I’m now putting an end to the dialogue with Tom Leykis’s “goon squad.”
It’s become blatantly apparent that they really have no interest in conducting an enlightening debate with an open mind. I’ve been hounded by ad hominem attacks and vulgarity for the past couple of days. Here’s a piece, (the rest was too absurd,) that I fished out of a recent comment from one of Leykis’s minions:
“Joyce, I would think this week/weekends humiliatingly inadequate performance up against Leykis and more significantly his listeners/fans, both on the phone and in the arena of the written word, has finally convinced you to give up your quixotic, foolishly misguided little campaign…….”
This will give you a concept of Tom Leykis’s view point:
And I received this tweet from the person who actually invited me to participate on the broadcast:
Ryan M (IPG Channel)
@IndispensableP
Follow Follow @jm_short Thanks for calling in, my little puppet. You served your purpose well. 08:54 PM – 20 Mar 15
They apparently believe that their insults, misstatements, horrific mis-characterization of me, etc, will derail society’s enlightenment and passage of a law to stop SexFraud.
I believe, however, that one can get a clear picture on how the mind of people who oppose the passage of SexFraud law actually works, They have provided us a good understanding of their convoluted justifications for the behavior, and the insight that rape by fraud won’t end until we make laws to ban the behavior.
Here is the beginning of the original post:
I got a new sense of what’s wrong in the dating world last night from my involvement on the Tom Leykis show. You can hear it today on http://blowmeuptom.com/
People really do think that it’s perfectly okay to sexually assault you! Intimacy is not about shared love and caring anymore. Your body has been reduced to a commodity, an entitlement for someone else’s pleasure. Lying is a good way to get the sex that people want.
They chafe that the name for their obsession with underhanded sex is rape and don’t like that offenders will actually have a black mark against themselves for committing a heinous act. After all, in their eyes, it’s perfectly acceptable to have sex through subterfuge.
I heard everything from “no one has to be honest until they are marrying you” to “it’s just sex, what do you care if you know their real name?” And that actually came from a woman! She later tweeted that I assaulted her character. Sorry…. what character?
In the aftermath I learned that trying to find someone who shares your religious values means that you’re a bigot. And that men are the downtrodden masses that are destroyed by the duplicity of women.
I also learned that our system of justice is bigoted against men. We shouldn’t have sexual assault by fraud laws because more men will be arrested than women. It’s not fair! And because statistics show more men rape women than women rape men, men can’t trust law enforcement. It’s just a bad case of rapists being misjudged by society. Gheez, poor guys!
BTW, if a woman’s birth control fails, she’s a rapist, because all women intend to get pregnant in order to entrap men. And if an underage boy engages in sex he should not make any effort to support his child. So I guess that the 8 states that will condemn a female child for committing rape by fraud by lying about her age should not hold the underage boy accountable too?
Ok, enough already!
Until you understand that sex can produce a child, regardless of the precautions you take, don’t have sex! Accidents happen. Everyone who engages in sex must be willing to assume responsibility for the child that could be produced. Don’t want that responsibility, don’t have sex!
Parents, teach your children….. sex produces babies. Until you are old enough and responsible enough to shoulder the upbringing of a child, don’t have sex. It is not a right, it is not an entitlement.
Sex is an honor and a responsibility. What is wrong with society today? How did we sink so far?
Why do people who think sex is nothing more than entertainment get to force themselves on people who value their intimacy by defrauding them? If you just want sex for sex, be honest about it. Go find someone who feels the same way you do. You do not have the right to defraud someone in order to get sex.
Joyce – “All the silly scenarios that people are raising are not going to make it into a courtroom. Only cases with SIGNIFICANT proof can be prosecuted. that’s why I keep stressing that it’s criminal law and not a tort. It’s not fodder for trivial lawsuits.”
You mean the silly scenario I brought about a the defense that a person falsely flaunting wealth and the accuser, would have with a person who knowingly had sex with that person?
If by significant you are saying, criteria such as potentially ruining the accuser’s career, implicate them in a serious crime (ie such as through dating of a drug dealer, and unknowingly having sex with him).
Joyce, if you would can you give some examples of what you would deem as SIGNIFICANT proof?
in the question of the person flaunting a false ambiance and appearance of wealth before a woman, then gaining sex with the impressed female, you’ll note Short never says this shouldn’t be a fraud crime or WOULDN’T be a fraud crime under her laws (it isn’t now and never will be a fraud crime ,civil or criminal, in this country let’s get real) She just says that the problem with such a case is not a qualitative problem but an evidentiary problem since cases of this nature will “always be he “said/she said” affairs. The obvious conclusion we can draw from her statements, is that Short believes it’s a crime.
As surely as driving 56 in a 55 mile an hour zone is speeding.
And what makes it “diminimus” is that there’s no evidence, not that there’s no crime. If there were not a crime, even flagrant offenders with abundant proof could not be prosecuted for it.
No one should lie to seduce you. If they do, they’re assaulting you. They’re a CAD! Find someone else!
it will never see the law
books. Keep dreaming. hahaha
exactly!! Find someone else! you just solved your problem. Don’t go running to a cop or lawyer Miss or Mrs.X,, the poor little gold-digger who got played by your own greed, because you weren’t perspicacious and observant enough to spot a phony. The majority of American women would agree with me. Vast majority
I’m not the one saying run to your local police station or your lawyer over rape by fraud cases that lack evidence and responsibility.
ok make note of this men. She’s finally revealing the truth of her intentions. She considers this kind of thing a crime (on Tom’s show she disingenuously pooh-poohed and chuckled away the idea of a man telling a woman he owned a Ferrari over pre-intimacy drinks at a bar being in any sort of legal jeopardy.) Now we find out It’s only a problem with getting evidence on us, which she thinks will be impractical in these cases. Anyone can use their imagination and envision various instances of these “fake wealth posers” cases where there is all sorts of third party testimony and even legally obtained video and audio recordings providing more than enough evidence to bring the man (and it will be 99.99% men) to trial.
Tom-
No crime exists that can’t be abused.
A crime is a crime because it’s a crime.
Now we get into the Theatre of the Absurd. Does one mere mention of the imaginary Ferrari over drinks and dinner at Ruth’s Chris get Buster the Bogus Braggart into legal jeopardy or does it have to be multiple mentions and a drive in a rented Ferrari passed off to the victim as the wealth poser’s own car? If the latter, does the wealth posing have to occur over several weeks of the fraudulent courting ? Cops judges bailiffs court reporters and other personnel in our overworked , overburdened police/court system are reading your stuff and believe me, they are laughing. Laughing. Everyone is laughing except the legions of out-of-work lawyers.
all of the above descriptions of the hypothetical Buster’s “fraudulent” assume the presence of third party witnesses eager to testify against Buster about his shameless wealth posing, and legally obtained audio and video recordings of Buster’s wealth posing.
Yes, they do.
Actually Tom, I think YOU are the one creating the theatre of the absurd. You’r over dramatizing the problem and arguing that we shouldn’t recognize a crime because judges will get too busy.
Expanding from your argument of the absurd, since you believe that this law will produce an outrageous amount of work for the courts, just thnk of all the divorces that won’t occur if married men could be so easily punished for pretending to be single when they’re not. You could take all those divorce attorneys and put them in criminal court to deal with the overload.
But before we go down this ridiculous road too far, I’ll simply say that you are grossly over reacting.
”This Johnson embezzlement case was always a “he said/she said” affair and never would have gone to trial until the video evidence was found, the smoking gun. Thank God he was convicted”
the44 deep down into this thread I spied Short making a comment to a person concerned about her law that went something like this-“the case would have to go through the grand jury trial and conviction before the person makes it onto the list”…..What is “the list?” Ms.Short is this some sort of new “offender’s list” of men who lie to women, a registry like the Sex Offender’s Registry for men who actually rape, where they have to register every time the move.etc just like the real rapists do? We know you already have a list (all men) on your webpage where you do something similar. You and the women providing the “CAD Suspects” names and info (all the woman accusers are anonymous) are able as Leykis said “to hide behind a wall and throw rocks at men”….. are you yearning for something just like and worse (more info) but with the imprimatur of state law and power on it ? disturbing.
Tom
I was responding to Chuzz’s question about the sex offender’s registry. And if you looked further you’d see that I removed the public list. There are, however, several sites that do.
Also, you need to understand that offenders who scam people for sex are “real rapists.” Most states across the country have long recognized that violence is not the only way in which rape occurs. Tell me what you think is the difference between doping a person to conduct sex, or duping a person to conduct sex. It’s the same thing. Both undermine the person’s knowing consent, they just use a different tool.
Tom-
By the way, people looking for a public list of people who’ve committed a myriad of offenses, including sexual assault by fraud, can log onto http://www.cheaterville.com
Joyce- Tom just replayed your original interview and q and a session on yesterdays show. I don’t agree with you on all on all your points but I do believe Leykis is a disturbed man irreparably damaged by his experiences with women.. More on Leykis in a moment but where I primarily disageee you is with the case of for instance a handsome athletic young man who is not a millionaire but presents himself as one, lying about his net worth. He does no illegal acts such a conning a woman out of money so forth -he simply has a sexual relationship and friendship with a women for several months where he treats her well and takes her on various excursions dinners etc always paying the way himself for both parties. That man is guilty of unethical behavior , he is clearly not a criminal. IT INFANTALIZES WOMEN TO CALL HIM ONE. Now onto Leykis. Leykis;es position against women is so extreme and ridiculous that to use him as a .spokesman representing “the other side” to your laws is simply setting up a straw man. He doesn’t represent the average male who has problems with some of your views/laws. In my next post ill give you a list of Leykis’es women-hating nonsense.
The Other Monkey-
Your handsome millionaire does not conduct a crime by lying in order to attract someone. If he never crosses the line into sex, he’s a jerk, not a rapist. But when he induces sex by that lie, he is sexually assaulting, not seducing his target. The victim has an intrinsic right to autonomy over their body. That means, they are entitled to make decisions, not be tricked into decisions, over their sex organs. It does not infantalize women to recognize they should not be scammed into sex. That is absurd.
As to Leykis, you’re assuming his experience with women turned him into something he was not….. I think that’s pretty foolish thinking. He is who he is. Experience simply provides him an excuse for his mentality. People either have emotional empathy or they don’t. They either have a conscience or they don’t…. or they’re somewhere along the bell curve that their brain infrastructure and chemistry dictates.
i have to call you out on the fact that in at least one reply on here from you, not to me but to someone else I caught you hiding behind the current state of the laws as a support and defense for something you don’t feel should be criminalized. The questioner was asking you about women who misrepresent themselves through ……..heavy make-up jobs, breast enhancements, fake age etc, shouldn’t that be criminal, they asked? etc. ………………………………………Your response was, to paraphrase somewhat, well sorry,but tough luck kiddo,the law doesn’t agree with you. That person called you out on the fact that you clearly want to pick and choose what current law situations are bogus and which ones .are valid but you never really responded to the point.You repeat over and over that conduct such as that modeled by my imaginary .ladies man “is” criminal activity. Well no , just like the women with the enhanced appearance and false age, for all practical purposes, it “is not” currently a crime, simply something you wish would become a crime. My prediction is neither pattern of behavior will be criminalized because neither one deserves to be. …… .As for Leykis he is not a person, devoid of any conscience but rather one who has. become very callous.and coarsened, as well as extremely rageful toward women. And yes,of course that sort of thing can come from repeated traumatic experiences and if you knew him like I know him from years of listening to his show, you could list a whole litany of things that has suffered a the hands of his wives and girlfriends over the decades. Little 15 year old Tommy did not hate women but the current one does. This guy has ..had relationships… with extremely selfish,, cruel emotionally hurtful and evil women over and over. . Ive wondered why it is that he has ended up with this type repeatedly over and over but he has. In a future post I can itemize all the traumatic situations they’ve put him through.
