Is Lying to Someone for Sex, Assault? Max Clifford Case

[theprestige]

Not so easy to define:

There will always be gray areas suitable for the romps of subjective opinion and ultralegalistic nit-picking. You're welcome to go down that rabbit hole if you like, but you won't find me there.

How about, "Have sex with me because if you don't, I'll cut off your nose with this knife," Right person,wrong reason.

Wrong person, by force.

Or, if threatened violence makes a difference how about, "have sex with me or I will use my position at the bank to hide all your money from you."

Wrong person, by force.

Or just, "have sex with me or I will tell all the other kids in school you are.a slut." Or "Have sex with me or I will crush your career." Right person, wrong reason.

Wrong person, by force.

Assault, threat of assault, blackmail, extortion--these are all the wrong person forcing their victim to consent against their will.

I hold these as distinct from fraudulence.

Assault by lying? I think so.

Suit yourself. I don't see it that way.

And in fact, legally fraudulent, too.

Maybe, maybe not. If the transaction isn't legal, is it legally fraud? If you are in a jurisdiction that prohibits prostitution, and you offer sex in exchange for goods or services, and your John stiffs you, do you have legal recourse? Do drug dealers bring suit when their customers pay them in lead instead of cash?

 

[Loss Leader]

Maybe, maybe not. If the transaction isn't legal, is it legally fraud? If you are in a jurisdiction that prohibits prostitution, and you offer sex in exchange for goods or services, and your John stiffs you, do you have legal recourse? Do drug dealers bring suit when their customers pay them in lead instead of cash?

An illegal contract is unenforceable. Thus, anyone wronged has no recourse (because they shouldn't have profited anyway).

 

[3point14]

Coercion, whether physical or psychological, is disallowed. Lying is perfectly legal. "I'm a producer," is legal. "If you don't have sex with me, I'll destroy your career," is not.

Where does 'if you don't have sex with me I won't help you with your career' stand?

 

[colander]

Where does 'if you don't have sex with me I won't help you with your career' stand?

Career-ruining isn't a threat that needs to be made explicitly in order for both parties to understand that it is a possibility.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Career-ruining isn't a threat that needs to be made explicitly in order for both parties to understand that it is a possibility.

It's going to be hard to prosecute someone for obtaining sex by non-explicit threats.

That said, I don't see any moral difference between obtaining sex by deception and rape. It's well-established that passing yourself off as someone's spouse to have sex with them is rape under the law, and I don't see any difference if you are deceiving them about your job or your ability to "make them a star".

I'm on the record as thinking that "rape culture" is a term which is deeply problematic at best and mostly worse than useless, but there's a widespread cultural value amongst some men that holds that deception is okay in mate-seeking because [stupid reasons], hence it can't be rape to obtain sex by deception. I think these people are just confused, and that if they are capable of telling when a stereo salesperson is obtaining money by deception they can tell when someone is obtaining sex by deception.

However I doubt it will be long before someone pops in to say "Women wear push-up bras, the horror, the perfidy! And make-up! Lying whores! What is a mere threat to ruin your career besides such crimes?".

 

[jimbob]

We mustn't forget the blackmail in this case

telling one girl that he'd got a photographer hidden in the bushes.

 

[The Greater Fool]

It's going to be hard to prosecute someone for obtaining sex by non-explicit threats.

That said, I don't see any moral difference between obtaining sex by deception and rape. It's well-established that passing yourself off as someone's spouse to have sex with them is rape under the law, and I don't see any difference if you are deceiving them about your job or your ability to "make them a star".

I'm on the record as thinking that "rape culture" is a term which is deeply problematic at best and mostly worse than useless, but there's a widespread cultural value amongst some men that holds that deception is okay in mate-seeking because [stupid reasons], hence it can't be rape to obtain sex by deception. I think these people are just confused, and that if they are capable of telling when a stereo salesperson is obtaining money by deception they can tell when someone is obtaining sex by deception.

However I doubt it will be long before someone pops in to say "Women wear push-up bras, the horror, the perfidy! And make-up! Lying whores! What is a mere threat to ruin your career besides such crimes?".

