Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

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?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
45 Responses to
Lying to women to get sex apparently normal
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
chewy14 8:49 pm 13 Oct 13

lostinbias said :

chewy14 said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

BimboGeek said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

I wondered about that too so I dug.

Turns out he never went to his sentencing hearing. He ran away instead and just turned up last month.

He’s out on bail now, on a $6000 surety, because obviously he’s not a flight risk.
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.htm

The link didn’t work for me, but the story rings a bell.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it’s okay for him to change his plea retrospectively but not for her.

Because he’s a poor unfortunate victim who had no choice but to pay for sex. Which left this unfortunate soul with no money left to choose a good lawyer.
Isn’t that how this shirking of responsibility thing works? Or perhaps he simply realised how ridiculous the charge was in the first place?

>poor unfortunate victim

Looks as if we have our own RiotACT MRAs now…

Did you really need me to add the “sarc” tags?

Queen_of_the_Bun 6:44 pm 13 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

BimboGeek said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

I wondered about that too so I dug.

Turns out he never went to his sentencing hearing. He ran away instead and just turned up last month.

He’s out on bail now, on a $6000 surety, because obviously he’s not a flight risk.
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.htm

The link didn’t work for me, but the story rings a bell.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it’s okay for him to change his plea retrospectively but not for her.

Because he’s a poor unfortunate victim who had no choice but to pay for sex. Which left this unfortunate soul with no money left to choose a good lawyer.
Isn’t that how this shirking of responsibility thing works? Or perhaps he simply realised how ridiculous the charge was in the first place?

I’m still waiting to read the links for Bimbogeek’s statistics on prostitution.

Poor sad fellow, unable to get laid without money. As someone who hangs out at the Durham, he must be truly sad.

lostinbias 4:21 pm 13 Oct 13

c_c™ said :

Robertson said :

She gave consent based on a contract.

You’re just making crap up now.

And as for the language of her changing her mind, that’s an incorrect interpretation. NSW legislation is better drafted, and puts it in terms of if the consent was originally given the circumstances defined by the provision, the consent is taken to have never been given in the first place.

It’s a case of the consent was never actually given in the eyes of the law.

+1. If Robertson wants to talk about a contract then he could possibly give some thought to this:

The consent of the woman involved was dependent upon terms. One such term was payment. Payment was not recieved therefore terms of consent were broken therefore consent invalid therefore rape.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site