue that they are having sex under false pretenses as she is consenting to have sex with an individual with one personality when in reality he has a different personality.

She had sex with an ENTIRELY different person. It's not like she had sex with a guy she thought was Catholic and then wasn't or some shit.
Yeah, individuals have different traits. But in this case traits have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that she had sex with a person that she didn't want to have sex with because she thought he was her boyfriend.

Still leaves what if I meet some hot woman online let's call her "Sally Wintergreen" and start to chat with her, and she invites me over to her place, let's me in, room stays dark, we have sex (but she says her vagina hurts so she doesn't want to do anything with that), and then the next day it turns out to be a man wearing a padded bra who's great at disguising his voice and kept his junk tied up in a way so I wouldn't notice. It turns out "Sally Wintergreen" is really a man named "Rob Kleider". Completely different person. Should I be able to charge him with rape?

Ok for the 29384th time: there is a difference between 2 different people and 1 person who lies about their traits.

This is two different people. The person I get to know online doesn't even exist, is a complete lie. I go and have sex with someone who I think is that person and it turns out to be a completely different person.

I concede that things like religion, party affiliation would just be "traits". But surely if someone is making an effort to pretend they are a completely different person, a totally different individual than who they really are then that is 2 different people not just 1 person who lies about their traits.

Would it change things if say someone else made the profile to seduce me and then the guy who dressed up as a girl was his friend? Would you consider it rape then since it's not even the same person I was talking to online? What if the profile is fake and run by the guy, but the girl is really who it says in the profile and that's who I meet in the apartment? Would that make it rape since it's a different person from who I was talking to?

What if I loudly proclaim that my consent is invalid if "X" trait isn't true then could we consider deception over that trait to be rape? How about when it comes to a whole person? I say "I come here consenting to have sex with Sally Wintergreen, if you are not her I do not consent to sex." Would you then call it rape?

Ok that lady never even existed in the first place, so how the hell is that comparable? Did you seriously not read what I posted before? That's still 1 person lying about their traits.
Ok answer this: If I change my gender(I'm genderfluid btw) am I a different person? Like did the old Auggziliary suddenly dissappear and the new one was born or something? I mean that in an almost literal sense, I'm not talking about people who are metaphorically reborn.

So you are saying it's rape if the person I got to know who I thought I was about to sleep with was different from the actual person I was about to sleep with and the person I'm about to sleep with is pretending to be that person?

So, then some of my examples would still apply. In fact the implication is that if someone else pretended they were her and that was the person I interacted with and then I slept with the real her and then found out they were actually different people then it would be rape.

First, answer my question.

Second, do you seriously not understand the difference between this case and your examples? The one example of the guy pretending to be a woman was still just one person lying about his traits. Some of your examples also make you sound like a complete jackass too, I mean you're comparing someone lying about something like religion, where the one that claimed rape is just being discriminatory, to this case, where a guy lied about being a woman's boyfriend after breaking into their house. You're implying that she shouldn't have cared or something, just like one shouldn't care about their partner's religion.

Third, there's more to a person than traits. The man didn't lie about his traits, he lied about his complete identity. Things like memories and personality also apply to a person, not just traits. So no a person lying about traits isn't comparable at all, since there's more to an individual than that. He made up who he was, so he lied about not only traits, but memories and all the other things that go into a person too.

[TheReasonator]

There is the whole individual and then there are the traits.

But the individual as a whole contains the traits, so if you mean the whole individual then you'd have to mean in every case he deceived her about a trait, unless we are limiting and defining the "central" traits of what makes an individual. Is not personality central? If a person impersonates a different personality than who they really are you could argue that they are having sex under false pretenses as she is consenting to have sex with an individual with one personality when in reality he has a different personality.

She had sex with an ENTIRELY different person. It's not like she had sex with a guy she thought was Catholic and then wasn't or some shit.
Yeah, individuals have different traits. But in this case traits have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that she had sex with a person that she didn't want to have sex with because she thought he was her boyfriend.