A woman creates a fake appearance- fake boobs, heavy makeup , fake hair color, a made-up age, spanx or a girdle, etc in hopes of bedding a desirable man. With the same goal in mind except with a woman as his object of desire a man decides to tell females hes a multimillionaire as his “cheat ” to get across his goal line with a attractive sexy woman. People on this blog and the average person in society, unencumbered by crippling emotional baggage , correctly see the two situations as an apples to apples comparison. For various reasons, Joyce, you cannot see the true reality here but rather see one as much more terrible than the other …… ,,Similarly Leykis with his history/emotional baggage with women sees women as essentially evil people rather than the reality, which is that they are mostly good, just like men.
You’re assuming that I see all men as villains. Far from it. I see villainous men as villains, just like I see villainous women as villains.
Here’s the thing you don’t grasp…… attracting a person and having sex with a person are two different things. No one is committing a crime by trying to attract someone of the opposite sex. The person who puffs up their income and the person who wears a padded bra are both practicing a type of deception, but neither is a crime. Here’s where it becomes a crime…….. when you don’t straighten out the lies before you have sex.
The padded bra comes off. If you want the makeup off, just ask. If you fail to do so, and it’s important to you, you have not conducted adequate due diligence.
On the other hand, there are sexual predators who, indeed, make up stories, block your reasonable due diligence, and; therefore, trick you into sex. There is no appearance enhancement, whether lifts in man’s shoes, or Spanx to reign in a woman’s girth, that you can’t discover before engaging in sex. If it’s important to you, simply get them removed before doing so.
I think I answered your question but I’ll do so one more time. Of the misrepresentations you listed, one of them, lying about age, would be consistent with sexual assault by fraud. Appearance enhancements are not because they can be removed prior to sex. I don’t make the laws. I can only try to explain why they exist the way they do.
When you mask your identifying characteristics by “false personation,” and take something from someone they would otherwise not give you based on that lie, you have defrauded them.
This whole issue seemed very personal to Ms. Short and she forgot the most important rule about advocating something. Take yourself out of it. She was so blinded by her personal attachment to the subject that she said she’d have to think on whether a 12 year old male victim of Statutory Rape (an Actual Rape as found by the courts, not the hypothetical thing she is advocating for) should have to pay child support to his Rapist. The answer should have been crystal clear, however since we men have to be villains in every scenario she had to take a closer look. I am not a Sociopath, or mentally unstable, in fact my therapist says I’m perfectly normal. This current state of Men vs. Women has left me feeling the need to apologize for things that haven’t even happened. So I’ve decided to stop apologizing until my voice holds equal weight. Women’s equality doesn’t have to exist only after the destruction of men. If you don’t agree with that, then you will be met with resistance as long as there are men willing to respect themselves enough to fight back.
Sam,
When I’m asked an off-topic question, I have to think about how I’m going to phrase the answer before I stick words out there. Some people can do it faster than others. I guess I’ll just have to plead guilty to being slow.
It wasn’t an off topic question, it was about the repercussions and consequences of rape, a topic which you are very well aware about.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that! I had not been told he’d bring up a question on statutory rape.
it was a clear-cut question about the fairness of ,not a hypothetical case but a done deal, already now a legal precedent, concerning a 12 year old rape victim who was later as an adult forced to pay child support to the “rape child”. You said you weren’t up on “paternity law” and deferred answering the question behind this stratagem. Morality always trumps law (a poster said you claimed slavery was once moral-incredible) so your answer should have been an easy and instantaneous no, that’s not fair at all. To quote Dickens- “If the law supposes that, Mr. Bumble – the law is a ass- an idiot.”
Obviously, the boy should NOT have to pay child support. I listened to the interview, and Ms. Short said she hoped he’d have some attachment and willingly want to pay. If he wanted to, fine, but to make him pay, after being raped, is ludicrous. Just like making rape victims pay for their rape kits. Victims of crimes shouldn’t have to bear a financial burden for the perpetrator’s actions.
not my memory of the radio show interchange at all. You are from what I remember, and my memory is excellent, mixing written statements Short later made days later on this blog page in with the radio show comments.
During the interview Short said that it was not quote: in her “realm” of knowledge, after re-questioning from the host.
Yes, I did… but somehow that’s been turned into the outrageous idea that I claimed he should pay support. I never said he should, not do I think, he should have to.
An PermiumTom or SuperPremiumTom listener reading this thread can go the audio tape of friday’s show, and see who is right. Right now it’s just s “he said/she said” as Ms. Short likes to say.
You are wrong Tom. That’s exactly what I said.
Thanks Rose!
Don’t you think you’re making a giant leap of an assumption?
My interest in not responding off the top of my head was not “personal attachment”. It was not wanting to get trapped into having my words documented without giving clear thought to what I wanted to say. I’m just not that fast on my feet. I tend to think about things BEFORE I open my mouth about them.
other poster, not “poser”…lol
Joyce why would you paint the picture of people not carrying debate when you are shielding yourself from scrutiny by deleting the MOST insightful points that confront logical concepts of your proposed law, or statistics that show how they are obviously bent and misused for financial or ulterior motives? Further, in my time in the blog I have yet to see any name calling or insulting attacking you personally, other than challenging rebuttals of the topics you cover. In highlighting a twitter comments of 140 characters it does not represent the integrity of the posters in this blog. The more people read the blog’s premise and fact check the interview you gave, versus claims of e-harassment, the more people will see what the real agenda is and the less they will take your views seriously. Just my two cents.
Gabe-
Serious people who want to learn about this issue will be dissuaded by having to sift through vulgarity to get to the issues. And there is no reason to allow insulting comments to take up public space on this blog.
It’s unfortunate that some folks, who may in fact have questions or arguments that are worth airing, express their perspective in offensive ways. When they do, they’re deleted. They could try again in an non-offensive fashion.
If they don’t, I believe there are other people who’ll express that view in a civilized manner. And when that happens, I’ll respond.
While this is your blog and I respect your right to an opinion, I think that you have to respect others and the points they bring up as well. Several of the posts deleted you were receiving criticism for questions such as rhetorically asking why a:
“female child for committing rape by fraud by lying about her age should not hold the underage boy accountable too?”
While the statement you made is not in of itself false, you made several leaps of logic. Not the least of which, by taking Tom Leykis’ Q, of a young male’s financial responsibility through rape out of context.
Of course promiscuous sex with another minor makes all parties accountable, but then so does having sex with another adult for sexual or gratification does it not. One way I can see sexual “sanctity” is through invoking religious views about sex to gauge it, however everything else as a result in my opinion is muddy waters to say the least.
I do not want to devolve the subject matter, but I will entertain the notion of someone invoking sexfraud via lying about being underage for example, due to it irrelevant in the eyes of the law since the perception is already shaped that the adult should have “known better”.
And while you joked about this being about a “case of rapists being misjudged by society” with an implementation of your proposed “rape”, you obviously deflected the topic of female teachers to male victims showing your obvious bias, going so far as to covering reproduction and risks involved, So then why would having sex for face value not be covered as well?
“Until you are old enough and responsible enough to shoulder the upbringing of a child, don’t have sex. It is not a right, it is not an entitlement.”
While the topic is appreciated, the topic of irresponsible behavior by underage teens, was not brought up by the host, nor by any of callers.
It specifically was about the instances of 15 yr olds sharing the financial burden of unplanned parenthood.
Gabe.
You’re misquoting me.
And when I take a comment down, it’s because I believe something in it would offend or put off readers. I don’t otherwise remove comments.
I quoted you several times so enlighten me as to how I misquoted you.
Well since the bulk of the evidence was that, no member even approached calling you name while you called everyone goons, and that enlightening debate occurred day one, it is the reason why you have 230 posts to date as opposed to even more which were in fact, (because previous posts under another name, were removed), I will let the the the facts speak for themselves.
Even if you could prove deceit down the road, who’s to stop an influx of golddiggers from proving the man they slept around with didn’t earn what they thought they did? I
The44
“He said, she saids” can’t be prosecuted. What type of proof is there that supports the gold-digger’s, (either male or female by-the-way,) case?
That is a valid point you bring up. And likewise, what defense would a a defendant have against the plaintiff’s charge of being told the love partner had given false or overstated income information, and the proof being income statements.
How would a judge decide on the use of that tactic’s effectiveness to ultimately achieve sex.
And to your point about a he-said/she-said argument. It’s also come to my attention that people charged would not be able to formulate a strong counter against the accusers who still had sex while knowingly accepting the fraud wholeheartedly, if the defendants did not have something such as voice recording, text etc of the admission of the accuser.
The44-
Did the offender (defendent) straighten out their obviously deliberate attempt to trick the victim before engaging in sex with them?
In that scenario I posted, no the defendant did not make the other person aware about the lie or trickery they used.
That still does not answer my valid question about a false claim that the accuser, knowingly committed to sex with a fraudster – not whether or not the defendant “made right” with the accuser.
The44-
In your example, if the offender did not straighten out their intentional “false personation” prior to having sex with the victim, (based on documented evidence they presented to the victim to create an incorrect belief,) they would have defrauded the victim of sex.
I’m going to ask again since I think the question of misrepresenting income, serves to better understand your position of “false personation”. You’ve stated as one of your guidelines to assess sexfraud, that “puffery” or lying through appearance is not admissible proof. Yet, is not renting out expensive luxury cars, yachts, wearing expensive attire, mis-stating how one makes a living, claims of owned properties falsely giving an impression of one having wealth. More to the point, to be used to have sex. Is that, is that not an accurate description of puffery?
And my point in bringing that up is not whether or not one can get sex through lying about means, rather to say that people may have sex anyway regardless of if one owns a Prius or owns a Maserati, but that there is no legal threshold which one can sue under for damages for having sex.
the44
One cannot sue for having sex, even when it’s declared a crime through SexFraud law.
But when you pretend to be someone you’re not, “false personation” (as its defined in other existing fraud laws,) in order to deceive someone into having sex that they otherwise would not, it would constitute the crime of sexual assault by fraud.
I’m curious. How would one prove that they were deceived about other person being rich? How would one show in court that the other part didn’t let them know about it?
Kalle-
To pursue a criminal case against someone, you have to prove they’ve broken the law. It’ sup to you to prove that they did so. And no Prosecutor will bring a charge against them unless there is proof.
Considering the accused can always claim they told the accuser and wasn’t lying it’s pretty much impossible to ever prove guilt in courts. It boils down to he said – she said and in these cases no charges can ever be made.
Kalle-
I’m not following “the accused told the accuser”. Please clarify your question.
But if you’re asking me whether cases that are impossible to prove in court will make it past the Prosecutor, the answer is a rousing “No.” All the silly scenarios that people are raising are not going to make it into a courtroom. Only cases with SIGNIFICANT proof can be prosecuted. that’s why I keep stressing that it’s criminal law and not a tort. It’s not fodder for trivial lawsuits. And a Prosecutor can’t convince a Grand Jury to indict unless there is a significant case against the offender.
My question essentially boiled down to how can one prove in court they were lied to when the accused claims they revealed truth.
feel free to use your own case as an example if you wish. What sort of evidence could you have given?
Kalle-
Thanks for the clarification. Most of the scenarios you see in the press, and most of what people fear in this law, would not cause a Prosecutor to act. Quite frankly, even violent rape cases have a difficult time getting Prosecutors to pursue the case.