[Bolding Mine]

Are the bolded general beliefs, or specific to this case?

Generally, threats are not the same as lying. It seems reasonable to me that plausible threats of physical violence, destruction of career, social standing, or comparable threats could/would make subsequent sex rape.

Are you, in fact, claiming that deception (lying) to a prospective sexual partner would make subsequent sex rape? No threats, just lies, such as marital status, wealth, career, social standing, or any of the myriad of other lies people tell in bars.

 

[Loss Leader]

Where does 'if you don't have sex with me I won't help you with your career' stand?

That alone? It's probably legal.

I'm aware that this was just one of many, many factors that went into the particular case in question.

 

[xjx388]

If lying to obtain sex is rape, then there are a lot of rapists running around. It's certainly a sleazy thing to do, but rape? I don't think so. Obviously, making any kind of threat to obtain sex is most definitely coercion and should be considered rape.

"I'm a doctor!" Not rape.
"I'll ruin your career!" Rape.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Are you, in fact, claiming that deception (lying) to a prospective sexual partner would make subsequent sex rape? No threats, just lies, such as marital status, wealth, career, social standing, or any of the myriad of other lies people tell in bars.

Yes, absolutely. If you know or should know that a person is sleeping with you because you have deceived them about important and relevant matters, whether that be your identity or anything else, it's obtaining sex by deception.

Some people seem to see bars as magical, special, morality-free zones where what you say or do has no ethical importance. Their argument boils down to "people do lie in bars, hence it can't be morally wrong". The flaw in this argument should be immediately apparent to any mildly rational reader.

If lying to obtain sex is rape, then there are a lot of rapists running around.

You seem to think that this is an argument against it being morally wrong to obtain sex by deception, as opposed to it being an argument for the existence of a very serious moral blind spot in many men including yourself.

 

[Amazer]

Yes, absolutely. If you know or should know that a person is sleeping with you because you have deceived them about important and relevant matters, whether that be your identity or anything else, it's obtaining sex by deception.

With you so far

Some people seem to see bars as magical, special, morality-free zones where what you say or do has no ethical importance. Their argument boils down to "people do lie in bars, hence it can't be morally wrong". The flaw in this argument should be immediately apparent to any mildly rational reader.

And you've lost me here. It might be morally wrong but that doesn't mean it rises to the level of rape. How do you get from morally wrong to rape?

 

[anglolawyer]

Section 74 Sexual Offences Act 2003

For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

Conditional consent (and deception) are discussed here

Three cases:

"It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom ..... His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003...."

Against what the Court described as the "essential background" of the complainant's partner's "sexual dominance" and the complainant's "unenthusiastic acquiescence to his demands", the Court considered a specific incident when the claimant consented to sexual intercourse only on the clear understanding that her partner would not ejaculate inside her vagina. She believed that he intended and agreed to withdraw before ejaculation, and he knew and understood that this was the only basis on which she was prepared to have sexual intercourse with him. When he deliberately ejaculated inside the complainant, the result, the Court stated was:

"She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape".

and a strange one

The Court of Appeal dismissed McNally's appeal against her conviction on six counts of assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of the SOA and allowed her appeal against sentence. The "undeniably unusual" facts considered by the Court involved the relationship between two girls which, over 3 years, developed from an internet relationship to an "exclusive romantic relationship" that involved their meeting and engaging in sexual activity. From the start McNally presented as a boy, a deception she maintained throughout the relationship. Examining the nature of "choice" and "freedom", the Court determined that "deception as to gender can vitiate consent".

 

[anglolawyer]

Thinking about those three cases, what they all have in common is that the deception concerned the sex itself: sex with a condom, sex up to but not including ejaculation and hetero-sex. I infer that other deceptions are OK. I own a yacht or I will get you in the movies are permissible lies.

If I am wrong and you go to jail as a result, tough.

 

[Loss Leader]

Here's a good article that covers "I'm a producer" type cases: http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1288&context=fac_articles

 

[Bob001]

Thinking about those three cases, what they all have in common is that the deception concerned the sex itself: sex with a condom, sex up to but not including ejaculation and hetero-sex. I infer that other deceptions are OK. I own a yacht or I will get you in the movies are permissible lies.
....

