Legal consequences of deception about sexual history

[Boojatta]

If a woman, prior to having sexual relations with a particular man, asks him whether or not he has ever had sex with a man and he says no and she asks for that statement in writing and gets it, then should she be able to have him charged with rape if she has sexual relations with him and she obtains evidence that his written statement was false?

Would it be wise for a justice system to assert that the man faces only civil judgment? His behavior would seem to be comparable to that of a drunk driver. That we have no confirmation that a particular drunk driver has caused actual harm is not a reason to allow that drunk driver to avoid facing criminal law penalties.

It's difficult to see any particular hazard posed by a faithful same-sex couple. Yet, same-sex marriage has become a topic of debate. What is the purpose of those debates? The legal consequences of deception about an individual's sexual history is a topic that seems to be more worthy of debate.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. rape? uh no. Your post is mildly homophobic.

You are suggesting a rape charge where there is no actual rape, nor any actual harm. It appears that you are not requiring that the lying partner actual have aids or infect his lied-to-partner with aids. In fact you do not even mention aids, it jsut appears to be implicit in your post. The last time I looked, aids does not restrict itself to homosexual men.

If the person has an actual communicable std and knows it and proceeds to have sex anyway knowing that he or she can infect others I think there is precedent for criminal charges, but not rape. Rape is a crime of non-consensual sex. Fraudulently obtained consent is not rape, it is fraud. Men and women have been fraudulently obtaining consent in order to have sex for a very long time.

So just to be clear about your position here, if a woman willfully neglects to inform me that she has a history of either oral or genital herpes and proceeds to have sex with me, can I charge her with rape in your legal system?

Even if I do not get herpes from her?

[fed_up_mother]

2. I think if the person knowingly lies about sexual history s/he should be civilly liable

Only I am able to determine what kind of risks I want to take, and the fact is that men who do not engage in same sex behavior do not put me at the same risk level as men who do. That's not a value judgment. Just a statistical fact.

I completely agree it's not rape. It is sex by fraud, however, and as a woman (or human being) when I request information and am deceived, my rights to make informed consent are violated.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Which I completely agree with. It isn't rape.

[Boojatta]

3. "if a woman willfully neglects to inform me"

I didn't propose criminal liability for neglect to inform. I think that we should discuss the possibility of criminal penalities after a man obtains consent by providing, in writing, a statement the man knows to be false.

The last time I looked, aids does not restrict itself to homosexual men.

First, it's not clear to me why you are referring to "homosexual men." Perhaps you meant "bisexual men"?

Second, the last time I looked, not all traffic injuries were caused by drunk drivers. Nevertheless, drunk diving is recognized as a criminal offense.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. men who have had homosexual relations

is what I meant and what you meant. And what you proposed was charging a person with rape for a crime that is not rape.

Having had a same sex partner in your past does not make one diseased, it simply increases the risk that one might be diseased. Your OP did not even require that any disease exist or any infection occur. The simple act of fraud merited a rape charge. At any rate, if it is in fact the willfully undisclosed risk of disease that you think merits criminal charges, there are simple and highly accurate tests that will reduce this risk to a negligible factor. The victim of fraud here can protect himself by simply demanding tests before having sexual relations.

[Boojatta]

6. What happens when there's a new disease?

Can people demand tests for a disease not yet known to medical scientists?

Are scientists currently working on tests to detect all sexually transmitted diseases in all non-human animals?

[LoZoccolo]

7. Ummmm so why would men who have had sex with other men be more likely to have a "new disease"?

Normally the questions you raise fascinate me; this one is tinged with all sorts of bad.

[Boojatta]

8. If two men are in a same-sex marriage relationship and...

neither commits adultery and neither is sexually assaulted, then they might be no more likely than anyone else to acquire -- while they maintain that relationship -- a new sexually-transmitted disease.

Other situations, however, may expose men who have had sex with other men to greater risks. I don't know whether or not there's a well-developed field of sociological epidemiology, but you might be able to find some information about behaviors that are -- in the opinion of some epidemiologists -- potential risk factors.

Of course, you might assert that epidemiologists were wrong to classify some particular thing as a risk factor, but you in turn might be wrong when you make that assertion.

[kdmorris]

9. Rape?

What? I assume that you will also support men being able to charge women who have lied about their sexual history with something as well. Rape? Fraud?

Can you find any other way to take something that is so beautiful between two people and turn it into a bureaucratic nightmare of government red tape?

There are only a few scenarios when ANYBODY should be charged with ANYTHING in regards to sexual relations:

1. Rape (actual rape, not rape in the way YOU describe)

2. Sex with a child

3. Failure to disclose a KNOWN sexually transmitted disease.

As far as I'm concerned, the law has NO other business in the sexual relations of people.

[Boojatta]

10. My question is not about how the word "rape" should be used.

Item 2 in your list might include cases where a 17-year-old woman (who may have a high school diploma and a driver's license) consents to have sexual relations with an older man. Under the law in some jurisdictions, a 17-year-old woman cannot give consent, regardless of her intentions or preferences. Thus we have the notion of "statutory rape." If you disapprove of such use of the word "rape", then your quarrel is not with me, but with legislators.

My question is whether or not penalties of criminal law are appropriate for the scenario I described in the Original Post.

[kdmorris]

11. In most states, the age of consent is 16-18, but

if it's a 15 year old girl and a 25 year old man, then, yes, it's rape, as defined by the law. I am in favor of keeping these laws in place to protect young people who are not quite old enough to stand up to that sort of pressure. But... if it's a 15 year old girl and a 15 year old boy... I don't think that should be a crime.

You are asking if it's appropriate to create laws that govern the sexual relations of two people. In this case, you want to know if it's appropriate to make it a criminal offense for a man to lie to a woman about his sexual history.

My answer still stands. No. You cannot legislate the behavior of only one party UNLESS that fits the criteria of one of the items I listed. If you say that there should be ANY penalties for a man to lie to a woman about his sexual history, then you must also accept penalties for a woman to lie to a man about hers. And I still believe that NEITHER situation should be legislated.

Of all the things that humans lie about, by nature, sex is one of them. Whether out of social pressure or shame or whatever, it happens. And having someone charged with a crime or the defendant of a civil suit, or hell, even impeached for lying about sex... No, I don't think it should happen.