Drilling four bullet holes into his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, wasn’t sufficient to convict Oscar Pistorius, famous South African, double amputee and Olympic runner, for murder. His jail term on a manslaughter conviction, 5 years, meant spending only 12 months behind bars. He’ll serve the balance of his sentence under house arrest. Pistorius gets his Get Out of Jail (almost) Free card on October 20th.
The score is currently 1,051 “no” to 50 “yes.” The question? Should lying about yourself for sex be considered rape? This poll is being conducted by NJ.com.
It’s really troubling that so few people responding have any sense of the foulness of defrauding a person for sex. And the media is spinning it in a way that incites hysteria. Here’s my response to the offensively silly questions that have been raised on this issue on NJ.com and elsewhere.
Here’s your statement::
“In other words, it’d be illegal to tell someone you were a millionaire to coerce them into bed if you are actually broke.”
Sorry, but you’re misleading the public.
Here’s what they actually need to know about this law….
Several types of non-violent rape are, in fact, punishable in NJ….
When a person is slipped a drug, or under the influence of dope or alcohol, violence does not necessarily occur. When a person is underage or mentally incapable of consent,violence does not necessarily occur. All of these forms of prosecutorial rape have a common core. They are all a means that offenders use in order to vitiate a victim’s “knowing consent” over their sexual sanctity, and strip them of self determination.
In fact, violent sexual assault is the crime of “sexual assault”, not “assault,” because it vitiates the victim’s “knowing consent” over their sexual sanctity.
So violence, doping, intoxicating, coercing, sexually violating someone too young, or too mentally challenged, are all manners of sexual assault, because they ALL vitiate knowing consent. Likewise, fraud vitiates knowing consent, and when used in sex, it vitiates the victim’s knowing consent regarding their sexual sanctity.
These are the legal premises that apply:
A. “Non-consensual sex is sexual assault.” Don’t believe me? Read the It’sOnUs Pledge endorsed by President Obama.
B. Global Consent, according to Model Penal Code- “Consent is INEFFECTIVE if induced by force, duress, or deception.” Global Consent pertains to all things, (that;s why its called “global,”) not all things except sexual assault!
This law simply connects the dots between these two widely accepted legal premises. And by, the way, several states have similar laws. Tennessee and Alabama in particular, although various scenarios of rape by fraud are covered in other states as well. No one goes to jail in those states for saying they’re a millionaire when they are dirt poor.
Again, your words:
“The measure doesn’t consider sexual assault by fraud any less serious than other types of sexual assault already on the books. It could be a first degree or second degree crime depending on “the circumstances surrounding the act.” The punishment could be 10 to 20 years in prison in the former and 5 to 10 years in prison in the latter.”
Every state’s penal code establishes “degrees” for each crime. The media has incorrectly stated how that works. No one in their right mind would ever equate the nightmare of violent rape with the severity of ANY form of non-violent rape. But all forms of rape will cause the victim to feel defiled.
The DEGREE of severity will be up to the powers that be to ascribe, as is the custom for every other crime that exists in New Jersey’s penal code. And the degree of crime for this law has yet to be established.
So let’s look at who will actually be punished for committing this crime…
Will lies of “he said, she said” in which there is insufficient proof for the Prosecutor to try a case, or for the Grand Jury to indict lead to an arrest? Ridiculous! So all the silliness of getting arrested for wearing false eyelashes or Spanx is just that… silliness. A person’s appearance could never get them arrested under this law.
No one could be arrested for telling someone they are Brad Pitt’s best friend or that they will marry the person in the morning and fail to do so.
Don’t get me wrong… it’s not that this form of lying to secure sex isn’t a crime….. but there must be a level of proof that is prosecutorial in order for an arrest to be made. If you’re driving 56 in a 55 mile an hour zone, are you speeding? Sure! Will you be arrested? How absurd!
A person who lies about their intent would simply insist that they changed their mind. And lies of identity can only be pursued with sufficient proof to convince a Prosecutor, Grand Jury, and a Jury.
People who come into the room under cover of darkness and pretend to be someone they are not… the boyfriend, husband, wife, etc, of the victim, can be prosecuted.