Cases that would be prosecutorial are ones in which the offender gives specific documentation of their lies. The victim could have correspondence, voice mails or emails that prove their intent or mischaracterizations. Giving someone a diamond ring and discussing your intent to marry them when, you’re already married and your e-dating profile says you’re divorced, might be an example. Telling them at the bar that you’re single so you can have a one-night stand would not suffice. Don’t get me wrong, jerks who do so are sexually assaulting their target, but the victim does not have proof, nor would they be deemed to have acted “reasonably” if they had sex without further proof.
Here’s another example: Forged documents that say you’re free of STDs when you have them could be another.
Continuously defrauding multiple women who discover each other could be another.
There are offenders who set up elaborate web-sites to support their erroneous claims about themselves. They use them to support the image they create and then pull off SexFraud as well as theft by fraud. Often, they’ll convince the victim to pose for sexy photos and then they’ll scare them into silence by fear of exposure.
Those are just a couple. But by telling someone that you have a Lamborghini, you’re unlikely to go to jail. Where’s the proof that your said it? Did the victim have good reason to rely on your lie? Would the Grand Jury and a jury believe they behaved reasonably by doing so?
Question, so you can’t sue for having sex although it falls under sexfraud?
Then the following paragraph you confirmed as much. By re-stating what I had just said you contradicted your own answer.
Your underlying assumption is that telling someone you’re a multi- millionaire or own a Ferrari Enzo (one million dollar car) when the truth is you work at Arby’s IS actually a crime but oh snap! we can’t prosecute these male bastard because it’s always a “he said’/The logical inference from your statements is that it WOULD be prosecutable under the right evidenciary circumstances. Wrong. It’s called freedom of speech and your laws would be thrown out by the Supreme Court on that basis assuming they even got onto state lawbooks which they won’t. This type of thing, as well as telling someone you’re a Jew when you’r e not or any other statement that does not match up with or reach the legal threshold of fraud statutes already on the books in 50 states have no place in the courts, which are already overburdened.
Tom-
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to lie.
Lies that defraud people are punishable in criminal code. In fact, the fraud section is frequently the largest section of criminal code in many states.
Wrong. Take a learnignannex (are they still around) or their modern equivalent night school course on the Constitution and the law. .Lying per se is not a crime and lying is protected by the First Amendment under most circumstances. Crying fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is a lie obviously not protected by the First Amendment. What did I I just state in my reply? Some lies meet the legal threshold of fraud laws or other laws already on the books in 50 states. Lying is currently protected speech under the Ist Amendment as long as the lies don’t meet the legal fraud threshold already on the books in all states or as long as they are not lies that endanger public safety or an individual’s safety legal such as my “fire!”/crowed theatre example. .Saying you are a Jew when you are not a Jew or own a Ferrari Enzo when you work at Arby’s are lies that do not meet any Constitutionally sound legal thresholds in American law books ,in 50 states.
do you even read my posts?…. “laws that defraud people are punishable in criminal code”…..that is exactly what I said in my first reply. There are already laws on the books in 50 states that deal with lies that meet the legal threshold of fraud.
Asked and answered. Read my answer.
“asked and answered”. Stop it. just stop. Did you actually attend law school,/ next- graduate from law school, next- graduate, then take the bar exam and fail multiple times, then retreat to real estate? Whatever the answer level is the extreme annoyance factor is equally the same.
Tom
If you find my answers so annoying, why are you here? Why are you asking me if you don’t think I’m knowledgeable in what I’m telling you? Nobody is forcing you to have this discussion.
i’m guessing door number 3….. I’ve never asked you anything. I HAVE informed you and corrected you on various things. Don’t worry, I’m basically out of here ….today I very adequately pointed out the basic Constitutional flaw (Freedom of Speech trumps your fraud claims)) in your legal overreach- trying to expand the fraud laws to get things classified as fraud (criminal ,not tortious fraud no less) that are not already covered under the very adequate state civil and criminal fraud laws created by people who are well above your legal jurisprudence education and competence level.
Ok- you argued your beliefs instead of asking questions… hair splitting, but noted. As are your assumptions about my knowledge base. Since you think I have so little of it, you have nothing to fear regarding my attempts to bring about change.
Tom
Here’s fraud in just about every state in the union–
1. you lie
2. you know you’re lying
3. you expect the person will rely on your lie
4. they rely on your lie
5. that person suffers injury by 1-4
I wish I had a nickle for every time I’ve said, “Lying is not a crime. Lying to defraud someone is.”
“i wish i had a nickel….” then don’t make statements like “Freedom of Speech does not give you a right to lie”… It clearly does give you the right to lie as long as the lies don’t meet certain legal thresholds which pass Constitutional muster… your pseudo-legal sophistry is clever, but it clearly is not working here. Fraud laws are very specifically worded and they currently do not cover the kinds of lies or “damages” that I’m talking about.
Your repeating. Asked and answered.
I’m not repeating. you replied with some legal sophistry about the 1-5 steps of fraud and I pointed out in response, although not in so many words ,that a lie such as saying you are a Jew when you are not a Jew technically meets the steps 1-5 if you accept the victim’s claim that they have been legally damaged (not just hurt feelings-that doesn’t count) but unfortunately those claims of ” legal damages” do not pass Constitutional/legal muster the way the laws are currently written (that’s why you want to change them) and you would not prevail in a court of law under current fraud law. In fact you would not even proceed to trial. We don’t need any new fraud laws in this country , but thank you .
Tom
The law exists in several states, in whole or in part. Don’t lie to have sex with someone in Alabama or Tennessee. Don’t pretend you’re someone’s lover in California. Don’t pretend you’re a doctor inserting a medical device in most states across the country. They are all acts that are covered by rape by fraud laws.
saying you are a doctor or someones lover clearly meets the legal threshold of fraud that’s why they are already on the books. Saying you are a Jew is not on any lawbooks except by default in a couple backwater states that have a a catchall law about “lying to have sex”. These laws are clearly too vague to pass constitutional muster and they would lose if taken to he level of the Supreme Court.
Leykis called you “evil” on Fridays show and he also mentioned smething about your this “eye-opener’ blog, , something about a certain tortious legal threshold this blog may or may not have met…. listen this weekend for a repeat of Fridays show
Leykis
has 22 million dollars in the bank and the best lawyers money can buy.
Thanks for the heads-up Tom.
I can’t imagine why stopping people from deceiving others for sex would cause him so much concern.
Would the broadcast from this coming Friday be repeated over the weekend, or the broadcast from last Friday?
Your comment about slavery being moral at one time is incorrect. It may have been legal but never moral. The principles of morality do not change. Thus my argument for abstinence is valid. It makes zero difference what society says about it today. The morals of it have not changed. You just don’t want women to take any responsibility. They have the power to say “NO”. They are too weak to is the real problem.
Brent-
Perhaps you didn’t hear my explanation that people who don’t behave responsibly would not be able to bring a claim for sexual assault by fraud. And the determination about who behaves responsibly is a decision that courts make all the time. In New Jersey’s existing penal code, where Legislation #3908 has been introduced, they use the term “as a reasonable person.” in determining whether someone acted responsibly.
oh my bad. what am I thinking. It’s Monday and the weekend in question where your friday show was repeated is already over. no it wont be repeated next weekend as far as I know only next Fridays show. no worries, you can subscribe to PremiumTom.com for 100 dollars and change a year and access Fridays show and complete archives of all three years of shows.
You’re kidding aren’t you? LOL! I really don’t care in the least what he has to say about me. I don’t live my life like a popularity contest. He’s just giving this issue wider exposure.
or you can subscribe for only a month(11 or 12 dollars or maybe its 15 by now at most) and you could access the Fridays show and all shows for a month only.
Quick correction Joyce. #2 on your list is redundant. ALL lies are intentional. If it was not a lie then the outcome is simply wrong. Lies have to do with a person’s character. They ALWAYS involve intent. If the outcome is not what the person states (if the teller believes what is being said) yet he/she (the listener) believed it was then that is simply a mistake. Has nothing to do with a person’s character. #3 & #4 on your list are also unnecessary. Remember all lies have to do with intent. Take a joke for example. The teller does not expect the listener to believe it so it’s not a lie. Of course the listener does not believe it because it is a joke.
Lies by definition have intent as their backbone. You also state several times “Lying is not a crime. Lying to defraud someone is.” Not so. Stealing is a form of a lie and stealing is a crime. Again a lie already has enriched into its definition that the person doing the lying has the intent of defrauding.
Brent-
It’s the definition of fraud that is widely accepted throughout the US, and probably, globally.
This definition could likely make more sense to you if you substitute the word “untruth” for “lies.” But this is the common language used to teach fraud in law school.
Untruth and lying are not the same. One has to do with character. If you agreed with me your argument for Sexfraud is strengthened. Unsure why you are bucking up against that.
The opposite of a lie is not the truth. The opposite of a lie is honesty. I’m sorry but your law school teachings are wrong.
Brent-
I’m not disagreeing with you regarding the opposite of a lie. I just don’t know why you think noting it is of issue in establishing the legal definition of fraud which simply states when a criminal act of “fraud” occurs.
evidentiary
Let’s say a guy is dating a girl. He lies to her about how rich he is and they have sex. Once she learns he isn’t as rich she dumps him.
Who can sue whom in this scenario?
Can the girl sue him for lying about being rich?
Can the guy sue her for only sleeping with him for the riches and not really caring about the guy as a person?
Kalle-
Everyone engaged in sex with another person has “personal responsibility.” The problem is that rape by fraud offenders block attempts at learning the truth.
We live in the world of technology, which is both a good and a bad thing. The good news is that people can research your background and not simply take what you say at face value any longer.
If this technology existed way back when I met my ex, I probably wouldn’t be writing this blog, today, because I probably would not know of this crime. He gave me his real name. That was about the only identity characteristic that was the truth. I would have been able to learn more about him by Googling him or conducting other research.
If people give you a wrong name when they date you, it’s a specific attempt tho block you from finding out who they really are. And that is what I find so offensive in Lauren’s protests about “what difference does it make what their name is?”
Every person has a right to determine what their individual interests are. And no one has the right to trick you into thinking they meet your criteria in order to have sex with you. A person who lies to you about being wealthy probably did not ask the victim, “Will you date me if I”m not wealthy?” They just assume that’s the case. And the person who finds out they were lied to, if they’re not embroiled in a Betrayal Bond, will walk away, not because the offender is not rich, but because the offender is a lying scum bag that undermined their self determination and sexually assaulted them.
So, getting back to your question….. no one should lie to induce sex. When you do, you’re sexually assaulting a person, not seducing them. You’re conducting SexFraud, Rape by Fraud, Sexual Misconduct or any other term that the individual state you are in ascribes to it.
Will everyone who does this go to prison? No…. not because they haven’t sexually assaulted you, they have. But because there’s a level of personal responsibility that exists in making determinations about the use of your body. And if you fail to behave like a responsible person, no jury will convict. The offender will not go to jail if the victim did not behave responsibly.
But when the victim does behave responsibly; they go home and look the person up on Google, they ask to see evidence of the person’s health status and get a forged document, they spend significant time with the person who emotionally embroils them in a deceptive hoax that a “reasonable person’s best efforts could not uncover,” they, indeed, will have committed the level of crime that would land them in jail.
It’s important for people to be able to recognize that a crime takes place when people lie to you to engage you in sex. But that does not mean, even in states where rape by fraud laws are enacted, that everyone will go to jail for doing so.
Joyce
“We live in the world of technology, which is both a good and a bad thing. The good news is that people can research your background and not simply take what you say at face value any longer.”
Wouldn’t that mean your proposed law is outdated already then?
