Brothers in arms

In the annals of stupid judicial decisions, this one by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
ranks up there with OJ. In their infinite wisdom, the court decided that a man who slept with his brother's girlfriend, while she believed that she was actually having sex with her boyfriend, was not committing an act of a rape. Addressing the defendant, Chief Justice Borat Sagdiyev said: "Very nice... High Five".

The court argued that Massachusetts law defines rape as sexual intercourse by force, while Sleazy McSexfiend was merely committing sexual intercourse by fraud. Many other states have gone the route of including fraud in a rape statute, which would immediately result in thousands of men who live in their parents' basements to be charged with rape. Personally, I'd estimate that 99% of all acts of sexual intercourse involve some level of fraud, at least 99% of all sex acts in which I've ever participated...

I suppose I can understand the courts' argument -- the law clearly defines rape as by force and applying this case might open the door for an enormous expansion of the law. Could a woman who was lied to by a boyfriend claim rape because he pretended he was richer than he was or that he had a better job than he did or that he had less children than he did?

However, my problem with strict interpretations of the law, specifically in a case like this, is that it closes the door on something as egregious as what happened. The defendant claimed the sex was consensual and that he didn't impersonate his brother, but the court didn't rule whether or not that was true or false; they simply said that didn't matter. Because the law is very specific in how it defines rape, this womans' case falls through the cracks.

Although it does beg the question: How in hell did she not tell the difference???? They had sex for 10 minutes!