Sex under false pretenses is a tort in almost every state. The Feminist Law Prof's blog applauds this move as a step forward in protecting a woman's right to chose, particularly, it asserts, because of all the dangerous STDs out there. My reactions:
1. The blog's other posts are about equality of the sexes. "Fraudulent inducement" is not about force, but guile. Women may be physically smaller on the whole, but eons of history show us that they are anything but guile-less. Do feminists really want to protect women from men who promise to call, or say that they'll buy you something, or, as I assume comes up, want to have unprotected sex and swear up and down that they are disease-free? How does that empower women?
2. This law, unlike the rape laws, would appear to apply to both parties equally. Perhaps it is a shock to women out there, but women go out and seek sex as men do. Sex in the city is an exaggeration, not a fiction. Should men who think you are 27 when you are 35 have a cause of action? What about telling them that you are disease-free? Seems to me that the tortious communication of a disease runs both ways.
3. I would need to read these laws to see how serious the tort has to be. Infecting people with HIV...well that doesn't need a new law -that's reckless endangerment +. What then constitutes "fraudulent inducement of sex" that couldn't be avoided by people being picky and using some common sense?
And before I get a million notes on this: I understand the difference between this and date rape. Make sure your comment makes the same distinction. This is something less than date rape. Consider also that the law is not always the best solution - some wrongs are just wrongs, not crimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment