UK approves sex under false pretenses for intelligence gathering

[secrets0stolen]

I think why this skeeves me out so much more than, to use a stereotypical example, a guy lying about how much money he makes or how he feels about cats, is cause they're lying about their fundamental identity. They're saying I care about everything you care about and am working along side you, when really they probably couldn't give a **** and are working against them. I assume the first is what comes to people's minds when they say it shouldn't be illegal..or something?

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by NSS

If "sex under false pretenses" was a crime more than half of those aged 18-25 would be in jail.

Lol this is so true.


I don't think "sex under false pretenses" should be illegal in any way, shape, or form.

If it was, does this mean I can have a woman jailed because I thought her tits were real when they weren't? Or can I have a girlfriend arrested because when she took off her makeup she was hideous? Those are some pretty false pretenses to me!

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

They're saying I care about everything you care about and am working along side you, when really they probably couldn't give a **** and are working against them.

There are plenty of women who marry men only for their money after a divorce, and lie about being in love etc etc. So it goes both ways.

Also, interestingly enough, the dating website OkCupid said that based on their statistics, the average man and woman both lie about their height and, on average, say that they are 1-2 inches taller than they are. So at least in that area, women and men are both equal liars.

I don't think regulating sex and relationships is an area that any government should touch. Every case would be a "he said/she said" situation.



Punishing someone for intentionally spreading an STD, I can understand, if the giver of the STD knew ahead of time about it and did nothing to prevent the transmission of it.

But making it illegal to lie to another human being, well, where would it end? Who could possibly have the authority to dictate what level of lies are acceptable, and what level of lies should be illegal? I don't think our legal system is capable of doing that.

[elucidate]

True. Many women can be just as deceptive.

Many guys who sleep with women and aren't cops can pretend to be something they aren't as well.

If the women in those alternative political groups know that they are being targetted by the cops, in protests and such, then you would think they would be a bit more discerning about who they sleep with...not that it's their fault of course...but if they want to live a promiscuous lifestyle they have to be prepared to meet men who aren't always what they seem.

I would EXPECT cops to be infiltrating my subculture as a way of extracting information, if it was one that was politically controversial enough, and be careful not to be too trusting.

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Lol this is so true.


I don't think "sex under false pretenses" should be illegal in any way, shape, or form.

If it was, does this mean I can have a woman jailed because I thought her tits were real when they weren't? Or can I have a girlfriend arrested because when she took off her makeup she was hideous? Those are some pretty false pretenses to me!




There are plenty of women who marry men only for their money after a divorce, and lie about being in love etc etc. So it goes both ways.

Also, interestingly enough, the dating website OkCupid said that based on their statistics, the average man and woman both lie about their height and, on average, say that they are 1-2 inches taller than they are. So at least in that area, women and men are both equal liars.

I don't think regulating sex and relationships is an area that any government should touch. Every case would be a "he said/she said" situation.



Punishing someone for intentionally spreading an STD, I can understand, if the giver of the STD knew ahead of time about it and did nothing to prevent the transmission of it.

But making it illegal to lie to another human being, well, where would it end? Who could possibly have the authority to dictate what level of lies are acceptable, and what level of lies should be illegal? I don't think our legal system is capable of doing that.

[Plays With Life]

Do you really need to "infiltrate" an activist group? They seem pretty vocal. Couldn't you just walk up and ask them what they're up to?

Criminalization of sex under false pretenses seems pretty complex. Suppose a person lies about their age? A woman says she's 30 when she's actually 35. Would the man who had sex with her then be in his rights to sue her?

Studies show that people tend to lie about little things pretty frequently. The idea of criminalizing sex under false pretenses makes me wonder - which things, exactly, would you need to lie about for the court to consider what you presented "false pretenses"? What if you lied about the color of your car? What if a person expressed something that they remembered incorrectly - would the person who had sex with them then be able to sue, because what they believed was incorrect?

It seems like a difficult thing to enforce.

How often does the average person tell a lie? | Curiosity
>According to Feldman, 60 percent of the subjects lied at least once during the [10 minute] conversation, and in that span of time, subjects told an average of 2.92 false things.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Do you really need to "infiltrate" an activist group? They seem pretty vocal. Couldn't you just walk up and ask them what they're up to?

You could, but if you are a cop they probably wouldn't tell you anything...hence the undercover work.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by elucidate

You could, but if you are a cop they probably wouldn't tell you anything...hence the undercover work.

Aren't the events they plan pretty much public events? I didn't think activist groups did things that were sort of covert.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Studies show that people tend to lie about little things pretty frequently. The idea of criminalizing sex under false pretenses makes me wonder - which things, exactly, would you need to lie about for the court to consider what you presented "false pretenses"? What if you lied about the color of your car? What if a person expressed something that they remembered incorrectly - would the person who had sex with them then be able to sue, because what they believed was incorrect?

It seems like a difficult thing to enforce.