People who engage in an elaborate hoax for which there is ample proof, can be prosecuted.
People who are told the doctor is penetrating them with a medical instrument, but inserts his man-parts instead can be prosecuted.
People who defraud a victim into thinking they are perfectly healthy when they can transmit a life altering communicable illness can be prosecuted.
Anything that is new to people will frequently meet with scorn and ridicule. This law is no different. Scorn and ridicule are often the first step toward acceptance.
Lying to sexually penetrate a victim is a defilement. Lies are not prosecutorial without significant proof. So folks can keep taking off those wedding bands, but if you do so, you should know that you are a CAD and you are defiling them, not seducing them. BTW, I keep a list of people who are reported to me for doing so on my blog, http://www.RapeByFraud.com.
This morning, I was happy to see Donna Anderson at LoveFraud pick up on a position that I’ve advocated for quite some time, and focused on in my book. And I did so because when people understand the chemical mechanics of romantic addiction, it makes it easier to cut the chord.
How and why brain chemistry connects us
Mother nature provided us with brain chemistry to bond us to our lover. It enables us to create offspring and cohabit with the other parent in order to provide the nurture and protections needed for their development. Love, therefore, has to be a strong and binding glue because the children of homo sapiens are the slowest to develop on the entire planet. Oxytocin, a powerful neurotransmitter in the brain, that aids in trust, love and emotions, as well as other “love” chemicals, are what separates man from beasts.
Dr. Paul Zak describes the role of oxytocin in his book, The Moral Molecule. And Scientific American refers to it as love glue. Coupled together, with our brain’s additional chemistry, they serve us as both the bait and the hook. But when we enter a relationship with a character disordered person, instead of becoming fulfilled and loved, we become damaged and at risk. The chemicals we were provided fight with our conscious awareness to keep us embedded. They begin to function as a toxic glue.
And our code of morality, which evolves over many years, together with the influence of abundant experiences, also defines how we react in romantic situations. For many of us, we develop a code of commitment to a loved one, and we feel shame when we behave out of character with our own personal code, better known as values. A crafty emotional predator can use our own inherent value system to shame us into remaining.
Fear induced bonding
There is yet another strong chemically-related bond that forms in relationships where there is trauma. Misattribution Affect has been aptly described by Dr. Kristin McKinney. When people experience heightened fear, their adrenaline starts pumping. Going through a traumatic event makes us bond with people with whom we share this circumstance. For instance, riding the roller coaster at the County Fair sparked many a relationship. If the couple wasn’t holding hands when they embarked, they were likely to be when the ride ended. As we go through the roller coaster of a relationship with an offender, even though they have caused us harm, we can feel more bonded with them.
A toxic relationship provides the pain of a constant hook. It is damaging to live with, and excruciating to walk away from.
People will often settle for the relative peace and apologetic behavior that occurs between episodes of abuse. Marriages can take place as a result of a predator’s temporary contriteness between times of turbulence. The victim can easily confuse the offer of marriage, even when made by the offender as an attempt to curtail exposure, as a sincere commitment to reform. And it is easy for a victim to be persuaded when they fall within a calm portion of the cycle of harm.
There is no way to turn, in or out of the relationship with a predator, that is not painful. Victims must surmount their fear of the pain and loss, that they associate with walking away, in order to take that necessary step.
Because of the terrible pain we feel at the loss, only through consistent and repeated harm, or the discard of the offender, do morally committed people sever a romantic relationship. In cases like Reeva Steenkamp, it’s likely that she died at the hands of her lover, Oscar Pistorius, before she reached the point at which she could free herself from her emotional bond. Pistotius’s cruelty spiraled out of control prior to her reconciling the discrepancy between her “feelings” and the reality of her predicament.
The need for No Contact
Often, even once a victim pulls away, what they feel as a deep-rooted emotional appeal, can draw them back again. They go through a period of turmoil, ruminating about their circumstance, emotionally heaping blame on themselves for not being more of this or less of that. Their brain plays the “if only I had” game as if something they did made the psychopath an aggressor. They can fall into deep depression and need to grieve their loss like grieving over the death of someone close to them. While the offender did not die, their relationship with them died. Having no contact, guards against recycling the predator’s pull and helps assure separation.