“So, getting back to your question….. no one should lie to induce sex. When you do, you’re sexually assaulting a person, not seducing them. You’re conducting SexFraud, Rape by Fraud, Sexual Misconduct or any other term that the individual state you are in ascribes to it.”
Or perhaps I’m just testing if I’m dealing with a gold digger or not.
“Wouldn’t that mean your proposed law is outdated already then?”
Precisely.
“Or perhaps I’m just testing if I’m dealing with a gold digger or not.”
I imagine a lot of men do this and kudos to them!
Joyce, you stated earlier:
“It’s become blatantly apparent that they really have no interest in conducting an enlightening debate with an open mind.”
Yet YOU are the one deleting comments and are also engaging in ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with you. Hypocrite much?
Kalle-
Unfortunately, there are serious offenders who go to great lengths, beyond normal discovery, to defraud their targets. The law will prosecute those who do so. And yes, through the implementation of the law, the need for it should seriously diminish.
I sincerely hope that my efforts, as well as those of others who deal with this issue, have brought the problem to light to a degree that society has begun to recognize this offensive practice, and avoid the crime when a scammer sets their sights on them.
“Unfortunately, there are serious offenders who go to great lengths, beyond normal discovery, to defraud their targets. The law will prosecute those who do so.”
Why can’t normal anti-fraud laws be used?
Kale:
Fraud is a tool- like violence, doping or coercion.
The nature of what is taken by the fraud constitutes the crime.
States have page after page defining a myriad of fraud crimes by each element of the victim’s loss.
If you steal money by fraud, it’s “theft by fraud.” If your sexually assault a person by fraud, it’s “sexual assault by fraud.”
Kalle-
People should straighten out their lies BEFORE they engage in sex.
So if you were telling lies to “test” whether the person was a gold-digger, don’t bed them ’til you’re sure, and have corrected your misrepresentations.
Lying is not a crime. Lying to induce sex is the crime.
“Lying is not a crime. Lying to induce sex is the crime.”
People generally lie to get something. You seem to claim that lying to get some things is OK, lying to get other things is not.
Kale-
“False personation” is a crime when used to defraud someone.
Can you explain why doesn’t this law cover that already?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038
Kalle
This law you’re indicating covers:
“Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute a violation of chapter 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, or 113B of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 46502, the second sentence of section 46504, section 46505(b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123 (b) of title 49, shall—
(A) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
But as you can see, people who give false information can and will be prosecuted for many things.
Also, cosmetic surgery is also essentially false presentation.
If “cosmetic surgery” consists of “false personation” under the law, than it is. Trouble is, it’s not.
You propose making some types of deceit criminal that aren’t at the moment. Why not cosmetic surgery too when other person is not notified of it?
Kalle-
It’s a crime, not a tort.
People seem to think this law will enable victims to seek damages and open people up to frivolous law suits. It won’t. There is no benefit, except justice, in filing charges against the offender.
My question was about who was the victim and who was the offender. It seems to depend on whose viewpoint one takes.
“It’s a crime not a tort.” silly rabbits, thinking all sorts of civil lawsuits will pop up. Don’t worry your pretty little heads – the most you’ll face is jail time. Don’t worry Kalle- she doesn’t want to take your money, she just wants to put your male butt in jail.
I was simply trying to say that the courts would not be bombarded with frivolous law suits by this legislation.
Yes- if someone commits sexual assault against another person, they belong in jail. Society needs protection from them.
Well, now we know who opposes this law — the very same people who create the need for it! Liars and manipulators with serious character disorders, who live shallow and meaningless lives and who seek to destroy the lives of others, or at least use them like trash and humiliate them. Ryan M from the IPG channel is the worst offender, and he’s actually proud of it. If he were a normal person, he would be severely ashamed of his behavior. There is no help for him. The fact that he doesn’t want any tells us just how badly he needs it.
Excellent job, Joyce, of exposing ‘the opposition.’ You have strengthened the resolve of the rest of us.
This opposition was pretty much already exposed and out there. Leykis has been married 4x, has been sued numerous times, was charged with felony assault after threatening to kill one of his wives and had to attend a batterers class for charges to be dropped – he is most likely sociopathic. His views are ingrained, I would say.
Lie much? Leykis never threatened to kill anyone.
You can check out the charges. Wikipedia has some info.
Wikipedia???
He was charged with felony assault and threatening to commit a crime in 1992 or 93. You can find this information elsewhere.
And ‘Charlie’….thou dost protest too much.
Ahhhhh yes, the old “you’re only defending person ‘X’ because you’re guilty of the same crime” fallacy.
Not what I meant. But then I would have to explain Shakespeare.
the police report (on The Smoking gun) has scribbling from a cop on it claiming the wife told the cop Leykis hit her in the head with a glass, pushed her into a brick fireplace and threatened to kill her .It’s what he wrote, doesn’t mean that’s what happened. Leykis’es story is completely different , claiming no real violence, and the only part of his story that can be officially verified at this late date is that his wife refused to press charges and the D.A. went ahead without her and pressed charges. Leykis had a new job to go to in L.A and instead of drawing things out with the possibility of the overjealous prosecutor eager for a high profile notch on his belt, gaining a conviction, he decided to take the plea, move to L.A. and the new job and save himself thousands of dollars in legal fees They had both been drinking at a party all night and had just got home. Assuming the police version is true, which I don’t, this is Leykis’es one and only D.V incident and arrest in his nearly 60 years of living. Pattern domestic violence offenders have multiple arrests over many years. A diagnosis of sociopathy from one D.V. incident is a bit of a reach. Are you a perfect person Cindy?
overzealous prosecutor…….but he was probably overjealous as well…
I didn’t presume to ‘diagnose,’ but I have done my research and I wasn’t basing my suggestion that he has sociopathic traits on one incident, but on his general lifestyle and attitudes. Much of what he promotes is unconscionable behavior, in my opinion (though I defend his right to free speech).
And no, I am not perfect. However, there are levels of ‘not being perfect,’ which is why we jail some people.
well they cut him a deal with no jail time,so jailbird isn’t of Leykis’es titles. I don’t worship Leykis or listen to Leykis for dating advice or advice on how to treat women…i’ve sent him enough emails and twitters and fb pots where i’ve called out his b.s. that hes banned me from all social media forums of his plus his show webpage. im not a blind follower of Leykis…he’s good on big picture societal mens rights topics like this..on these issues there is nobody better.
PS- I was married to an on-air radio personality for 11 years in Chicago, with whom I share my only son. I then briefly married a Police Chief who had a serious personality disorder. An expert of psychopathy put together an abbreviated list of the top 5 or 6 professions that these character disordered people are attracted to – radio/TV personalities and law enforcement were tops on the list ( with doctors, politicians, clergy, lawyers). Needless to say, probably the only thing I agree with Leykis on is my new aversion to marriage, since I’m batting a thousand.
Cindy-
Thanks for enlightening us!
Unfortunate, but true. Morally intact people wouldn’t oppose a law that protects society from being tricked into SexFraud.
You’ve mentioned morality a few times now. I understand we do not live in a Puritanical society (I believe those were your words). Let me remind you that pre-marital sex is immoral Joyce. Such a simple solution to the “problem” you are trying to solve. With the exception of rape (the historical & true definition not the silly ones put forth nowadays) the girl holds all the power when it comes to sex. Does she not have the strength to say something as simple as “NO”? Don’t tell me abstinence teaching doesn’t work. You would agree that there are laws against stealing yet people still steal. We teach our children not to steal. Just because it doesn’t work (which I do believe it does) does not mean you don’t teach it.
Brent-
For people who believe that sex outside marriage is morally wrong, they won’t encounter this crime. But I believe the ratio of society with that belief, in this day and age, is relatively low.
At one time, people thought slavery was morally acceptable.
Lots of other morally accepted precepts have changed with time.
What constitutes morality for person is an individual choice as long as it doesn’t violate a law.
Are there still some decent men out there? Lying and defrauding a woman to get sex is terrible! What happened to decency, morality, honesty, integrity, and respect?
And then there are the con artists out there on the internet dating sites, who pretend to be somebody they are not and orchestrate elaborate relationship hoaxes to con a woman out of money in some feigned medical or financial crisis. …. And men get conned in those schemes, too. They call these people catfishes, but a more evil term should be used for the deception that they use to scam people in romance/relationship scams. These people are dirty rotten scoundrels, nothing less. I know from personal experience. They lie about every aspect of their lives and are masters of deception and fraud.
Lynnette
Thanks for your contribution. It’s so important for people to hear from the victims of this crime!
If you’ve re-read the post since it was first introduced, this comment is a repeated message:
I’m putting an end to the dialogue with Tom Leykis’s “Goon Squad.”
It’s become blatantly apparent that they really have no interest in conducting an enlightening debate with an open mind. Here’s a piece, (the rest was too absurd,) I fished out of a recent comment from one of Leykis’s minions:
“Joyce, I would think this week/weekends humiliatingly inadequate performance up against Leykis and more significantly his listeners/fans, both on the phone and in the arena of the written word, has finally convinced you to give up your quixotic, foolishly misguided little campaign…….”
And I received this tweet from the person who actually invited me to participate on the broadcast:
Ryan M (IPG Channel)
@IndispensableP
Follow Follow @jm_short Thanks for calling in, my little puppet. You served your purpose well. 08:54 PM – 20 Mar 15
They apparently believe that their insults, misstatements, horrific mis-characterization of me, etc, will derail society’s enlightenment and passage of a law to stop SexFraud.
I believe, however, that one can get a clear picture on how the mind of people who oppose the passage of SexFraud law actually works. They have provided us a good understanding of their convoluted justifications and the insight that rape by fraud won’t end until we make laws to ban the behavior.
You had high expectations in order to get married. A man who wanted to have a relationship with you made up a character who fitted your high expectations. You did not do your homework on him and was so swept away from your prince charming. When you found out that he lied to you, your life mission has been to lock up as many men as you can who lie to women. Maybe if you did your homework on who you married and didnt believe every word someone said, you would be a happier person. I hope and encourage men to lie to spoiled western women with unrealistic expectations.
Anthony-
Real high, by your expectations, probably…..
Just a decent guy, a college grad who’d gotten married young and been divorced. Ex-wife had moved out of the country to be with her mother who was ill. The kids were with her. Like most of our peers, he was a Vietnam Vet with a scar about 2 inches above his heart from battle. Read the book if you want the truth. Carnal Abuse by Deceit, available on Amazon.
I spent the next 24 years raising the son he abandoned. Real spoiled…… Worked several jobs at the same time to keep a roof over his head, food in his stomach and clothes on his back. My finances will never recoup the losses from his deadbeat behavior.
Whatever I can do to raise awareness and keep it from happening to someone else, I surely will do.
Don’t lie to have sex and you won’t have to fear the law. Lying to induce sex destroys lives. Lying to induce sex is sexual assault.
Joyce, do you think that your situation as well as many (if not most all) of the problems discussed in this blog could be solved by not having sex before you married? Seriously.
Brent-
We no longer live in a Puritanical society in which people don’t have sex before marriage. It used to be outlawed. That didn’t work. In fact you might find my post, E-Dating and CADS, a match made in heaven, interesting. It touches on this subject.
Are you suggesting that people who have sex out of marriage should get sent to jail? How so? What crime are they violating?
And if you think SexFraud affects a great many people, it’s nothing compared to all the folks who’d break a law prohibiting sex out of marriage!
Shoot, your Mom and Dad may even have had to serve time for that crime!