Still leaves what if I meet some hot woman online let's call her "Sally Wintergreen" and start to chat with her, and she invites me over to her place, let's me in, room stays dark, we have sex (but she says her vagina hurts so she doesn't want to do anything with that), and then the next day it turns out to be a man wearing a padded bra who's great at disguising his voice and kept his junk tied up in a way so I wouldn't notice. It turns out "Sally Wintergreen" is really a man named "Rob Kleider". Completely different person. Should I be able to charge him with rape?

Ok for the 29384th time: there is a difference between 2 different people and 1 person who lies about their traits.

This is two different people. The person I get to know online doesn't even exist, is a complete lie. I go and have sex with someone who I think is that person and it turns out to be a completely different person.

I concede that things like religion, party affiliation would just be "traits". But surely if someone is making an effort to pretend they are a completely different person, a totally different individual than who they really are then that is 2 different people not just 1 person who lies about their traits.

Would it change things if say someone else made the profile to seduce me and then the guy who dressed up as a girl was his friend? Would you consider it rape then since it's not even the same person I was talking to online? What if the profile is fake and run by the guy, but the girl is really who it says in the profile and that's who I meet in the apartment? Would that make it rape since it's a different person from who I was talking to?

What if I loudly proclaim that my consent is invalid if "X" trait isn't true then could we consider deception over that trait to be rape? How about when it comes to a whole person? I say "I come here consenting to have sex with Sally Wintergreen, if you are not her I do not consent to sex." Would you then call it rape?

Ok that lady never even existed in the first place, so how the hell is that comparable? Did you seriously not read what I posted before? That's still 1 person lying about their traits.
Ok answer this: If I change my gender(I'm genderfluid btw) am I a different person? Like did the old Auggziliary suddenly dissappear and the new one was born or something? I mean that in an almost literal sense, I'm not talking about people who are metaphorically reborn.

So you are saying it's rape if the person I got to know who I thought I was about to sleep with was different from the actual person I was about to sleep with and the person I'm about to sleep with is pretending to be that person?

So, then some of my examples would still apply. In fact the implication is that if someone else pretended they were her and that was the person I interacted with and then I slept with the real her and then found out they were actually different people then it would be rape.

First, answer my question.

No, you would be the same person unless you use an alias, then you've created a whole new character but if you are transitioning and it's the name you've decided on you're the same person. The facts of the case would have to go into it. If you are basically making up your entire personality not just traits here and there how is that not pretending to be a different person?

Second, do you seriously not understand the difference between this case and your examples? The one example of the guy pretending to be a woman was still just one person lying about his traits. Some of your examples also make you sound like a complete jackass too, I mean you're comparing someone lying about something like religion, where the one that claimed rape is just being discriminatory, to this case, where a guy lied about being a woman's boyfriend after breaking into their house. You're implying that she shouldn't have cared or something, just like one shouldn't care about their partner's religion.

Who are we to say who should've cared in what case? If it's legitimate for someone to care that someone is of one category "their boyfriend" it's legitimate for someone to care that someone is of another like a race or religion and protect one you should protect the other too.

Third, there's more to a person than traits. The man didn't lie about his traits, he lied about his complete identity. Things like memories and personality also apply to a person, not just traits. So no a person lying about traits isn't comparable at all, since there's more to an individual than that. He made up who he was, so he lied about not only traits, but memories and all the other things that go into a person too.

And the man in my example made up an entirely different personality, the interaction online was done with a persona, so you aren't interacting with the same personality.
Even if you say "but the persona came out of the same person" then what about the other example where the person tricking you online is not the same person you meet in real life? And would that still count if someone portrayed themselves as person X but wasn't online, got you to agree to have sex with them while chatting online, then you go you have sex with person X and then find out that person X was never the person posting online. Then did you have sex with the person you expected to because they are the person and personality that you learned of online or were you just tricked into having sex with a completely different person because it's not technically the same person you were talking to online?