Rape redefined

[SachDan]

Supreme Court rules that a married man's love making with a woman after lying with her that he's unmarried is a RAPE! http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Sex_with_woman_on_promise_of_marriage_is_rape_SC_/articleshow/3238105.cms

[Lurker]

Ridiculous. In the modern era a man and woman should have equal rights and responsibilities. If men have to be accountable for every action then women should be too..or they should simply have less rights. Such judgements should happen in orthodox societies, not sure how Supreme court of India found this fit.

[vadodaravictor]

What if both lied about their marriage ? I think then it should be nullified :--D

[Guest dada_rocks]

Supreme court sometime back also created a precedence where if u lie to a girl that I will marry and you and thereby the innocent girl succubs to your amrous overture and u end up copnsummating the relationship . And later on u refuse to marry then ur love making can be considered rape..... This is what I call knee-jerk legislations..

[Lurker]

Sex with a woman without her consent amounts to rape. A consent obtained through misrepresntation of facts or suppression of material facts is technically not a "consent". Hence the judgment.

No thats not convincing. A consent is a consent. If a person, in this case the girl, is not aware of the consequence she should learn it the hard way. That is life. Of course I am not suggesting females should face this in the first place but if two adults consent to a sexual encounter it is strictly their business and nobody else's.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Supreme Court merely interpreted the law as it stands. Sex with a woman without her consent amounts to rape. A consent obtained through misrepresntation of facts or suppression of material facts is technically not a "consent". Hence the judgment.

You would be surprised to find that same piece of legislation in our consitution has evolved into chanign color of verdict in letter and spirit all thanks to precedence created by some overbearing judge.. Once sthg gets interpreted in certain way then that particular case becomes the law.. That's why in law schools most of time students just read case studies this vs this and that vs that....

[theguyinallblue]

Supreme court sometime back also created a precedence where if u lie to a girl that I will marry and you and thereby the innocent girl succubs to your amrous overture and u end up copnsummating the relationship . And later on u refuse to marry then ur love making can be considered rape..... This is what I call knee-jerk legislations..

what if there is no proof of it..or any alibi.. so rape is when there is penetration...what if it is all other things but no intercourse... will the guy be accused of Molestation then?? a lot of guys will then be accused of molestation..:nervous:

[Lurker]

Not convincing? This is how consent is defined in law. Universally. Feel free to check Halsbury's.

Not sure how you claim to say that. Legally a consent will have to be in black and white, that is if it has been written down on a piece of paper and signed on the dotted lines. Anything else is a case of he-says-she-says.

You essentially imply that you should have no remedy whatsoever in the event a person obtains your consent to do something based on his false representation/suppression of facts. As a consent is a consent.

Indeed. And I will say everyone should be accountable to the choice they make. You dont agree? Well start with the politicians who make all the "promises" and people "consent" and elect them. Lets put a few politicians behind bars for these "promises" and then we shall take up marital woes. xxx

[Ram]

I am curious. Say there's a husband and wife. The lady has returned home from a long day at work and is tired. The Husband wants to have sex but the wife wants to sleep, but they have sex nonetheless. Now, is that considered rape too? As long there is mutual consent from both sides, surely it cant be considered as rape, irrespective of how the consent was obtained. Another analogy I can come up with is a guy a women ( both strangers to each other before) meet in a bar. The guy promises the women he is great in bed and the women is excited by it and they both consummate. Now, if the guy wasnt 'great in bed' after all, Can the lady then file a case of rape against him, saying that the reason given for obtaining consent was false?

[Ram]

I am not particularly sure about marriage. There is a legally recognised legitimate expectancy of sex in marriage. Denial of which is considered cruelty and further it is an established ground for divorce. In your example, the court would weigh these two considerations along with surronding facts before it pronounces its judgment. The second example is fairly simple. The guy cannot be convicted. The common law principle of caveat emptor would save the guy.

What is that? And the third example, what if a guy promises to the women he was a virgin, obtains her consent. But it later turns out he was false. Can the women file a case of rape against him, alleging the 'reason for consent' was not true?

[Guest dada_rocks]

I am not particularly sure about marriage. There is a legally recognised legitimate expectancy of sex in marriage. Denial of which is considered cruelty and further it is an established ground for divorce. In your example, the court would weigh these two considerations along with surronding facts before it pronounces its judgment. The second example is fairly simple. The guy cannot be convicted. The common law principle of caveat emptor would save the guy.

let the buyer beware man it sounds so business like:haha:

[Guest dada_rocks]

What is that? And the third example, what if a guy promises to the women he was a virgin, obtains her consent. But it later turns out he was false. Can the women file a case of rape against him, alleging the 'reason for consent' was not true?

MM is making all the calculations some lady is going to be lucky in near future i suppose:haha:

[Ram]

MM is making all the calculations some lady is going to be lucky in near future i suppose:haha:

:haha: No, really, I am just trying to apply the basis for this judgment to other similar circumstances and see how it works. The fundemental reason for the original judgement as Sarchasm has put it is 'Sex with a woman without her consent amounts to rape. A consent obtained through misrepresntation of facts or suppression of material facts is technically not a "consent". Hence the judgment'. Then, the very same 'consent obtained through misinterpretation of facts or suppression of material facts is not consent' can apply to a lot of other situations.

[Lurker]

I am sure because I studied it. You do not have to agree with me. Feel free to check the jurisprudence on this subject in any jurisdiction.