Joyce, I’m not arguing what society favors or shuns. I’m for people being responsibility. Unsure why you assume I somehow want to legislate this. I don’t. Your jail argument is a new one. I said nothing about that nor did I suugest it is a crime to have premarital sex. As an FYI my mom told me she was a virgin when she married dad (didn’t ask dad his sexual history or I’d relay it to you) and she is celebrating 45 years of marriage in May. I am pro-marriage. My huntch is that you are not happy about how things turned out for you. I’m sorry if that’s the case. Stating that, “We no longer live in a Puritanical society in which people don’t have sex before marriage” tells me and most reasonable men that there is zero reason to marry when the availability of sex available so freely. Think about it.
I see, because sex is the only reason people marry in your book? And yeah, my Mom was chaste when she married my father as well…. but you get my point. Your solution is using a canon when a rifle will do.
No I dont get your point. Strange I am trying to defend women and their purity (the few left that are) and you more or less mock me.
Here’s my point….
SexFraud is a crime…. Why? Because no one has the right to trick you into sex!
Whether you’re married or unmarried is immaterial. Whether you’re male or female is immaterial.
And I don’t think that focusing on a non-criminal act, having sex, as a solution to stop a crime, being defrauded of sex, is a credible solution. What you’re suggesting is like saying “If we’d all stop putting our money in banks, we could prevent bank robberies.”
“Most reasonable men feel there is zero reason to marry when sex available so freely?”
Why is it, then, that so many men do get married in our society? Do you think it might be because they love a woman and they want to share their life with her?
I doubt any woman who would want a man to marry her just for sex. Being used for a lifetime sounds pretty bad to me.
I do not know the answer why so many men get married in this society. They are not being rational for the most part. Perhaps at the time the guy says he wants to marry a certain girl he means it but most men if they are honest with you (and men are fairly honest with other men) will say they preferred the single life by comparison. Men like variety and younger women. The things that make women attractive to men (sexual appeal, youthfulness, etc.) get worse as time goes on but the characteristics that make men attractive to women get better with age (make more money, hold positions of power, better providers, etc.). Men are guilty of not looking far enough ahead when they are young. They do not realize their potential yet. Don’t believe me though. Ask other men.
Strange you state a woman would not want to be “used for a lifetime”. That’s how women feel it appears. So your suggesting they don’t mind being “used” pre-marriage? Women squander away their best years “having fun”. No self-respecting or rational man would marry such a woman. Unfortunatly men don’t have the strength to so no to marriage. The good news is marriage is at an all time low. Men are slowly smartening up.
Anthony Cruz-
Your comments are disgusting! Trying to bash a woman personally. Agree to disagree but don’t attack someone for it. By the way, most single moms are held in high regard – like heroes. It’s a hard road and we usually blame the deadbeat who abandoned the child, not the mom who worked her tail off to support him. And purposely lie because of high expectations – do you have low expectations for your spouse or future spouse? You are suppose to be able to trust your spouse, that is the person you are spending your life with and having children with, your way of thinking is alarming.
Always the man’s fault………….
Only when it’s their fault!
No it’s always the man’s fault in the world of the SJW because you and your feminist sisters have yet to criticize other women for the choices they willingly make.
Charlie-
Being tricked into a choice is what you call “willingly?” On what planet?
If you are wearing makeup, a pushup bra, have had cosmetic surgery and clothes that enhance your figure beyond its natural shape you are a *liar*.
That makes you a rapist.
It’s not called rape by push up bras or rape by clothes or anything that silly, it is called Rape by Fraud. I wish we could stick to the subject matter!
So lying about ones actual appearance is OK?
God gave you eyes. You need to use them.
Appearance enhancements are not lies. Lies are lies.
What about enhancements that make others like you more? E.g having a key chain of a fancy car without owning it, giving big tips at restaurants while you aren’t anywhere near as rich to always be able to afford it and so on.
Kalle-
What you’r describing in not a deliberate hoax to defraud.
It is a lie. Men are attracted to visual cues, which denote a level of fitness and fertility. Your ‘appearance enhancement’ is in fact a form of deception to fool men into thinking you are younger, more fertile and and fitter than you actually are. That is fraud.
Be honest. Remove the makeup, hair dye and the shape enhancing clothes and show men your true form. This will allow men to make an honest decision whether to not we wish to associate with you.
We do not appreciate being lured and tricked by women who are in fact less attractive, less young than they appear.
Those visual cues can all be removed BEFORE you have sex with the person. They are not a sexual hoax.
What about cosmetic surgery?
They are indeed a sexual hoax. Can a boob job be removed? Cosmetic surgery? Facelifts? Bo tox? Nips and tucks to hide overeating? hair dye that hides grey hair? Do you remove your various cosmetics when you make out?
No.
You attract men by enhancing the things men find attractive. Men attract women by enhancing the things women find attractive. What you are upset about is that the the alpha type man you THOUGHT you were attracting is actually not an Alpha At all. And because you believe that you, as a female are ENTITLED to alpha male attention, you get angry that a male you consider to be of inferior quality actually managed to bed you.
If you are honest, you will present yourself honestly. But have have no problem using female methods to enhance your sexual market value and trick men into believing your fitness is higher than it is because dammit, you are a woman and you deserve to have it all.
Fraud is fraud. And if PUA are rapists, so are women who use artificial means to misrepresent themselves and attract mates.
This has happened to me two times since I got divorced 5 years ago!
Oh yes, these are highly educated degreed men and truly they LIE and deceive in order to “procure” sex from you and in my case it was a relationship on the side (one had a longtime girlfriend whom I knew nothing about for 8 months) and the other man had a wife, an ex wife and two kids!) I knew since I am beautiful, intelligent and extremely intuitive that these two men had to have something they weren’t telling me because no man can ever stay away from me.. I have been married 4 times to 3 men (widowed once, married the last one twice)
One(he was a former College Linebacker and now a Special Ed Teacher,) used the “excuse” of a very sick alcoholic mother (LIE) to not being able to come and see me or take me out because he had to “watch” her….and the other man totally lied about his age, his marital status (said he had never been married,) said he had no kids, no wife totally presented himself as SINGLE. He approached me on Facebook and started messaging me etc. He was well-spoken, was an Operations Manager for a Steel Manufacturing Company and he seemed so perfect.
But I see now he is a compulsive liar. I did not find out until five months something was up with this man. He has said he was sorry “he did not tell me everything” but that is not good enough for me.
Yes, I agree there should be some recourse when we are TRICKED into having sex with someone who presents themselves as SINGLE when he knew I was not the type of woman who would KNOWINGLY entertain a relationship with a MARRIED man. Him being in another state made it easier for him and more difficult for me to catch on earlier! So, I agree Joyce, this is what is needed.
Men can be tricked too….but in my case I feel defrauded, defiled and taken advantage of. These two men expressed their love and all that but it was too late at that point……TOTALLY. I am behind this all the way….!!!!!! Thank you for bringing this out in the open!!!!!
You were “tricked” into having sex with these guys? You also state “I knew since I am beautiful, intelligent and extremely intuitive…” Which is it?
Brent-
So you think someone who is “beautiful, intelligent and intuitive,” can’t be fooled? Think again. Highly intelligent people are fooled all the time. Scammers are practiced at the art form of defrauding people. Offenders who go around defrauding others for sex have a character flaw. They lack emotional empathy. And there’s an enormous amount of them, just look at the numbers who are arguing to prevent the passage of this law right here, right now. They actually think that defrauding someone for sex is ok. It’s mind-boggling!
No disrespect to you Joyce, but as a father of sons your positions scare the hell out of me. I have only been with only one woman in my life who is my current wife. I don’t claim to be perfect, but I do encourage my sons to respect all people. The ideas you mentioned on the Tom Leykis Show were chilling to me. It was a real eye opener. I hope you don’t get far with your plans at least for the sake of young men.
Jacob-
Why not just teach your sons to do the right and decent thing and not trick women into having sex with them.
Why can’t women learn to take responsibility for who they sleep with? Why do you want to take out your anger over your past failed relationships on the rest of us?
And you don’t get to call things illegal just because you don’t choose to engage in them. You cannot legislate morality.
Consent is ineffective if induced by force, duress or deception- Model Penal Code. Global Consent.
Cue-
No, but you can legislate crimes! And sexual assault is a crime, no matter what tool the offender uses.
Lying to a person to get sex is NOT sexual assault. Most people call it ‘dating’…
Yup- sociopaths!
Cue Ball-
The language of your recent posts was horribly offensive. I’m only including them so the public can see how your brain works. I won’t permit any further posts of this nature from you.
It’s exactly that goonish mentality that makes the law so necessary. You’ve made it blatantly obvious that for some people, lying to induce sex is an entertaining pastime. They’re unable to feel the attachment to their partner that one would expect from sex. Dr. Paul Zak’s book, “The Moral Molecule,” helps to explain this phenomenon. The neurotransmitter, oxytocin, fosters that attachment. If it’s missing in a person, they can’t develop a conscience or loving bonds. They lack emotional empathy.
People who lack emotional empathy can’t understand the harm in defrauding someone of sex. Sexual assault, in any form is a criminal act, and society needs protection from people who fail to recognize that it is.
Then I guess and 99% of the rest of the population are sociopaths, just because we aren’t prudish, stuck-up, bitter old bags like you. You cannot push your morality off on the rest of society, you dried-up hag. You got duped and now you think that you need to protect everyone from being gullible and dense like you were. You are not a ‘white knight’ and you are not saving anyone from anything. All you are doing is stamping your little feet because you got taken.
You keep holding sex up on this pedestal like its this cherished valuable resource. Sex is a biological need just like pissing and shitting. Nothing more. Sweetie, darling, this isn’t the 1940’s anymore. When I met my wife, there were things we disguised from each other because we knew they weren’t our best features. A little bit of alcohol and some of the truths came out. She was terrified to tell me that she was still married to her now ex-husband. She had no clue that I didn’t care because I was still married to my now ex-wife. The moral of the story is this: we all have traits that we aren’t proud of – things we’ve done that don’t reflect us in the best light. It is natural to want to disguise these things when trying to court a new person. It doesn’t make us criminals, it makes us human beings. I resent you trying to control natural human behavior with bullshit laws just because you think you are better than everyone else.
Cue Ball-
Saying that I think I’m better than everyone else is simply a veiled attempt at dismissing and minimizing me. You are attempting to gain favor with others who read your comment by putting me down.
The truth is, you have absolutely no way to know what I feel about whether I’m better than anyone else, or not. But it’s clear that you use the tactic of putting people down in order to win your argument: attack the person rather than discuss the issue. That’s not a respectful way to carry on a discussion.
I’m happy to debate the law with anyone who brings an honest curiosity and interest to the table. It’s obviously not you.
And, by the way, anyone that doesn’t understand that a person’s sexual sanctity is at the very core of who they are, is probably incapable of understanding why they shouldn’t lie to engage in sex. It’s exactly the mentality that makes SexFraud laws so necessary.
There’s your bullshit again – “sexual sanctity”. People are not “pristine vessels” that need to be saved from the “big bad wolf”. People are animals that’s have sweaty dirty nasty wonderfully depraved sex. And we LOVE it.
Cue Ball-
You do not have the right to the depravity of defrauding another person. THEY have rights, not just YOU! And there is no one on God’s green earth who does not cherish their body unless there is something very wrong with them. Don’t believe me? What part of your body are you willing to relinquish?
Actually, the law says I do. It is not illegal to lie to get sex. You should try it sometime. It’s rather effective.
Cue Ball-
There are multiple places around the world where you’ll go to jail for doing it. Just letting you know.
And because I had to eliminate your derogatory, nasty personal attack from your comment, this will be the last one that will be posted.
The last caller said fraud could never happen to her, only to fools. That showed a lack of understanding of what fraud is and how it works. Fraud is accomplished by first gaining someone’s trust. That’s the key. It can’t happen without that.
