Speaking for myself, deceiving someone into having sex with you is bad in general. There are actual songs written about discovering your lover is the "wrong" gender, and cross dressers have been beaten-up / murdered for not admitting their gender to the person they're trying to pick up.
Like others have said, if you're in a relationship with someone else, I really don't know how you can hide your gender.
I addressed every one of your points seriatim that is hardly beating around the bush.
Ultimately it is the Constitution that rules which is why we see things like the Dred Scott decision overturned. I have not erred.
I doubt those statutes of been struck from the books. If you've got the energy to check those 18 states though, knock yourself out.
That's really a question of statutes not precedent, precedents get over turned all the time.
Well I don't want to be an endorphin slayer, because I do know how much satisfaction you derive from this comment, but actually . . . no.
I would imagine that's probably true.
Thanks.
More of the same. Beating around the bush to avoid admitting that you are wrong.
More mischaracterization.
And have you also had sex with a person with Swyer Syndrome?
Blimp pilot. That's hilarious.
Rape by deception already is illegal, certainly in the UK. There is a test case of a woman expecting a visit to her bedroom from her boyfriend, who left a ladder leading up to her window. A complete stranger climbed the ladder and had "consensual" sex and was only discovered when he was identified climbing back down the ladder. The girl apparently didn't notice. He was convicted of rape.
There certainly are. Consent is a pretty key element in defining whether a crime took place or not.
People can be raped while unconscious or while so intoxicated that they are incapable of informed consent. As in all crimes, distilling the general principles from the particulars is not always straightforward.
This gave me a moment's pause (thanks).
No mischaracterisation at all. You made a statement - "You think [rape and murder are] both capital crimes by coincidence per chance". When corrected with the fact that rape is not a capital crime anywhere in the US, you doubled down with "Unless you count the 18 states in which it's a capital crime."
Yes, she was. Whatever consent she gave wasn't informed, as she thought she was consenting to something with a different person. The same as a situation where someone's twin has sex with a person, pretending they are the other twin.
Speak for yourself. I wouldn't be disgusted. Disappointed, perhaps. But there's nothing to be disgusted about.
As far as the state legislatures are concerned they are capital crimes and when the correct precedent is set in the Supreme Court the state law will apply. This by the way is what the constitution says that criminal law is up to the states. Furthermore you are diverting to a minor point from the purpose of the example in the first place. And that is to impress upon the reader of this thread the seriousness of rape.
That is blatantly false and you cannot support it.
I already did scroll up.
As far as state law is concerned they're 18.
You are diverting away from my point.