There's a big difference between a promise and a threat. "I'll love you forever" is a promise. "I'll fire you" or "You'll never work in this town again" is a threat. It's not a difficult concept. It's no different from "Lend me a dollar and I'll pay you double next week" vs. "Give me your money or I'll bash your head in." I'm astonished that there could be any doubt that any threat to get sex is an assault.

 

[Baylor]

Is Lying to Someone for Sex, Assault?

If so, that guy from Backroom Casting Couch is in big trouble.

 

[anglolawyer]

There's a big difference between a promise and a threat. "I'll love you forever" is a promise. "I'll fire you" or "You'll never work in this town again" is a threat. It's not a difficult concept. It's no different from "Lend me a dollar and I'll pay you double next week" vs. "Give me your money or I'll bash your head in." I'm astonished that there could be any doubt that any threat to get sex is an assault.

This thread is not about threats to get sex.

 

[Bob001]

This thread is not about threats to get sex.

The thread started out as a discussion of whether Max Clifford deserved his sentence for "lying." Here's what he was convicted for:

The judge handed down the following sentences:
--Twelve months and 18 months relating to a girl who said Clifford abused her on a number of occasions after he met her family on holiday in Torremolinos in Spain in 1977 when she was 15. She claimed he would go to her house, impressing her parents and speaking about how he could make her a star, before taking her out in his car and molesting her
--Two terms of 24 months (each to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the other sentences) relating to the same girl
--Six months relating to a woman, who was an extra in the film Octopussy, who claimed she was targeted at Clifford's office in 1981 or 1982, aged 19. After she had spoken on the phone to a man claiming to be actor Charles Bronson, Clifford pinned her down on a sofa but she fought him off
--Six months and 21 months (to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the other sentences) relating to a girl who was an aspiring model who went to Clifford's office in the early 1980s, when she was in her late teens. She said Clifford groped her and tried to force her to perform a sex act
--Fifteen months relating to a woman who was an 18-year-old dancer when Clifford took her into a nightclub toilet in the early 1980s and forced her to touch him intimately, saying: "Who is going to believe you?"

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27259318

 

[Old man]

Generally, threats are not the same as lying. It seems reasonable to me that plausible threats of physical violence, destruction of career, social standing, or comparable threats could/would make subsequent sex rape.

Are you, in fact, claiming that deception (lying) to a prospective sexual partner would make subsequent sex rape? No threats, just lies, such as marital status, wealth, career, social standing, or any of the myriad of other lies people tell in bars.

Yes, absolutely. If you know or should know that a person is sleeping with you because you have deceived them about important and relevant matters, whether that be your identity or anything else, it's obtaining sex by deception.

Some people seem to see bars as magical, special, morality-free zones where what you say or do has no ethical importance. Their argument boils down to "people do lie in bars, hence it can't be morally wrong". The flaw in this argument should be immediately apparent to any mildly rational reader.

You seem to think that this is an argument against it being morally wrong to obtain sex by deception, as opposed to it being an argument for the existence of a very serious moral blind spot in many men including yourself.

And women. This line of reasoning vastly increases the numbers of 'rape' in the world, and requires a very detailed and specific contract before it's possible to have 'safe' sex.

 

[anglolawyer]

The thread started out as a discussion of whether Max Clifford deserved his sentence for "lying." Here's what he was convicted for:


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27259318

From the OP

Now, there's a very large proviso here, because I don't know the full details - but based on what I have seen, it looks as though lying to someone in order to have sex with someone has contributed to a large chunk of Max Clifford's sentence. I can understand that he would be liable for sentencing in having sex with a minor (age 15) when in his 30s - but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't normally get anywhere near 8 years for that.

So, what has contributed to this sentence? He definitely appears pretty sleazy, and used his position of power to get sex - but, well, won't that apply to rather a lot of people? Is it because he lied in order to have sex? Or because it was decided he was an "authority figure"?

and see the thread title. There is no question that procuring sex by use of threats is rape. The more interesting, and difficult, question is whether and if so what kind of deception will incur criminal liability.