Tom kept saying ONLY people who are getting married have a right to know the truth about their partner. So single people don’t have a right to self-determination?
Self-determination “refers to the attitudes and abilities required to act as the primary causal agent in one’s life and to make choices regarding one’s actions free from undue external influence or interference.” (Wehmeyer)
Fraud is most definitely undue external influence and interference. It interferes with my ability to make the choices I want to make and take the actions I want to take, choices and actions that align with my preferences, my values, my religion, my self-determination of how I want to live my life.
How many people who are so adamantly against this law think it’s OK if their choices and actions are being determined by fraud instead of by their own free will, preferences and values?
Probably none. So why is it OK when it comes to an individual’s determination as to who they want to have a sexual relationship with?
***
Tom took exception to the use of the word “rape.” He asked why it couldn’t be called something else, like sexual assault. Sexual assault IS rape. Rape is non-consensual sex. Fraud nullifies consent. Link those two things together. That’s all there is to it.
AB-
Thanks so much for your support! You are 100% on target!
Joyce
What I said was that I don’t sleep with people that I do not know therefore, this would never happen to me. I don’t sleep with people in order to gain something from it. Sex is something two people choose to engage in and neither should expect anything in return from it but sexual gratification.
I think rape is a HORRIFIC act, one that should be punished to the FULL extent of the law. However, using a different name or misrepresenting your career is nowhere NEAR as heinous. Why should it even matter what a person does for a living? I’ll tell you why. Women choose men based on their status, based on their ability to provide. Men do NOT choose women based on the same criteria. If a man lies about his profession, he hasn’t robbed her of ANYTHING but her foolish pride in thinking she snagged a highly paid professional doctor or lawyer or fill in the blank. When Brad Pitt was a nobody working at a hot dog stand do you think women lined up to have sex with him? NO. But how many of those same women would give anything to have a chance with him now?
Here’s more food for thought. We’ve all heard of men being falsely accused of rape who cannot prove their innocence. On college campuses due process is being eliminated for men accused of rape. With it being SO easy for women to ruin men’s lives with false accusations, why SHOULD men be forthcoming with their personal information? It is in men’s best interest to hide as many personal details about themselves just in case the woman he just slept with is a psycho and decides to claim that he raped her. Or claim that he fathered her child and sticks him with child support payments for a kid that might not be his! It happens time and time again.
Joyce, just because some guy duped you doesn’t mean that its happening to everyone and doesn’t mean it should be punishable by law
Lauren-
Actually, what you said was, “what difference does it make what his name is?” and “everyone who was defrauded by Madoff was foolish and that’s why they’re eating cat food.”
I really just don’t have a lot I want to say to a person with that mentality except, a great many people get duped for sex. Would it surprise you to know that according to recent studies, 30% of the dating pool say they’re single when, in fact, they’re married? You have no idea the rampart amount of sexual hoaxes that occur in society today. And these are not victims who just jump in the sack with anybody they don’t know the name of. They’re individuals who build trust over time to create relationships that are hoaxes, through well crafted false personation.
When someone defrauds you for sex, they physically violate you. Consent in INVALID if induced by deception. Just because YOU don’t give a damn what the name of your sexual partner is doesn’t mean that no one else does. But it explains why you don’t see the harm in this behavior.
Joyce
Lauren,
One more thing….. If the man is afraid of the woman, why is he having sex with her?
No, don’t answer….. I know it’s plainly obvious to you….. but that’s my point. It’s not obvious to people who care who they share their body with on anything but a superficial level. .
Every man SHOULD be aware of the possibility that women can and DO have the law behind them if the woman changes her mind after the sexual act. Regret is NOT rape. That should be plainly obvious to you, Joyce.
If YOU use sex to obtain anything else other than sexual gratification well… We have a word for people who do that.
And there’s a word for people who are unable to relate to the harm of others. It’s not unusual to find “character disorder” in a person whose sexual relations are shallow and without bonding. It’s called sociopathy.
People with sociopathy lack oxytocin and other neurotransmitters that would normally create attachment when one has sex. Not everyone has it.
“Regret” is not an apt description of what occurs in a person when they realize they’ve been raped….. it’s more like severe depression, PTSD and an inescapable sense of defilement.
You continue to oppose a legal concept that is as plain as the nose on your face, because if you got it, you would recognize why sexual assault by fraud is a crime…..
Consent is INVALID when induced by DECEPTION. People who are tricked into sex are not “changing their mind.” Once they learn the truth, they recognize they were raped.
Lauren, for some people sex is an expression of love, in addition to sexual gratification. Sex with someone you love, who loves you, brings it to another level.
GiGi-
There are people in the world who simply lack the ability to love and bond. It’s extremely difficult to figure out who they are because they exist in society in the same human form as everyone else. They are sociopaths who will mislead you to get anything they want, but they’re unable to feel the type of attachment you’re speaking about.
Oh, you mean people like gold-diggers, mercenaries and professional daters? Well then, I totally agree!
OMG!! And lots of those folks will defraud you of sex without batting an eye!
So you support prison time for the lady deceivers as well………..?
I’ve said that the law should be gender neutral more times than I can possibly count.
Excellent!
“Women choose men based on their status, based on their ability to provide.”
Actually, most people — both men and women — choose a partner who is similar to themselves — someone who has similar values, goals, beliefs, education, religion, etc. This is a fact. It’s known as ‘having things in common.’
For example, if I want to have a relationship with someone who shares my Catholic faith, who is a conservative Republican, who is an educated professional like I am, and who shares my belief in the value of a committed, monogamous relationship, I should be free to do that. I’ve determined that’s what I prefer and it’s what’s best for me.
Let’s say I find someone with those qualities, and we’re having a relationship. But then, for whatever reason, I find out the truth about him — he lied about his identity, and in fact he is an atheist, a Democrat, a college drop out who lied about his job, is a convicted felon, a serial cheater, and is being sued for not paying child support by two other women.
Had I known who he really was, and had I known he was a liar, I would not have chosen to have a relationship with him. I have a right to choose who I will and will not have a relationship with. We all do, don’t we? But his lies interfered with my ability to make that choice. His fraud interfered with my ability to make that choice. I only chose him because of his lies, just like investors chose Bernie Madoff because of his lies.
I realize I was having a relationship with a total stranger. A lying stranger. And this lying stranger slept in my bed and had sex with me. If I knew who he really was, I would not have ever chosen to have sex with him. But my ability and my *right* to choose who I will and will not have sex with were incapacitated and violated by his lies.
I do have a RIGHT to choose who will sexually penetrate me; not just anyone is allowed to do so. If a stranger whom I did not consent to does so, it’s called rape. In this case, it’s rape by fraud.
Does everyone understand now?
Madoff isn’t in prison because investors who lost everything had regrets, or because they were foolish — he’s in prison because he committed fraud, which is illegal. He lied to people to gain their trust. He presented himself and his goals and values as something they were not, so they could not make a choice knowing the facts. If they had known he was a liar and a swindler, they would not have chosen him to invest their money. They were defrauded of money.
In my case, I was defrauded of sex.
Gigi!
I’m so sorry to hear of your misfortune and hope that you’re on the road to recovery. Your explanation is right on the money! I could not have said it better myself! Bravo!
Joyce
Gigi-
Very well said!
Planting a kiss on an unsuspecting person or grabbing their butt can be construed as sexual assault. This type of unwanted attention, while rude and appalling, is NOT rape.
By the same token, consciously choosing to have sex is NOT rape. Rather than creating laws for those who cry victimhood over their foolish decisions, how about some personal accountability? Seriously, how difficult is it for someone to say no to sex before he/she has had a chance to get to know his/her partner?
JG-
In cases of sexual assault by fraud, the victim is defrauded into believing that they “know” their partner.
You fail to understand that the victim does not consciously choose to have sex when their consent is induced by fraud. Fraud invalidates consent. That is why fraud is a tool for criminal acts.
If someone stole your belongings by fraud, you would not say that you changed your mind. And if they conduct sex with you, based on defrauding you of consent, you have not changed your mind either.
You never agreed.
Joyce,
What I fail to understand about sexual assault by fraud:
At what point has a so-called victim gotten to know his/her so-called perpetrator? How exactly would this be measured in terms of whether fraud was committed? In other words, is it a matter of…
How long you’ve known the person?
What information the person has disseminated?
What information the person has NOT disseminated?
Just a disclaimer: I get what you’re saying about honesty, and I agree that we should be truthful to sexual partners. You’ve covered one-night stands, and thankfully those would be considered invalid.
Scenario: I meet a woman and steadily date her for several weeks, before having sex. The next day I find out she’s married. Personally, I might be hurt and/or upset, but did she really perpetrate a crime against me? Don’t I have an obligation to ask her if she’s married? Don’t I have an obligation to do some form of a background check prior to having sex?
If I decide to consent to sex, to me, that’s my choice. I’m throwing caution to the wind. I’m doing this with the knowledge that I don’t know everything about this woman. I’m doing this with the knowledge that I HOPE she’s been truthful — but if I have any doubts, then I have the choice to wait longer and get to know her better.
I guess I just see a thin line here between trusting someone and taking a reasonable amount of precaution.
Thanks. I did enjoy your segment on the Tom Leykis Show.
If she lied to you and told you she was single…
And if you had good reason to expect that she was telling you the truth… she defrauded you.
If you never asked, and it would be unreasonable to expect her to be single, she would not have defrauded you.
You keep saying that fraud invalidates consent, but I know of no laws in any states other than New Jersey and Alabama that say so. You are insisting something is true simply based on your opinion. You’ll have a hell of a time getting this law passed in Texas.
“Fraud invalidates consent” is the basis of all fraud laws across the country. It’s called “global consent.”
It was codified in Model Penal Code in 1962, and may states have adopted the specific language into their individual penal codes. It appears on page 148 of the penal code of NJ.
JG-
What about TRICKERY STEALS CONSENT do you not understand?
The victims of Bernie Madoff were either extremely foolish, or (and this group makes up about 85% of them) they were competent but greedy people who had an idea that things were too good to be true, and didn’t quite pass the smell test, but were fine with it ,as long as the money kept rolling into their accounts.
I see, Tom. Because you’ve met and interviewed all of Madoff’s victims? Or are you simply expressing your bigotry and bias? Seems like you have considerable contempt for people who have wealth.
Well said AB!!
Joyce – I think the audience this show attracts would not, in general, be the best place for a discussion on this topic. If I were your publicist, I would have advised you not to be on and instead to focus on educational or legal-themed programming. When I took a look at the show website, I could predict the outcome regarding most caller comments.
That said, I think most people will not fully understand the depth of deception that some experience due to another person’s personality disorder (someone with sociopathic traits – no conscience, empathy or remorse and pathological lying, usually serial cheating) until they experience it. It’s unrealistic to think we can prosecute every white lie uttered in the heat of the moment after a few cocktails among two consenting adults. However, the deliberate deceptive practices by some in regards to who they really are (I’m talking about people who intentionally lead double, triple lives – frauds and con artists with patterns of such behavior) should be criminal. Maybe it is better to combat this by expanding ‘fraud’ laws – ‘rape,’ though accurate in the larger scheme of things, may be too charged of a word which will be a roadblock to legislating this.
Research shows that most sociopaths tend to be men, but women also have these largely untreatable personality disorders and can indeed be equally without empathy and lie to entrap. We all need to be cautious, there are a lot of ruthless people out there.
Cindy-
Fraud is a criminal tool that people will use in many ways.
If you use it to steal money from someone, it’s theft by fraud.
If you use it to secure a wildlife card in Florida, it’s securing a Wildlife Card by Fraud.
