A Frenchman masquerading as a 37-year old “male model” offering women 50 Shades of Grey-type sex dates in the dark is facing rape charges after they belatedly discovered he was a short, fat and balding 68-year old.
A man calling himself Anthony Laroche attracted much female interest on several dating websites after depicting himself as a young, mysterious prince charming with a photo highlighting his smouldering gaze, square jaw and designer stubble.
Adding spice to the proceedings, “Anthony” proposed a “blind” date in which the two total strangers had sex in the dark on their first encounter at his flat in Nice, southern France.
It’s certainly deception but rape? Possibly even purblind idiocy on the part of the women but again, does that make it rape?
At some point telling lies about oneself to get someone into bed is acceptable. No, not married, sure, I’ll respect you, gosh, you’re pretty, I love you……some lies to get someone into bed are not rape. So where’s the dividing line?
If the blog goes silent for a couple of days, which re-education camp do you think we should look for you in?
How can it even be deception? He revealed his true features before any sex!
If any of the women had had the sense to put a bloody light on (or insist on dinner & drinks first), he’d have been rumbled…
It isn’t rape in any useful sense, though I daresay our more SJW participants would disagree. It might be better characterised as fraud.
Anyway, aren’t we constantly told by the Feminists that we shouldn’t judge people on their apperance and hold them to unreasonable physical standards? Is it not the person inside that counts?
Just proves the American opinion that the French have their heads screwed on wrong and worst the American political correctness crowd actually thinks they are a model to follow!
If a woman persudes assures her partner to have unprotected sex by assuring him she is using a contraceptive method and then deliberately becomes pregnant in spite of his expressed or implied wishes; rape?
Ironman,
No, that’s not rape. Again, I’d characterise that as “fraud” of some kind. Maybe we should have a specific term like “sexual fraud” which would be actionable in the civil courts.
We’re rapidly moving towards a situation where lying will be criminalised. Truth will be decided by judges, and religion will be given a free pass.
So rape and sexual assault are actionable under criminal law, fraud is actionable under criminal law, but you wish ‘sexual fraud’ only to be actionable under civil law?
IANAL, Ironman. I was more interested in the question of terminology.
Squander Two wrote a few threads ago (rightly) about the narrow focus of Libertarians trying to characterise parenthood as some form of contractual arrangement and his frustratedly saying, “why not see it as parenthood”? It’s a similar thing here, with the progressivist dogma that everything sexual has to be seen through a rape paradigm.
The best legal formulation I don’t know. Maybe a woman who impregnates herself with sperm removed from a condom without its emitter’s permission should go to jail, under a law of “procreative extortion”, or maybe it’s a matter for a civil judgement rather than a crime. The main point though is that in my view “rape” would be the wrong formulation.
I think rape is best characterised as an act in which the person actively does not wish to engage at the time. We don’t have to use that word for all these other situations.
IanB: “I think rape is best characterised as an act in which the person actively does not wish to engage at the time. We don’t have to use that word for all these other situations.”
But…but…what will the ever-growing rape activist industry do then? Get a real job?
Also, I must say that if some woman I’d never met, claiming to be a gorgeous glamour model, insisted we meet for sex but only blindfolded and in the dark, I would strongly suspect that something was up; like her being in reality a double bagger. It’s just that basic principle that the person behind the photo on the dating site is both considerably older and fatter than the picture they chose to hook you in. Is it fraud if I find myself stuck with paying for dinner for my internet date’s older, plumper twin?
How gullible were these women?
Mmmm….
Have we seen how the women described themselves before the meeting? The photos they said were them.
This could be fun.
Are we going to outlaw makeup now?
Ian B – “I think rape is best characterised as an act in which the person actively does not wish to engage at the time. We don’t have to use that word for all these other situations.”
Except rape takes place in the mind of the rapist, not in the mind of the victim. Does the rapist know that the victim does not wish to engage in sex at the time? Then it is rape.
In this case the women may have been so stupid that it is tempting to say they deserved it. But notice the man’s very careful chain of logic. He has thought this out. He has taken precautions not to be seen or known. Thus he knows that they would not consent if they were aware of the reality. That is a text book guilty state of mind. He is doing something he knows is wrong. He is a rapist.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 would seem relevant. .
