The Riddle of Rape-by-Deception and the Myth of Sexual Autonomy

Abstract

"Rape-by-deception" is almost universally rejected in American criminal law. But if rape is sex without the victim's consent-as many courts, state statutes, and scholars say it is-then sex-by-deception ought to be rape, because as courts have held for a hundred years in virtually every area of the law outside of rape, a consent procured through deception is no consent at all. Moreover, rejecting rape-by-deception fails to vindicate sexual autonomy, which is widely viewed today as rape law's central principle and, indeed, as a constitutional right. This Article argues against the idea of sexual autonomy and against the understanding of rape as unconsented-to sex. A better understanding, it is argued, can be arrived at by comparing rape to slavery and torture, which are violations of a person's fundamental right to self-possession. This view of rape can explain the rejection of rape-by-deception, which current thinking cannot, but it will also suggest that rape law's much-maligned force requirement may not be so malign after all.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 96 citations exist upstream.