If you use it to engage someone in sex who would otherwise not consent, it’s Sexual Assault by Fraud, Sexual Misconduct by Fraud, Sexual Battery by Fraud or Rape by Fraud depending on the location in which the activity occurred.
Every state has its own term for it. The only term that is widespread for the exact same action as all the rest, is rape.
It is too bad that people don’t grasp the heinous sense of defilement that a person feels when this happens to them. Certainly the young woman, Lauren, who thinks “what difference is it what his name is?” demonstrates a complete lack of emotional empathy or any concept of the value of sexual sanctity. And she then supports her ignorance over fraud by saying that Bernie Madoff’s victims made “foolish” decisions and that’s why they’re “eating cat food.”
Her mentality reflects the very nature of people who behave this abhorrent way toward others, with no regard for humanity or sexual self determination.
Back in 1982, Susan Estrich wrote a book about it. The book was called REAL RAPE. Patricia Falk wrote about Rape by Fraud as well as other notable legal commentators throughout the years.
Countries have laws on Rape by Fraud. A world class cricket player in India is currently sitting in jail because he allegedly conducted rape by fraud. A man was sentenced to 18 months in jail in Israel for Rape by Fraud. Another man was recently convicted of Rape by Fraud in Canberra Australia.
Whether it is convenient to call it rape or not, it is rape. And if you want to pass a law to stop it, you must identify the criminal term that applies in the state in which you are creating the law. There is NO getting around it. And it is a criminal act BECAUSE it is rape, or sexual assault, or sexual misconduct, or sexual battery.
Directly on the first page of this blog, I advocate for calling the crime, Sexual Misconduct but I’d be just as happy calling it SexFraud, if a state is willing to adopt that term into its Penal Code.
The reason you are hearing so much backlash is because society is beginning to understand what this means. We are, at last, having a conversation about it. Heading into the lion’s den to have the conversation is not a bad place to hold it. If you don’t, you are simply preaching to the choir.
It is important for society to see the ridiculous comments that people who oppose this law make, and the vehemence with which they try to defend their right to defraud people for sex.
Conversation is a good thing. Only by conversation can you bring about change.
The first reaction to change is often ridicule, then anger, then acceptance. We’re somewhere between ridicule and anger.
I’m not phased by it. I recognize it as a necessary part of making progress. The more they write, the more they protest, the more absurd they appear.
So I understand your message. I’d love to call it something else, but in order to pass a criminal law, you must use the criminal term that applies in each specific state.
Emotional distress is a tort, not a crime. No one will ever go to jail for upsetting you. They will go to jail for raping you. And when society understands that raping you by fraud is a crime, people will be deterred from the behavior.
Joyce
I mostly agree with you. Being a marketing professional and a publicist in the entertainment industry, I also know that if you are selling something and trying to be most effective, words have to be weighed. I don’t know the legalities like you do, though – I’m not denying it is rape, I’m a victim of this type of deception – is it just not worthy of a conviction to call it Sexual Misconduct, as you suggested?
I also agree the discussion needs to be had. But I think discussing it seriously on this guy’s internet radio program is like trying to discuss the pitfalls of cheating on the Jerry Springer show. It’s just too low a rung on the ladder of reason (his lack of real ratings isn’t worth it). My two cents as someone who supports your mission.
And well noted. I sincerely appreciate your advice!
I didn’t quite follow what you meant regarding the use of the term Sexual Misconduct. Let me say that the term is the one used in the Alabama law and carries a penalty of a fine and two years incarceration. That’s not to say that another state would necessarily have to follow the same penalty.
I was only able to listen to a small segment of the show. It seems to me that you are attempting to change, due to your personal experience, the social and legal definitions of certain actions. It seems to me that if your goal is to truly benefit society, you’d be hosting free seminars for young women (and/or men) that would teach them to look out and protect themselves against potential “fraudsters”. I think the idea of heading off would-be victims is a far better calling versus attempting to change the definition of rape because you feel you were wronged. You seemed angry and sarcastic when others took an opposing view; even the more articulate, well reasoned callers. I don’t regularly tune in to the show (because I can’t) but this topic peaked my attention. What happens when the parties “put their best foot forward” and dress for success on the first date. One party later finds out that the other is a closet slob and also, say, habitually leaves the toilet seat up and WILL NEVER CHANGE. They’ve had sexual relations. What then? Will the offended party have a case for fraud or rape? Why or why not? Where does it end?
Kevin,
I happen to be planning a seminar. I maintain a blog to help people. I advocate for victims both publicly and privately. You are simply making assumptions.
And believe me, when someone says that thousands of Bernie Madoff victims made a “foolish decision” and deserve to eat cat food, it’s pretty difficult not to be angry and sarcastic!
I’m not changing the definition of rape because I was wronged. I am not the first person who ever noticed that the crime of rape by fraud exists. Even Socrates wrote about it.
I am simply aware of it and capable of putting the name to the behavior so that society can talk about it, heal from it, and create laws to stop it.
It’s just another way of feminists to use social constraints to control male behavior. There’s a great channel on youtube about MGTOW. Check out Sandman https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeCV-XNeZIoHiCGfNYCLh9Q
You can keep passing these laws all you want, but it will just make more men going their own way, and there will plenty of women out there willing to have casual sex for men to care about getting married or in relationships. Here’s a list of men who went their own way and did good for humankind because they didn’t have a wife/girlfriend…. Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Leonardo Da Vinci, and the Wright Brothers.
Da Vinci was gay, arrested for sodomy. Newton was also most likely gay. It was suspected Tesla was gay, as well, but he also had some OCD-type issues that may have interfered with a personal life. It is suspected that the Wright Brothers would now be diagnosed on the Autism spectrum with Aspergers, but that is speculation, of course. Not that I care if anyone has a wife or girlfriend or is otherwise gay, but your examples are not typical and these guys didn’t succeed solely because they lacked female company. Off topic…but thought I would point that out.
Men have sex for the sexual gratification, and women have sex to get things, like money or getting a guy to pay their rent or cell phone bill, and if they can get knocked up in the process, and get 21+ years in child support, that is just the cherry on top. And yes, the Justice System does go after men harsher than women. Here is the proof, with a sudy done by a woman…
http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
Care to comment on that Joyce?
So, am I now responsible for the fact that men get harsher sentences than women? I didn’t know that I was responsible for all the world’s ills!
Men can be motivated by anything they want when having sex. And so can women. They simply should not defraud their sex partner in order to get it.
“Men can be motivated by anything they want when having sex. And so can women. They simply should not defraud their sex partner in order to get it.”
What about things like plastic surgery, make-up and push-up bras?
When it specifically comes to plastic surgery, here is a way at least one women committed fraud: http://elitedaily.com/news/world/man-china-wrong-suing-wife-ugly/
But WOMEN seek to GAIN things (money, relationships, reproduction) from men when they agree to have sex with them. MEN want sexual gratification.
And AGAIN, you are saying that men and ONLY men lie to get sex. You’re the bigot here, Joyce
I never said men and only men lie. You are clearly making that up. Look up my post on Gold Diggers. Lauren, if you misquote me again, that’ll be the end of our conversation.
Except I never said that man and ONLY men lie to get sex. I don’t know who you’re quoting, but you’re certainly not quoting me!
I hate that some people think that a woman only has sex with a man for some kind of gain. Although, there are some gold diggers out there, there is a lot of good women that genuinely want a relationship and someone to spend their lives with. I find that men with money somehow think that makes them better or more important or that they can just “buy” people. I don’t find these qualities attractive.
A woman who has makeup, falsies, fake boobs, other cosmetic surgery, a pushup bra, high heels, or panty hose is now a rapist for deceiving men about her appearance. Great plan, asshole.
So how is that any different from wanting to throw men in jail for telling a gold digging whore that he has a lot of money when he is a poor smuck?
Why would a women want to have sex with a man just because she thinks he has money? Oh yeah, the feminists call it security. LOL
Did someone say I was on the side of Gold Diggers? Read my post on the issue.
In another topic you specifically replied to a guy who had said he has a Ferrari that he committed rape by fraud for not telling the girl he had a bicycle. How was that woman there not a gold-digger?
Kalle-
She was, and that’s exactly why I said the case would not be prosecutorial. She did not behave responsibly. I said it the first time, and since you chose to overlook that I did, I’ll say it again.
Joyce
So, consent to sex is consent to parenthood. Cool.
That eliminates legal abortion, legal adoption and “baby Moses” child abandonment laws.
Welcome to hell, ladies.
Joyce,
I love your last paragraph. That says it all. Unfortunately, the ones that commit rape by fraud don’t care about the other person. In fact, it is fun for them. The game of duping. They would never admit to the “target” that they just wanted a “hook up”. The sex is just part of it. That’s why we need this law, so the duped ones have some kind of recourse.
I heard the show and good points on both sides.
With today being Friday he does whats called Wide Open Phones
Thats where anyone with any topic can call in and talk to
Tom about it.
I suggest your readers give him a call with there thoughts I am sure he would like to hear for any of you.
The show is live at 3pm pacific time.
The number is 901 3000866
Thanks for letting me know. It’s too late for me to get information out. Perhaps next week.
I listened to the interview. I agree with a lot of what you advocate but anyone listening would agree you are clearly on the woman’s side. You avoided the difficult questions (i.e. boy student getting raped by teacher and his paying child support) in favor or guys.
I’m simply not sure where the law stands on that issue. I was asked about the law and I’m not up on paternity matters.
In my gut, however, I see the problem from a perspective of what’s best for the child. We’re not talking about supporting a puppy. A human life is involved. One would think that a normal person, once he attained adulthood, would feel some attachment, and I would seriously question the morality of people who don’t recognize that bond should exist. If all a father could see is a burden, I’d doubt his humanity.
I raised the son of an insidious form of rape. I would never have dreamed of turning my back on my child.
Women can give up parenting a kid after getting pregnant. Men absolutely can not.
Morality means what the root word ‘more’ or ‘the mores of society’ indicates. What is popular does not always indicate truth or quality nor is morality a legal entity. Morality is just a poll of people taken at a certain time and certain place. Morality is everchanging and is not subject to law
And you point is….
“….I’m not sure where the law stands….” ????? What part about 12 -year- old innocent minor don’t you understand ,Joyce? That’s a question any fair-minded person should be able to answer instantly, because of the inherent blatant unfairness of the state’s action. Who cares what “the “law” says. “The law” once allowed slavery and racial discrimination. Fairness is fairness. The fact that you hid behind “the law” to avoid answering the question about the 12- year -old male rape victim shows your “bias” (your favorite word) against all males.
Short writes in the above blog {‘we learned’}- “if an underage boy engages in sex , he should make no effort to support his child.” Incredible. In no way can the child of a 12- year -old rape victim be considered the rape victim’s legal responsibility, regardless of whether he is now 18 or 21 or 30. “engages in sex”……The law doesn’t consider a 12 year old of legal age to grant sexual consent in any state of the union. Short has really revealed her true, virulently anti-male position with this astonishing and very troubling stance that she has now taken on the 12- year- old male rape victim case. Absolutely outrageous and infuriating to any fair-minded person, regardless of gender.
I see, Tom…. So in your opinion, the raped mother of a child should simply walk away from the child and feel no responsibility for it because it was the product of rape???? Hmmmmm….. don’t think that’s how it works. In fact, many rape victims who are MOMS end up shouldering the entire responsibility for raising the child.
The 12 year old child will not be 12 years old for the rest of his life. Being raped does not give you a pass on being either a father or a mother once a child comes into the world. So call me biased…. I think not. But you certainly are!