A rather easy thing would be to actually spell what is the legal scenario here. If you have studied law thats fair enough and all but I am not sure why you have to act all high and mighty as to feel free to check etc. Just spell what it is.

Nothing ever is in black or white in a court of law, including consent. A person can always prove that his/her consent was fraudulently obtained. Your arguments are rather simplistic and, more importantly, wrong.

Explain how is it wrong. Two people consent to have sex. There are no witnesses and explicit evidence. How exactly does one prove consent here?

In that case, why should we have anti-fraud laws? Why so many consumer protection laws?

In case you missed anti-fraud laws are for materialistic world, where you have some sort of transaction as in buying property, investment, providing a service etc etc. How exactly does consumer protection law work in the world of romance and lovemaking?

Your example concerning politician is naive. You'll have your remedy if you can conclusively, with irrefutable evidence, demonstrate that you voted for a particular politician based on his promises. You know you cannot.

And you can demonstrate that the women actually had sex based on promise of marriage!! That my friend is naivety. And yes politicians could be brought to justice here. The only reason they are not is because of the time it will actual take to prove it etc etc. xxxx

[Guest dada_rocks]

:haha: No, really, I am just trying to apply the basis for this judgment to other similar circumstances and see how it works. The fundemental reason for the original judgement as Sarchasm has put it is 'Sex with a woman without her consent amounts to rape. A consent obtained through misrepresntation of facts or suppression of material facts is technically not a "consent". Hence the judgment'. Then, the very same 'consent obtained through misinterpretation of facts or suppression of material facts is not consent' can apply to a lot of other situations.

Fact is no logic works in these cases.. court goes by precedence they look at past cases and decde accordingly unless it's path breaking landmark judgement like this one.. So I guess answer for your question be nobody knows what decision judge will take if the situation in question is unprecedented..

[Lurker]

Say there's a husband and wife. The lady has returned home from a long day at work and is tired. The Husband wants to have sex but the wife wants to sleep, but they have sex nonetheless. Now, is that considered rape too?

I would say the issue would be rather clearer in Marriage as opposed to an Affair. Marriage, in most countries and culture, is a legal contract. And as any legal contract there would be expectations of fulfillment, sexual compatability being one of those. And indeed sexual incompatibility is often the ground for divorce. In case the female(or male) chooses to say No every now and then, then it shall tantamount to rape if the partner still went ahead. In case the female(or male) chooses to say NO almost every single time then it will give the partner a ground for divorce. In affair this would be murky as there is no legal contract and hence no expectations.

[Lurker]

There is no legal scenario here. It's a definition simpliciter and' date=' as I said before, a consent obtained through misrepresentation or suppression of material facts is NEVER deemed as valid in a court of law.[b'] I cannot be arsed to quote sections of law and tons of judgments pronounced on this. Especially, considering how you'd come back with the same moronic "not sure how you can say this".

That probably sums up your debating skills in a nutshell. If you really do have some legal backgrounds do spend some time on explaining stuff to people who may not have the same knowledge. And if you "can not be arsed" then why are you butting in this debate to start with? Come back when you have more time..and patience.

How exactly does one prove whether the consent was freely given is a matter of evidence. The onus to prove that the victim did not give her consent is extremely burdensome and statistically only 5-6 percent of such cases result in conviction.

And isnt that what I had already mentioned Mr. Smartpants-cum-Moron??? Here is what I have said before, and for your pleasure I quote again - Legally a consent will have to be in black and white, that is if it has been written down on a piece of paper and signed on the dotted lines. Anything else is a case of he-says-she-says. Capisce now?

Speaking strictly about definition of "consent" here. It might be news to you but it works fine in the world of romance and marriage as it does in the "materialistic world".

Explanations would help rather than some stupid comment here and there. And wait that would also mean you will have to make time to get arsed off...:haha:

Yet again you are confusing law with facts. The law says it's a crime to have sex without the woman's consent. How that would be proved in a court of law is a function of circumstantial evidence and the competence of lawyers.

Ah really? Please show me where I have said anything to that effect? Please kindly do so. Just because you claim to be a legal mind doesnt give you a chance to twist my words. Please show exactly wher I have stated if its okay to have sex without women's consent.

Which case, especially in India doesn't take time? Infact, in case of politicians the evidence is relatively easier to obtain as they are publicly made. I say go ahead and file a case. I'd love to see how you prove you voted for a particular politician.

What cr@p. You obviously dont understand, nor do you make an effort to understand(again repeat after me Sarchasm shall develop more patience). What I have said is rather simple - If Politicians "promise" and get elected for those promises, and they never get punished for fulfilling those "promises" how exactly are you going to punish a man for the same act??? Better now? Okay so please have some patience this time and start typing. And in case you cant be arsed then I politely suggest get the eff out of the kitchen in case you can not stand the heat etc etc. xxx

[kumble_rocks]

If this law was applicable in US of A , 50 % of American men technically have committed "Rape" !:-D

[kumble_rocks]

Seriously though , what if the roles are reversed . That is married women making love to a man with the promise of marriage . Looks like Supreme Court does not talk about . Law can be construed as sex discrimination !:-D

[THX_1138]

Supreme Court rules that a married man's love making with a woman after lying with her that he's unmarried is a RAPE! http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Sex_with_woman_on_promise_of_marriage_is_rape_SC_/articleshow/3238105.cms

your post was complete garbage but thankfully the link you provided explains what it is that you were suggesting. well it makes sense that such an act could be counted as deception; coercion but it certainly is not rape!