So, for example, a GW grad who lied and said he was a GULC grad just so hot women would hump him would be liable under this statute?

What about owing damages to GULC for making everyone think Georgetown doesn't pack the equipment?

I have a novel idea. keep your legs closed, and you wont have to worry about liars!

Wait, think about it......

What, you don't think Lat's ever been played?

remember, girls lie just as much if not more than guys in a relationship. where's the tortious inducement to forming a relationship?

What about women who lie to get pregnant and a lifetime of child support payments from a rich man they care nothing about?

I shall dub this law the PHA - "Player Hater's Act"

What lies could their be that equal rape? I drive a BMW (really a Ford)? I'm rich (unemployed)? That's what you get for being a golddigger.

What if a guy says "I love you." How could you possibly prove he didn't mean it at the time.

This woman is a liberal nut. Look at some of her work on her bio page.

So, does this mean we can sue women for lying about being on the pill?

Great minds think alike, 5:02.

4:56. Good call, but why would any GW grad trying to get laid claim to be a GULC grad? GULC is for idiots and AU rejects !!!

The professor mentions the spread of diseases, but it has always been tortious if you said you didn't have herpes or the HIV. Sex is a battery. The consent is what makes it ok. There are countless, and not so recent cases, holding that if you know you have an STD and say you don't then the consent is not valid, making the tortfeasor liable for battery. Lying about being married or being a pro athlete/rock star should never be tortious. That's what they use to call buyer beware.

What unadulterated bullshit. Interesting how the good professor assumes that men are the only ones who ever lie to get sex. No doubt they're the only ones who will ever be prosecuted for me.

5:02 - bingo.No chance in hell that author thought of THAT one when she proposed this ridiculous scheme.

This is absolute nonsense - pure, unadulterated, unbridled NONSENSE.

".... misappropriation of a woman’s personal right to choose who invades her body."

If it's consensual sex, is it correct to call it an "invasion" of her body?

Better watch it, 5:06(2). That's exactly the kind of lie that, if told to get me naked, could get you thrown in jail.

Claiming that your school (AU?) doesn't suck is just as bad as claiming that you went to a better school that really doesn't suck. Does that make sense?

The threshhold for liability is 5 US News or Vault spots of puffery, with blackline violations at the T14 and V5, respectively.

Also grounds for liability in your case: claiming to be a very good lover.

Cue Penn State / U. Penn jokes in three, two, one....

They don't have these draconian laws in Asia. Let's all move to Asia. I will call my friend at Kinney recruiting. They totally pay all your expenses and the women are all sluts. Let's go!!!

I'm assuming this will be limited to lying about whether you have a disease and NOT swearing that you can get her a record deal.

Women are dirty rotten liars who will do/say anything to get a man in bed. If just one man is spared the embarrassment and humiliation of such an encounter, this law has been worthwhile.

What sexual encounter, or indeed what personal encounter of any sort, is premised on complete honesty? People lie through commission and omission all the time, whether it be through lies about their wealth and status or falsifying their appearance so as to appear more attractive. How to draw the line between misrepresentation and mere puffery?

Heh heh, puffery.

It seems from her writings that Professor Sacks also thinks that it should be illegal for parents to spank their kids.

Why is the blackline for puffery set at "T14"?

5:17 - For the millionth time, it is "UPenn State."

If sex is battery absent non-fraudulent consent, 5:10, how are you distinguishing between a lie about HIV status and a lie about, say, marital status? True, in the case of HIV it might be a harm of a different kind (AIDS versus feeling like a whore), but let's twist it a bit:

HIV positive partner says "I'm clean" to induce other party to get freaky. Other party never gets the disease, but is totally freaked out after learning of their near miss. Liability for harm (i.e., the freak out stress)?

Married partner says "I'm single" to induce other party to get freaky. Other party is totally freaked out after learning of their total lack of morals. Liability for harm (i.e., the freak out stress)?

Both result from battery that would never have occured had the lie not been told.

This woman is to feminists what Anne Coulter is to the right wing. An clown with dumb/dangerous ideas.

We have to protect the women!