Actually, Ms. Short, being raped does does give you a pass, if you are a twelve year old boy or girl. Would you expect a 12 year old girl who has been raped to start bagging groceries when she turns 13 to support her 3 month old?
You’re playing games with words….. a 12 year old child has no financial obligation. He’s a child for Christ sake!
To sum up my earlier long post (and this is my final post to you on this or any subject)- a 12 year old boy or girl rape victim has neither a legal or moral obligation , once the victim is of legal age, to financially support the human being born as the result of the crime perpetrated upon them. If the young man or woman chooses to do so, it is their business, and commendable, but simply that.
That’s not a question Tom, But none-the-less, I’ll repeat what I’ve said all along; I don’t believe a child should be held legally responsible for supporting a child.
And I remind you that adult, violent rape victims are legally responsible for raising their children, unless they give them up for adoption.
Since a woman can determine whether or not she wants to abort, or give the baby up for adoption, I feel that a male rape victim should have the same choice. Obviously, he can’t force an abortion, but he should be able to relinquish his parental rights once he becomes an adult. Until then, no…. I don’t believe that a child should be held financially responsible for anything, much less the financial support of a child.
While I decide on whether I should break down your entire blog post, I want to bring something to your attention: You used the phrase “being penetrated” repeatedly when describing both rape and having sex in general. Since heterosexual men are highly unlikely to be penetrated sexually, this means you are implying that men are the ones that initiate sex, as well as being the only ones that are capable of rape. You are essentially saying that not only are making men solely responsible for sexual conduct, but that women basically have no say in what happens in the bedroom. You are also saying that women, in an economic sense, are a commodity, something subject to supply and demand which can be purchased.
Is this the message you want to portray?
Tell that to this rape victim. Of course he SHOULDN’T have to pay, but some courts ARE forcing rape victims to pay child support.
http://www.businessinsider.com/male-statutory-rape-victim-nick-olivas-must-pay-child-support-2014-9
yes, as a child he has no financial obligation. Nevertheless, once he becomes an adult he has to pay child support (including past payment, while he was a child himself).
here the proof:
http://www.businessinsider.com/male-statutory-rape-victim-nick-olivas-must-pay-child-support-2014-9
Only if the victim in question is a male……….
Lady, you are crazy if you think that lying to someone to get them into bed constitutes sexual assault. All you are trying to do is give people a method for revoking consent after-the-fact.
Consent is invalid if induced by deception.
and that removes any culpability or responsibility from a person. Don’t like your choice? Just accuse the other person of lying and you are off the hook. Don’t think so.
I think only a person who lies could see it that way. Most of humanity recognizes that when you’re lied to, your consent is not valid.
and yet, a man that is deceived into having a child against his will is still financially liable for that child.
Notice how she has still failed to answer this aspect of the whole “‘rape’ by fraud” issue. A grown man who is deceived into thinking the woman is on the pill (in other words, a man who is “‘raped’ by fraud”) is still held liable for the consequences of the crime committed against him. This issue has been addressed both here on Joyce’s blog and on her appearance on the Tom Leykis Show appearance, and yet (since the victim in this case is male) she isn’t as quick to address this concern as she is in concerns where the victim is female.
“Consent is ineffective if induced by force, duress or deception.” Model Penal Code, which was adopted in several states across the country.
It’s yet to be seen if these laws are executable by US Constitution standards. I am pretty sure these convictions will be overturned by appellate courts simple because morality cannot be legislated.
It’s the law, in whole or in part, in several states and several countries.
It’s also law in many states that you can’t ride a donkey on Sunday. Doesn’t make it a worthwhile or valuable law. Maybe you should spend a little more time figuring out why you are so bitter and a little less time trying to make criminals out of people that have not broken any laws.
I see, so people who disagree with you are “bitter,” and the “Global Consent” at the heart of all presently existing Fraud law is not worthwhile or valuable.
Calling me names won’t change the facts. Why not do some legal research before you comment again?
I’ve done all the research I need to do. Regret is NOT rape and morality cannot be legislated. It is not the 1950’s anymore. Women are not the delicate flowers you are trying to paint them out to be and men are not the big bad wolves trying to steal their “sexual sanctity”. Most women never had any “sexual sanctity” to begin with. Under your proposed bullshit law, every woman I’ve ever been with would be considered a rapist because women are generally incapable of telling anyone their true age. Am I now “violated” because they lied about their ages? Fuck no. It’s part of the game. Your law is futile and pointless. Find something more constructive to do with your time than creating criminals out of people that have broken no laws. This country need less laws, not baseless crap like this that serves no purpose. Stop trying to find ways to make people into victims. You know the best way to NOT be a victim? Don’t put yourself into a situation to be victimized. Some guy lied to you. Big fucking deal. Welcome to the club. There’s roughly 8 billion of us. You’re not special.
Cue-
Thanks for showing us what outright sexual bigotry looks like! That’ll be your last post!!
Also, this quote says consent is ineffective, but doesn’t say it’s invalidated or that any of the causes of its ineffectiveness are illegal. You’re playing stupid semantic games.
Cue Ball-
Wrong again- Law school, 101.
This perspective of the interview seems skewed, a bit of an over sensitive reaction to someone who has a long track record of being a proactive host. Most callers and the host largely agreed with the guest about the wider scope in general. But like any legislation the devil is in details and that’s where some disagreement entered. That part of the crucible of debate over any legislation. I hope everyone will listen to the interview, but in case you don’t have time let me inform the readers, according to Joyce’s own statements, false claims about being a multi-millionaire is acceptable to get a one night stand is perfectly legal, and any women who have morning regards about this would be laughed out of the police station. The host agreed that some of the various ‘mind games’ both men and women play in relationships can eventually go to far, especially when it involved marriage, and permanent sexual health issues.
Regarding the false name issue, I know people who go by a middle name, a nick name, or a pseudonym on a daily basis. Whether they use that name for dinner reservations, casual introductions, or intimate conversations I don’t see how that hurts anyone or constitutes fraud.
Another issue which I feel is being misrepresented is that of some women who claim they are medically incapable of getting pregnant, but somehow miraculously do so later in the relationship. A woman who is guilty of intentionally misrepresenting her ability to conceive a child is, in all fairness, just a guilty as a man who misrepresents his financial ability to support a child.
The last point I’ll make is that of making religion any of this. It’s seems the religions most people zealously follow are adamantly against premarital sex in the first place, yet over 80% of Christians (for one example) have premarital sex anyway. Are we to assume that 80% of Christians are lying about their true religion and guilty of sexual assault?
Sorry about the bad grammar. I was in a hurry and failed to proof this better.
Scott-
Thanks for your thought provoking comment.
1. Tom and I did not agree on the wider or narrower scope of the issue.
2. What I said about one night stands is that they are not prosecutorial, not that they are acceptable. People will simply not be able to press charges, even when they are defrauded, if they fail to behave responsibly themselves, such as…. they fail to conduct a reasonable amount of due-diligence before engaging in sex with someone.
3. False name does not mean a “nick-name.” It means you use “Donald Draper” when you are really “Dick Whitman.” And that was the exact example I stated, “just like in Mad Men.”
4. Someone who claims they had a hysterectomy, therefore they can’t get pregnant, is defrauding. Someone that says they’re on the pill and gets pregnant could be pregnant despite their best efforts.
5. No one has the right to determine what identity characteristics are important to another person. Religion could be a big issue for some, but not for others. It’s a matter of self determination that no one should be deprived of.
“4. Someone who claims they had a hysterectomy, therefore they can’t get pregnant, is defrauding. Someone that says they’re on the pill and gets pregnant could be pregnant despite their best efforts.”
So, essentially every single man who is paying alimony at the moment could use your proposed law and claim the woman said to not be able to get pregnant and stop paying alimony?
Thanks for responding Joyce, let me give a bit of rebuttal here because I listened to the interview twice.
1. It did seem to me there was a significant amount of overlap in a agreement with you and Tom, as well as other callers. But I’ll let listeners decide for themselves.
2. With regard to one night stands I appreciate that you see distinctions between socially acceptable behavior and behavior which should prosecuted. However, laughing someone out of the police station who regrets a consensual one night stand based on false claims of money or athletic prowess seems rather cruel if you still consider such a person to be a victim.
3. I don’t know of any reasonable standard how anyone could objectively distinguish between a nick name or fake name on a legal basis. While the intentions may different, both situations obscure the persons true legal identity.
4. I’m glad you clarified the hysterectomy issue, which was specifically mentioned on the show. Thank you.
5. It’s true that no one has the right to decide what is important to another person, but with topics such as religion you can end up with something similar to the whole “true scotsman” concept, and people do have the right to change their religious views and identity over their lifetime as well. Let me give you myself as an example. I was raised catholic, but I’m non-religious today and want nothing to do with the catholic church, and have never been involved with it as an adult. However, I would be hard-pressed to legally demonstrate i’m not catholic because there are many documents from my childhood such as a baptismal certificate, school records, and medical records all indicating my religion is catholic. Even despite my best effort as a legal adult, the catholic church will not annul my original baptismal certificate and still considers me to be a catholic in their eyes. If I told someone I was non-religious and they had intimate relations with me based on that they could later claim that I defrauded them because according to the best paperwork available I’m actually catholic. I’d be very hard pressed to demonstrate otherwise.
Scott-
1. Tom dismissed the entire concept of rape by fraud. He only recognized a criminal act if one lied when getting married.
2. I was simply alluding to an image that had already been stated. I don’t truly believe that a police officer should laugh at any criminal complaint at all, regardless of the merits of the case. They do however. A recent woman who went to the authorities in Florida was told “get out and don’t come back.”
3. There is an issue that goes beyond true legal identity that you don’t seem to be considering…. Lying about your name obscures the person’s ability to conduct research and due diligence. Most search engines will turn up the name and nickname of a person. Case in point: William Allen Jordan, a convicted bigamist and child molester, told his latest victim he was Liam Allen. His background, under his actual name, was all over the internet and a book had been written about his sex fraud cases in the UK. The victim was engaged to him, and pregnant with his child, when she found out his real name.
4. Happy to oblige.
5. I’m not talking about a person’s right to change their mind. I’m talking about a person who tells you they are actively practicing one religion when, in fact, they practice something very different at the time they made their claim.
Good thing for you, Joyce, that misrepresenting what took place on Tom Leykis’ show yesterday isn’t considered a crime.
“Until you understand that sex can produce a child, regardless of the precautions you take, don’t have sex! Accidents happen. Everyone who engages in sex must be willing to assume responsibility for the child that could be produced. Don’t want that responsibility, don’t have sex!”
___
In USA women do have choice about becoming a parent *after* they have got pregnant:
1) abortion
2) safe-haven laws
Men have absolutely nothing of the sort. Essentially women can force parenthood on men if they wish to.
Exactly! Women have the final say if a child comes into this world. In fact women have the only say.
And they just discover that fact after the woman gets pregnant? Nope, they knew it all along.
So here you are guys…..in case you didn’t know….. women can get pregnant when we have sex. It might be a good idea to have a discussion with a woman you’re planning to have sex with so you know her views on abortion, adoption, etc, before you have to face that situation.
That’s what a responsible guy, who wasn’t just thinking with his man-parts would do.
“It might be a good idea to have a discussion with a woman you’re planning to have sex with so you know her views on abortion, adoption, etc, before you have to face that situation.”
What if they lie about it? Men have NO way to protect themselves against such lies. It’s actually the opposite – women can force, by law, for men to pay child support for nearly two decades.
and Paternity Fraud is legal in almost every state.
If you think I get paid for my time or my advocacy, your’re 100% incorrect.
Well that’s a relief!
Doesn’t sound like what I heard on the show but congratulations on your commercial enterprise.