The cases I know of where deception was invoqued as a definition of rape involved the rapist slipping into the victim's bed in the dark, and the victim assumed it was their spouse. Or somewhat similar scenarios involving intoxication, blindfolding... Basically the victim thought they were having sex with someone with whom they would have consented to have sex. I don't know if lying about yourself has ever led to prosecution.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Aren't the events they plan pretty much public events? I didn't think activist groups did things that were sort of covert.

Well, that is some of what they do, but you know yourself that certain groups can be a little beligerent...like the people who decided to break into the ship containing all those sheep headed for muslim countries a while back, and slipped meat into their feed, thus rendering them "unkosher". I think that's what they are looking for...not the public protests, as they are usually legal.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by aelle

The cases I know of where deception was invoqued as a definition of rape involved the rapist slipping into the victim's bed in the dark, and the victim assumed it was their spouse. Or somewhat similar scenarios involving intoxication, blindfolding... Basically the victim thought they were having sex with someone with whom they would have consented to have sex. I don't know if lying about yourself has ever led to prosecution.

Wow. It makes sense to me in those circumstances.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by aelle

The cases I know of where deception was invoqued as a definition of rape involved the rapist slipping into the victim's bed in the dark, and the victim assumed it was their spouse. Or somewhat similar scenarios involving intoxication, blindfolding... Basically the victim thought they were having sex with someone with whom they would have consented to have sex. I don't know if lying about yourself has ever led to prosecution.

A guy once pretended to be a scottish tourist to get into my pants. He wasn't a cop, but does that mean I should have prosecuted him for rape? ( I didn't sleep with him btw, I busted him before it got that far when his accent mysteriously shifted from scottish to irish suddenly(

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Well, that is some of what they do, but you know yourself that certain groups can be a little beligerent...like the people who decided to break into the ship containing all those sheep headed for muslim countries a while back, and slipped meat into their feed, thus rendering them "unkosher". I think that's what they are looking for...not the public protests, as they are usually legal.

Ah, OK. I didn't know about that situation. I guess some activist groups start doing disruptive things.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by aelle

The cases I know of where deception was invoqued as a definition of rape involved the rapist slipping into the victim's bed in the dark, and the victim assumed it was their spouse. Or somewhat similar scenarios involving intoxication, blindfolding... Basically the victim thought they were having sex with someone with whom they would have consented to have sex. I don't know if lying about yourself has ever led to prosecution.

Yikes

But in this case, the women saw the men they chose to have sex with. Did it matter to them what they did for a living? No, they were interested sexually in them. I'm guessing they only chose the better looking male police man for the job?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Ah, OK. I didn't know about that situation. I guess some activist groups start doing disruptive things.

They do PLENTY of stuff that is disruptive, and they justify it because it's the cause they are committed to.

[Plays With Life]

I can just imagine people getting carried with the sex-under-false-pretenses law.

"Well damn it, I only have sex with people who own blue cars. He told me he had a blue car!"

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I can just imagine people getting carried with the sex-under-false-pretenses law.

"Well damn it, I only have sex with people who own blue cars. He told me he had a blue car!"

Yes, that would open up a whole other can of worms. It happens all the time really, people pretending to be something they are not to get sex.

[aelle]

There was a case a few years ago in France where a marriage was annulled because the bride had lied about being a virgin, knowing full well that the groom wouldn't marry her if she hadn't been. Then once they were married she told him the truth. Not that virginity matters to everyone, but to this one guy it was a deal breaker, he had made it clear to her and she lied to get her way. I find it fair that he got the marriage annulled.

I tend to think that the same principle should apply to consensual sex. If there are qualities about your sexual partner that dealbreakers (ie you wouldn't consent to having sex to someone with these qualities), that you make them known and that someone deliberately lies and sleeps with you, this seems wrong to me. Even if these qualities are unusual to most people.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by aelle

There was a case a few years ago in France where a marriage was annulled because the bride had lied about being a virgin, knowing full well that the groom wouldn't marry her if she hadn't been. Then once they were married she told him the truth. Not that virginity matters to everyone, but to this one guy it was a deal breaker, he had made it clear to her and she lied to get her way. I find it fair that he got the marriage annulled.

I tend to think that the same principle should apply to consensual sex. If there are qualities about your sexual partner that dealbreakers (ie you wouldn't consent to having sex to someone with these qualities), that you make them known and that someone deliberately lies and sleeps with you, this seems wrong to me. Even if these qualities are unusual to most people.

My mother lied to my father before they got married. He said he wouldn't marry her if she continued to be a smoker. Those were his standards, and she agreed to them. 5 minutes after she had signed the papers at the church, she went outside and lit up a fag, and continued to smoke all the way through the marriage (35 years). After she left him 4 years ago, she quit!

Look, I agree with you aelle. it's dodgy as, and I was pissed off when I found out the NOT scottish guy had lied to me, and didn't sleep with him just because of that fact, even though I liked him and it didn't really matter to me what nationality he was or that he was not a traveller 'just passing through'...I was only after a one nighter as well.