If I remember correctly from Crim Law, the general rule is that it's a crime only if the fraud was to make the girl believe it wasn't sex. So for example you could tell her anything like make her think that you're her husband or tell her that you need to inject her w/ medicine and the only way to do it is through your sperm (I think that was a real case I remember), etc. and you'd be safe....but if you made her think that you were just putting a medical device in her for instance, when you were in fact having sex, then that would be rape......but this always made me wonder b/c that type of thing (fraud re: whether it was sex or not) has probably happened like twice in the history of the world...so what's the point in even having the rule?

I slept with a woman once because she told me she was awesome in bed and would rock my world.

Well she wasn't, and she didn't. And now she is going to PAY . . . BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

5:27, it's because any person could make the honest mistake of saying they're "top tier" or "ranked about 20th", but there are only 14 schools in the T14, and the mere dropping of one of their names is an aphrodisiac among young single women and cougars alike. Usurping the T14 rank or name is just unconscionable. It's like claiming to be a fighter pilot or MMA pro.

So if you've been doing it, you're on notice to stop.

"a woman’s personal right to choose who invades her body"

Looks like this old tranny hooker is gonna have his/her day in court against several members of the species Sarcoptes scabiei.

Torts Final

"At a bar, Johnny Johnson buys Virginia Vagina three shots of tequila. Later, he buys her a Red Bull and Vodka. When he hands her the glistening amber drink, he thrusts his pelvis forward suggestively.

After five cocktails, the couple drifts out to the dance floor, where they sway awkwardly to T-Pain's "Low." During the refrain, Virginia executes a pirouette and gives an open handed slap to her ample rear end.

At 2 AM, after an intense and sloppy makeout session, Virginia tells Johnny that she is so "wet." Johnny replies by stating that he will make her "cum so hard."

Back at Johnny's apartment, sexual intercourse on a dingy futon is initiated, but Johnny has trouble maintaining an erection. He vomits in a small trash can and passes out long before Virginia has an orgasm.

Virginia brings suit, claiming that Johnny violated the fraudulent inducement statute by (a) impliedly claiming he was hung "like a bull': and (b) explicitly claiming he would make her "cum so hard."

Johnny countersues, alleging (a) that Virginia was not sufficiently lubricated, as promised; and (b) her open handed slap constituted an unfulfilled promise for anal sex.

As an Associate in Big Law Firm X, write a memo for the managing parrtner assessing the tort issues presented."

Newsflash...she teaches at THURGOOD MARSHALL.

Nuff said.

So here's why we need this rule:

Last month I was out at a club in DC. I saw this passably attractive guy who said he "graduated from the Washington College of Law" and was "a lawyer at Skadden." Well, that was enough for me and we left the club, went back to his parents' place, and did it on the couch.

Then the next day, while I'm sitting in Torts, I check the Skadden website to get his last name, and I find out HE'S A STAFF ATTORNEY!!!! Ah, yuck!! I ran from class and I showered and showered, but I just couldn't get clean. I had staff attorney junk in me.

We need this law so I can make that weasel pay.

The comments have been negative, but I think maybe we, as lawyers, should reconsider. The securities laws (which also impose penalities for fraudulent inducements) keep maybe of us Biglaw lawyers gainfully employed. I think there will clearly be money to be made in the "booty offering document" practice.

There would be quite a bit of work invovlved in preparing offering documents for clients: financial data, measurement, MD&A, etc. The risk factors section would be critical ("I may not actually be a rock star," "I may not actually want to spend the rest of my life with you," "You may not actually be the most beautiful woman I've ever met," etc.) Obviously we'd need some sort of regulatory body at the federal level to review the offering documents, or there would be chaos. The "SEC" (Sexual Eligibility Commission") perhaps? And of course they would have to turn down the music in bars and clubs, so that people could read and carefully consider the documents before making an investment . . . er, personal decision. For regular hook-ups, some sort of "shelf registration" system could be worked out, I'm sure.

And liberals say they want government out of the bedroom . . . .

5:38 = brilliant

5:38 ---> HILARIOUS

Can we use these laws to put away the underage girls in the statutory rape hypos? You know, the ones where the guy reasonably but incorrectly believes she's an adult? That seems like a fraudulent inducement. Jail time for all!

