http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20918642

That's some FAIL right there.

What kind of dumb ass law is that?

Maryland had a clear up of all its laws some time ago to get rid of laws like this. Maybe they need to consider clearing out the legislation of similar contradictions.

To be honest, this is a very unusual case and I would question whether it was "rape". The law may be odd, but I don't think it should have even been relevant in this case.



The "victim" only realised that sex wasn't consensual after the act, having mistaken Morales for her boyfriend until she saw him in the light of the morning. How was Morales to know this? We will never know without reliable video and audio footage of the event.

I would suggest that "she should have gone to spec-savers"...

Interestingly, I wonder how long she and her boyfriend had been together? For example, I would know right away if someone who wasn't Red started kissing and caressing me, we've been together 5 years but I reckon I'd have known straight away after maybe 6 months?

It is rape, there's no doubt about it, the man deliberately had sex with someone under false pretences and without their consent, in the same way that drugging someone to insensibility or having sex with them while they are compromised due to alcohol is, but the law (as ever) is an ass! There's no reason not to extrapolate Boyfriend to Husband and tbh I thought every country had case lawyers who look at all these laws and update them on a fairly regular basis.

No evidence was cited in that article to demonstrate that he was deliberately impersonating or trying to deceive her, and he believed he had consent.

The only reason this ridiculous law came up was because it meant he could get off without having to prove it one way or another. I don't think the law should be required at all; using deception of any kind to get a girl to have sex should be a crime. In this case however, we don't know that there was deception.

Of course as in so many rape cases, it's likely a question of he-says v she-says.

So he snuck into someone else room, having waited until her boyfriend left, then *while she was still asleep* started having sex with her and you don't think that constitutes sex under false pretences? I agree on the "he said, she said" -ness, but if the facts are as stated there is no possible way he couldn't have known what he was doing was wrong. In any case, there's no word on what happened after she realised he wasn't her boyfriend, only this stupid distinction in law about husband vs boyfriend.

Absolutely not. You're painting a picture full of details that simply are not there. I'm questioning how much "sneaking" there actually was.

His version is that he started making out with a girl, and she responded positively so they went all the way. Something that happens all the time for some people. No where in his version does it suggest that he sneakily manipulated anything. It probably never crossed his mind that she wouldn't recognise him.

I mean seriously, impersonating someone's lover just isn't something anyone would think up. It's a farce you could never get away with in real life.

Of course as I've said already, we do not know the facts. I just think the story you made up is less believable than the story he made up.

I do think what he did was immoral, especially if he knew the girl was in a relationship, but that's something entirely different.

We will have to agree to disagree on a point of subjectiveness. Whether or not it is believed by you and I to be rape or not doesn't change the fact that he was convicted (so clearly the jury believed her version of events) and that has only now been overturned because of an idiotic interpretation of a law.

The guy came on to a woman. She didn't resist. He thought this meant she was up for it. She thought it was her boyfriend and consented. Just by those facts alone, you could not call it rape.

Did he pretend to be the woman's partner? No.

However, IMO it's rape because she was asleep when it started. Even if it had been her partner who started having sex with her - the fact that she was asleep means she could not have consented and therefore it was rape. The problem is that when she woke, she didn't ask him to stop.

As for the law, I suspect at the time it was frowned upon for pre/extramarital sex and hence "boyfriend" didn't come into the equation.

I'd agree with that. However, apparently the jury did not see it that way. If that had been the basis for the conviction, it would not have been overturned.

I think this is the core of the issue. The point is that we all know intuitively that lack of protest or flight is not the same as consent. But in the majority of cases, if one party doesn't demonstrably attempt to stop what is happening, a jury will assume consent.

This is very choppy waters indeed, because you get into areas of sexual politics that are very.. difficult. We all know 'no means no', but are there certain situations where 'not saying no also means no'? And if so, how is the other party to know when that is?

I think the guy is a sleazebag and I think it's very unlikely any woman he knows is ever going to put themselves in a vulnerable position anywhere near him again (and I think he can also kiss goodbye to the notion of any woman ever consenting to anything with him) but we have to have a definition of 'rape' which is both fair as well as sufficiently protective of victims.

I can absolutely see why people think he should go back to jail. I kind of think so myself. But it's very hard to specify in a legal sense what he did as a crime without making a law that could get really ugly really quick. if we get to the point where the law has to consider 'well, did she (or indeed he) consent enough?' we're in deep trouble.

Jon

I remember a viral video a few years back where a teenage couple are kissing and want to take it further. Both get their lawyers to draw up contracts about what's allowed and what's not before a third party walks in. Sometimes I feel that they things will go is that to have sex, you will have to jump through several hoops and have to undergo a drugs and alcohol screen (to make sure you're not intoxicated) before things proceed.

I don't know which article you're reading that says she didn't tell him to stop as soon as she realised it was him! The article I read (quoted) only says

And that's all. It doesn't say it continued, with or without her consent.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I assumed that she didn't recognise him until after they'd finished.

If she told him to stop and he continued, then it wouldn't be impersonation he was prosecuted over - it would be the fact that he continued after he told her to stop. That would be sex without consent, rape, full stop.