“It’s just that basic principle that the person behind the photo on the dating site is both considerably older and fatter than the picture they chose to hook you in.”
Now here’s a factoid research has turned up. The number of women whose “hook” photo on dating sites, the one they choose to be visible to those browsing the profile choices, doesn’t bear the slightest resemblance to the rest of the photos. Clearly, not even the same person. Sometimes, even doubtfully the same species.
Meatloaf: “now I’m praying for the end of time”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIzY-ewRiUY
This already happened in Australia in 2012. His online dating profile described him as “a muscular, blond-haired Caucasian man” but in reality he was a distinctly average Indian man.
Interesting charge.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/blondhaired-caucasian-deepak-dhankars-online-dating-lies-lead-to-sexfraud-charges-20150210-13au1u.html
SMFS: Absolute piffle. He made an offer to these women to have sex in the dark which they agreed to because they thought he had a certain appearance. Unless he promised that the visual rep of him was an accurate facsimile of his appearance on the day (it might be his photo from 40 years ago for all we know) he isn’t even guilty of fraud. If the women entered into a verbal contract without properly establishing the terms what can they expect. Esp if the come-to-find-out stage isn’t until after the event. This is a deal that the women didn’t check out carefully enough. They were sold a bill of goods. If appearance was the deciding factor they should have examined the goods up front. Are women to be classed as having the minds of children now?
Roue le Jour – “How is this different from telling a bird in pub you’re a fighter pilot, a talent scout, heir to a fortune?”
In practice, if not in theory, juries think about what they might have done. If they might do it, they won’t convict. Everyone tells a girl in a pub all sorts of things. Who in their right mind believes it? I don’t expect girls to believe me when I tell them I am Danny De Vito’s Backside Stunt Double.
Also, I must say that if some woman I’d never met, claiming to be a gorgeous glamour model, insisted we meet for sex but only blindfolded and in the dark, I would strongly suspect that something was up; like her being in reality a double bagger
No, she’d be a honey-trap of some sort. The swamp-donkeys keep silent about how they look or use euphemisms, but if a stunner throws herself at you online then the alarm bells should be wailing. I’ve currently got somebody calling herself Tatyana sending me lengthy emails, supposedly from Ukraine. The pictures are nice, only assuredly not of her. Within 2 emails she is already saying she wants to visit me and calling me her boyfriend. On the third email she said she’s found God. If there isn’t a Nigerian writing these emails somewhere, then I’m a kangaroo.
Tim Newman – “If there isn’t a Nigerian writing these emails somewhere, then I’m a kangaroo.”
A kangaroo is just a larger Rough Trade squirrel isn’t it?
Judging by this thread, I wouldn’t accept any invitations to meet anyone from around here in real life. Don’t let them buy you a beer.
How authoritarian. How about “conversation in pub should never get anywhere near a jury in the first place”.
It’s only rape if you impersonate someone personally known to the victim – s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (or at least, that used to be the law). Another bit vitiates consent if they have been misled as to the nature of the act, I think
Did they consent? It seems so.
Was force involved? Not as far as we’ve been told.
So how can it possibly be rape?
Oh sorry I am not thinking like a FemiNazi…
SMFS wins the thread.
Not so much “buying a pig in a poke” as getting poked by a pig.. 🙂
As we’re back to squirrels:
The link
https://youtu.be/gyyBSJYEP70
If I recall correctly obtaining sex via deception is only rape where it concerns the act itself – as in R V Williams when a singing teacher convinced his student that intercourse would improve her singing – or where the perpetrator impersonates someone known personally to the victim.
Therefore I would say the answer to your question is ‘no’.
I’m surprised no-one has referred back to those undercover policemen those women slept with. The women obviously voluntarily did what they did but now want to sue the police. Along the lines of what someone else said, suppose you pretend to be a fighter pilot instead of a green activist when you’re a plumber not a policeman?
The left won’t stop until they have criminalised every normal interaction and made them subject to government approval (not that this guy isn’t a wrong ‘un – in a sensible world, the girls’ brothers/fathers would be round there to give him a damn good shoeing.).
Once they divide us they rule us.
The bottom line is, he must have seen them coming.