Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Recruiting experts in
Accountancy & Finance

Lying to women to get sex apparently normal

By johnboy - 11 October 2013 45

The ABC has word on efforts by Akis Livas to get the courts to accept that tricking women into sex is OK by the law:

It is alleged Akis Livas, 50, stuffed an envelop with fake money and used it to pay for a prostitute’s services in 2010.

At the initial hearing, Mr Edmonds attempted to explain the argument by giving the example of a husband offering to buy his wife a fur coat in exchange for sex but then never making good on his promise.

He said that if every man who lied to get sex was guilty of rape then Australia would need five times the number of prisons.

They will argue that a fraudulent misrepresentation is not within the legal scope of what Livas is alleged to have done.

In a world where nuclear submarine commanders need to pretend to be special forces soldiers in order to get laid what hope honesty?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
45 Responses to
Lying to women to get sex apparently normal
BimboGeek 6:59 am 12 Oct 13

What if being a prostitute is really awful, feels like getting raped and the only reason qomen do it is for those few measly dollars that still don’t feel like enough?

“From a young age…I’ve been hardened to it…When I first started doing it, I cried my eyes out every day and just scrubbed myself in bleach…I felt like I’d been raped…it really screwed my mind up….you become hardened in your…heart and your soul to it…this is when you get the hatred for the men…Sometimes I really hate it.” http://soul-destruction.com/on-prostitution/

Diggety 2:15 am 12 Oct 13

I can’t help but wonder what actual rape victims think/feel of this charge?

Aeek 12:53 am 12 Oct 13

Masquara said :

caf said :

I always pretend to be a RiotACT editor to get laid.

Which one?

duh, the one that does get

Masquara 10:09 pm 11 Oct 13

caf said :

I always pretend to be a RiotACT editor to get laid.

Which one?

Robertson 6:46 pm 11 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

Surely this is simple theft? Or non payment for services?

Should be heard in the small claims court.

shirty_bear said :

brings to mind the old “I didn’t know I’d been raped until the cheque bounced” …

Exactly, and is to be hoped that his argument succeeds.

It seems likely that she has been the victim of fraud, but turning this into a public prosecution on the basis of retrospectively withdrawn consent is a serious perversion of the justice system.

poetix 6:23 pm 11 Oct 13

johnboy said :

We do OK

The submarine uniform must be costly to launder. Or is it more of a hassle to keep the secret service guns just in sight behind the computer?

The fact that I feel comfortable making jokes here indicates that I see this as a case of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, but not one of rape.

c_c™ 6:17 pm 11 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

Surely this is simple theft? Or non payment for services?

Should be heard in the small claims court.

First, there’s no such thing as simple theft. Second, you’re confusing criminal with civil liability.

None the less, you’re underlying point is valid. This sounds like an open and shut of 322A.

However, important to note Livas’ argument seems at odds with legislative provisions in both the ACT and NSW, both of which have provisions in the Crimes Act negating consent where it was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation. The balance of the law is really that of creating a presumption against consent in practice, and so given the context, all the court really has to ask if did he really think they would do anything if proper payment wasn’t exchanged? I really don’t think the court would take long to dispense with it.

Tetranitrate 4:45 pm 11 Oct 13

Dilandach said :

I’d have to agree with the ruling. Not that I support what the guy is done but instead of reaching for the ‘rape’ panic button when it clearly wasn’t rape. It should have been failing to pay for services rendered. I get the feeling that the ‘rape’ accusation was used to punish the guy just that bit extra that wouldn’t have happened with not paying for services (petrol drive off, running out on a meal).

Agreed, and given how badly clogged the courts already are it’s a complete farce that this has gotten as far as it has.

johnboy 4:24 pm 11 Oct 13

We do OK

farout 4:09 pm 11 Oct 13

So it was consentual, till she opened the envelop post-coitus and then withdrew her consent retrospectively?

And it wasn’t fake money, or he’d be busted for passing counterfeit money. It was just folded up paper.

Apparently she forgot the golden rule: check the money before you give him the honey.
also known as: count the dough, before on your back you go,

pptvb 4:01 pm 11 Oct 13

caf said :

I always pretend to be a RiotACT editor to get laid.

Been a while?

shirty_bear 3:18 pm 11 Oct 13

brings to mind the old “I didn’t know I’d been raped until the cheque bounced” …

chewy14 3:09 pm 11 Oct 13

Surely this is simple theft? Or non payment for services?

Should be heard in the small claims court.

caf 2:57 pm 11 Oct 13

I always pretend to be a RiotACT editor to get laid.

Dilandach 1:59 pm 11 Oct 13

I’d have to agree with the ruling. Not that I support what the guy is done but instead of reaching for the ‘rape’ panic button when it clearly wasn’t rape. It should have been failing to pay for services rendered. I get the feeling that the ‘rape’ accusation was used to punish the guy just that bit extra that wouldn’t have happened with not paying for services (petrol drive off, running out on a meal).

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site