When we drink alcohol, it makes our brain feel a certain way. Abstention makes us crave the way we felt to an even stronger degree. Abstaining from a toxic relationship can produce a similar result. Unless people know the chemistry behind their craving, they are susceptible to relapse, which takes the form of forgiving.
How to know we need to go….
Once we recognize that the person is devoid of emotional empathy, getting away from them is the only way to regain our life and equilibrium. Emotional empathy is the knee-jerk reaction we have to other people’s pain or circumstance. Without it, we can’t develop a conscience. A psychopath will not change. They are wired that way. And putting oneself back onto their pathway only puts us in harm’s way.
What happens if the relationship produced a child?
Unfortunately, victims who parent with miscreants will have a lifetime of toxic behaviors to deal with. Victims must do everything possible to build the oxytocin receptors in their children’s brains, early-on, because they are especially at-risk for developing without emotional empathy. They have a pre-disposition to a genetic flaw. Modern mental health professionals tell us that approximately 4% of the world’s population is comprised of psychopaths. Not everyone who is the child of a psychopath will become one. But they are seriously at-risk of doing so. Dr. Liane Leedom constructs a pathway toward character development for children in her book, Just Like His Father.
If you are experiencing raising a child with someone you suspect of psychopathy, minimizing your own personal interaction with the other parent should be done to the greatest extent possible. Be cognizant of the chemical pulls that could cause you to feel drawn back toward their appeal. Be sure to retain sight of the harm you were dealt and live in reality. While they can exude the charm that attracted you initially, they are toxic at their core. And when they recognize you are no longer fooled by them, they can and will try everything possible to undermine you, including alienating your children. Stay smart. Seek professional guidance.
Seems like an over abundance of swamp water drowns out the need to protect victims in Louisiana. The Bayou State has several statutes on rape, but none measure up on rape by fraud! There is aggravated rape, forcible rape, and simple rape. The construct that comes closest to rape by fraud, in Louisiana’s negligent criminal code, is simple rape, 43(a)(1).
In statute 43(a)(1), one example of simple rape is defined as sexual intercourse without the lawful consent of the victim when the victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by reason of a stupor or abnormal condition of mind produced by an intoxicating agent or any cause and the offender knew or should have known of the victim’s incapacity.
The argument that could support a rape by fraud claim under this statute is that the victim was as unaware of the nature of the act as an intoxicated or drugged victim would be. Their consent, in any of the related cases, would not be freely given and knowing consent, because the offender duped them, (any cause,) into the act, and knew they were doing so at the time.
The ambiguity of this law could be cleared up by simply inserting the words “or duplicity” after “intoxicating agent.”
Protecting Wives Against Rape by Fraud
Louisiana’s statutes do contain one specific act of rape by fraud; (in the inducement,) that of impersonating the husband of the victim.
By having implemented this law, Louisiana clearly shows that the use of fraud in seduction breaches knowing consent, but reserves their remedy solely for married women. This concept comes from the notion that a wife is a husband’s property. Defiling her is punishable because it is an offense against the husband. Unmarried women, therefore, are unprotected. Idaho case tested the practice for single women If a man posed as a boyfriend or fiancee, the charge would not apply. In a 2011 case in Idaho, against Zachary McGraw, the case was in fact dismissed because the victim was unmarried. The Judge on the case, the Hon. Cheri Copsey, found the disparity in the law “despicable”, but never-the-less, it still stands in Idaho and Louisiana. (Refer to pg. 184 of Carnal Abuse by Deceit.)
§43.3 When the female victim submits under the belief that the person committing the act is her husband and such belief is intentionally induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the offender.
Louisiana’s statute on fraud as it relates to Theft, is crystal clear!
Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations.
The degrees of damage under this statute vary according to the monetary value of the loss. It appears that losing your most precious asset, your sexual sanctity, does not measure up to consideration since it has no quantifiable monetary value. Take a man’s money, off to jail you go. Defile a woman, (or anybody for that matter,) no problem!