With this scenario though, I just think the women in those groups might have been better off only sticking to the men they knew were kosher and avoiding new men just on the scene. It's yucky that they had to experience that, but that is the risk when you get involved with radical activist groups, and a promiscuous lifestyle that you choose to be a part of. You are then open to all sorts of dodgy people.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by aelle

There was a case a few years ago in France where a marriage was annulled because the bride had lied about being a virgin, knowing full well that the groom wouldn't marry her if she hadn't been. Then once they were married she told him the truth. Not that virginity matters to everyone, but to this one guy it was a deal breaker, he had made it clear to her and she lied to get her way. I find it fair that he got the marriage annulled.

I tend to think that the same principle should apply to consensual sex. If there are qualities about your sexual partner that dealbreakers (ie you wouldn't consent to having sex to someone with these qualities), that you make them known and that someone deliberately lies and sleeps with you, this seems wrong to me. Even if these qualities are unusual to most people.

That makes sense to me.

[beast]

Originally Posted by aelle

There was a case a few years ago in France where a marriage was annulled because the bride had lied about being a virgin, knowing full well that the groom wouldn't marry her if she hadn't been. Then once they were married she told him the truth. Not that virginity matters to everyone, but to this one guy it was a deal breaker, he had made it clear to her and she lied to get her way. I find it fair that he got the marriage annulled.

I tend to think that the same principle should apply to consensual sex. If there are qualities about your sexual partner that dealbreakers (ie you wouldn't consent to having sex to someone with these qualities), that you make them known and that someone deliberately lies and sleeps with you, this seems wrong to me. Even if these qualities are unusual to most people.

I agree - it's wrong. Lying can be a strong basis for marriage annulment, and, in this case (and many others) it's morally indefensible, too. I think it's pretty disgusting that people would deliberately lie in order to sleep with someone else, but I don't think it should be illegal (except in certain cases, like maybe deliberately spreading STDs). I think boning on the job should get you fired in most cases (and probably this one, too) but I don't think that should be illegal, either.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by elucidate

With this scenario though, I just think the women in those groups might have been better off only sticking to the men they knew were kosher and avoiding new men just on the scene. It's yucky that they had to experience that, but that is the risk when you get involved with radical activist groups, and a promiscuous lifestyle that you choose to be a part of. You are then open to all sorts of dodgy people.

First of all, the article (and other sources) confirmed that in the case that was getting attention, they'd known each other for four years...

Secondly, although the police statement made it sound that way, not everyone is these groups is promiscuous, nor is it necessarily the norm. Some of the activists are even celibate as a default because they don't have time for a social life (obviously not the one that got tricked ) Some are married and have families. Some only have sex with other activists, some make a policy of never having sex with other activists. It's really diverse.

[Angela]

The honey trap.... don't you guys ever read your John Le Carre'?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

First of all, the article (and other sources) confirmed that in the case that was getting attention, they'd known each other for four years...

Secondly, although the police statement made it sound that way, not everyone is these groups is promiscuous, nor is it necessarily the norm. Some of the activists are even celibate as a default because they don't have time for a social life (obviously not the one that got tricked ) Some are married and have families. Some only have sex with other activists, some make a policy of never having sex with other activists. It's really diverse.

Ok, well, I obviously needed to read the article a bit more closely...thanks.

4 years...wow, that's devotion to duty.

[Brutha]

How dare those police officers say "Uh yeah, they were promiscuous (what on earth does that mean anyway? It's like something you'd hear from a Victorian judge) and that makes it ok to lie to them."

The discussion isn't about whether it's okay that undercover cops lie but whether it's okay that they have sex.

Originally Posted by faithsdaddy

But as bad as the police are, the PC brigade are FAR worse. It's getting so that schools aren't taking kids for trips anymore, because they are worried about getting sued. The fire brigade were forced to let someone drown because their supervisor was worried they would get blamed if anything went wrong.

That has nothing to do with political correctness.
YouTube - Stewart Lee - 9 - Political Correctness - 41st Best Stand-Up ever might help you.

In many legal systems, it's already the case - deception implies an absence of consent, and deceiving someone in order to have sex is rape.

Most people who are in love are deceived by their loved ones and think that their loved one is smarter, more attractive to the average person and has a lot of other characteristics that don't match up with reality.

As you can imagine it's not nearly as often considered for prosecution as other forms of absence of consent, but the letter of the law is there.

The letter of the law doesn't say that deception always means that there no consent.

As for this particular story, I'm not sure which I find more sleazy - that intelligence officers deceived their sexual and romantic partners, or that it was part of their job. Can you imagine being expected to sleep around for your job?

In the story it's not like their bosses told them to sleep around. They made that decision on their own.

I tend to think that the same principle should apply to consensual sex. If there are qualities about your sexual partner that dealbreakers (ie you wouldn't consent to having sex to someone with these qualities), that you make them known and that someone deliberately lies and sleeps with you, this seems wrong to me. Even if these qualities are unusual to most people.

You can write up a contract in which you specify such requirements and afterwards sue people for breaking the contract.

They're saying I care about everything you care about and am working along side you, when really they probably couldn't give a **** and are working against them.

I don't think that's an accurate description just because someone is a policeman doesn't mean that he doesn't care about any values.
A policeman can support a general goal like saving the environment but oppose sabotage.