moral philosophy time

>>36615714
In all instances yes, rape occurred.

This isn't philosophy. It's common sense to everyone but the severely autistic with no actual experience of relationships and emotions.

>>36615848
The real question is whether scenarios 3 and 4 would be treated with respect within a court of law.

In a court of law? Yes. Socially? Absolutely not. But on both sides there's problems with how this would be processed mentally. Nobody is blameless apart from the victim.

Also depends a lot on the relationship.

>>36615848
this

>>36616023
in uk law, a woman can't rape a man so no, they wouldn't be treated equally

1 Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 Yes

>>36615714
1.
Was she raped, no
Was her trust violated and should they file for divorce? yes
2.
Same as above
3.
Same as above
4.
Same as above

>>36616055
I live in the UK and your second point is completely wrong

Penetrative rape is one thing, if a woman penetrates a man with an object it's the same. But sex without consent is still rape, just like domestic abuse is domestic abuse

yes
yes
yes
yes
where's my reward?

I've had the 'rape by deception' debate a million times. My answer was always 'yes, it's rape' and I just don't even vaguely get what people who say 'no' are getting at. Of course it's fucking rape. Is it not murder if I trick you to think the gun I shoot you with shoots Root Beer instead of bullets?

I mean like fuck, this shit isn't rocket science. Consent obtained by deception isn't consent; if you think that it is, you basically're basically saying that you can do literally anything you want to someone as long as you can trick them into believing something false.

>>36616109
My mum's a lawyer as is my best friend. But to prove you don't know what you're talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law
>he offence is created by section of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
> 1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if
> (a) they intentionally penetrate the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis
> (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
> (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Unless you want to show me a man with a vagina, a man can't be raped in english law
Stop spreading disinformation. They can be sexually assaulted, but that's not the same thing

>inb4 backpedalling to try and save your dignity on an anonymous imageboard

>>36615714
Yes all are rape, albeit unconsentual sex as opposed to blantant refusal followed by forced sex

>>36616119
consent by deception is not rape

if you think it is you should read law and see what else you can make legal by deceiving the victim, if the fool signs on the dotted line that's the fools problem for being too stupid to realize the deception amirite?

Until they fix the problem with deception being ok in other parts as long as the other person signs i won't see this as rape either, consent was given even if it was through deception, watch what you sign with more care in future and go lick your wounds for being a fool

>is it rape if a guy pretends to be a celebrity and the girl is too ignorant to realize he wasn't a celebrity?
See in this case it is no too, how is the OP's scenario any different?

>go to buy a tv
>get a 50 inch plasma or whatever
>late at night so sleepy
>pay for it
>found out next morning that the store gave me a 45 inch OLED
is it theft?

>>36616119
What if you said you were a doctor to impress a girl but you weren't. Would that be rape?

Assuming it is for you, what about lying and saying you're friends with Tiger Woods?
What about lying and saying you love her?

It's a slippery slope to say it's always rape

If a man tells his gf to sleep with him or else he'll sleep with someone eilse and she does end up sleeping with him, was she raped?

OP your question is fundamentally absurd\flawed.

You haven't defined 'rape' at all, everyone here knows there are a thousand definitions of this term. Unless you define it, there's no way we can fit the definition, most people will assume you're referring to the law but as as you claim that this thread is about 'moral philosophy' you really need to define rape with some rigor.

>>36616247
Women want society to coddle them to the grave, no responsibilities but all the good shit men get

>Woman being drunk, guy being drunk, both agree to sex, wake up in the morning, women regrets fucking a dude because she will look like a slut, now the guy raped her suddenly

Dear women, own up to your bullshit and stop being little kids, or if you want to be little kids learn to be treated as such (see middle-east)

>>36616254
I'd call it emotional abuse personally

Women just want to "get out of responsibility card" with rape these days, soon just the act of having consensual sex with a woman gives her the option of calling it rape if she feels like doing so

>"give me money or ill tell everyone you raped me"
>"ill tell the police you're blackmailing me!"
>"court is on my side, have fun being raped and stabbed in jail"
>"... fuck"

>>36616189
No back peddling, I'm a shitposter with an approximate understanding of most of what I talk about.

It's a good way to learn actually

>>36616247

My answer to the doctor question is 'no, not rape.' I just re-read the OP and I realized that it's slightly less extreme than the version I'm used to. In the one I've come across before, the 'second man' impersonates the husband perfectly, which clearly invalidates consent because, if you can actually do it, the person clearly can't be blamed for their error--your deception has broken down all their possible defenses, you are clearly operating without their consent, and you're clearly doing it intentionally, because an impersonation that effective involves deliberate effort.

As worded in the OP it's a little more ambiguous, but I think it depends on the lengths the guy went to, whether the woman was REALLY tricked or just going along with it, etc.

Consent questions always involve drawing a line. But if you think that because that line isn't written for you with a bright blue line, you pretty much have to get rid of the entire concept of 'fraud' as a category of crimes and say it's OK to scam people into literally anything as long as your BS story is good enough. Like the same logic would allow you to pass off stainless steel jewelry as silver to elderly customers.