5:38 - Best. Torts exam. EVER.

http://tortofcockblocking.blogspot.com/

mildly amusing (former) law school blog

I was going to post something witty, but after reading 5:38, I no longer feel adequate.

What the hell is the picture at beginning of this post supposed to be?

@ 5:38 - I laughed so hard I almost peed my pants. Thanks! -- ET!

This post reads like a list of states Loyola 2L shouldn't try to get laid in.

"It seems from her writings that Professor Sacks also thinks that it should be illegal for parents to spank their kids."

And it shouldn't be because....?

ugh, here's why we need some sort of rule:

"purely hypothetically," suppose some guy has HPV, which is incurable and causes cervical cancer in women but doesn't do anything bad to men, and HE KNOWS IT. lots of people have HPV, but most guys don't know they have it because there's no way to test for it. suppose some girls ask him before they have sex whether he has any diseases and they get lied to straight up. it's not a one-time occurrence for this creep, he does it all the time, why shouldn't he pay for his cancer-causing lies?

To 5:38

TORTS FINAL RESPONSE
Blind Grading Number: 6914369

The first issue is whether J’s statement that he was “hung like a bull” constitutes fraudulent inducement to engage in sexual activity. Fraudulent inducement requires that the speaker intentionally make a false statement of material fact with the intent to induce the receiver to engage in sexual activity with the speaker, and which does induce such sexual activity. In this case, J’s statement to V concerning the size of his penis is likely not ground for liability.

First, while J was intoxicated when he made the statement, voluntary intoxication does not negate the necessary intent. Second, J’s statements, in the context of the night club and heavy drinking appear to have been made with the necessary scienter of causing V to sleep with him. The statement was likely also material. Materiality is any statement concerning the speaker which the reasonable person would consider important in deciding whether to sleep with another person. Most women I know would consider the fact that a guy is “hung like a bull” to impact the ‘total mix’ of information in making the sexual activity decision. See, e.g. Basic v. Levinson (applying total mix test in context of a security fraud action).

The most difficult issue for V to establish will be causation. Given the facts, V’s actions at the nightclub, including the voluntary consumption of numerous alcoholic beverages and her willingness to slap her own ass while swaying to T-Pain's “Low” demonstrate that V may have had desire to screw J even before he uttered the ‘hung like a bull’ comment. Therefore, since the ho would have slept with J anyways, she has failed to establish causation, a necessary element to her claim.

J’s counterclaims against V will also fail for failure to establish causation. The court will take judicial notice that a guy can never establish such causation given the male’s willingness to fuck anything with a vagina.

6:27, we already have a rule against that. It's called battery. You can already sue for it, and possibly even get a criminal case out of it.

6:01, it's an old-fashioned medieval chastity belt.

im with 5:48, a lot of ten girls are going to be in bigtime trouble, or rather their parents will be bankrupted. this is just a horrible idea.

6:41, are you from Eastern Europe? I imagine your comment in the voice of Balki from Perfect Strangers.

Good try, 6:35. However, you confused the issues: the "hung like a bull" was implied by J's thrusting his pelvis while handing V a Red Bull based drink. Your analysis was focused on his explicit statement, which focused on J's promise to V that he would bring her to a state of intense climax. Good analysis beyond that, however.

B+

Tell it to 5:22, Bitchy.

A few questions:

1. Will there be any safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements? (e.g. "I'll make you cum all night long)

2. How will puffery be treated? What will be considered puffery?

3. Does the woman have to reasonably rely on the statement? (i.e. guy says "I love you" 2 hours after meeting chick at a bar, probably not reasonable reliance).

4. How do you establish causation? Will extrinsic evidence of sluttiness be admissible to establish lack of reliance?

5. Will there be a "truth on the market" defense? If everyone knows guy X is full of shit, will guy X be subject to liability for screwing chick Y after lying his way into her pants?

6. Will spousal immunity apply? If I tell my wife I'll buy her a Mercedes for her birthday if she blows me, and I never intend to follow through, does she have a claim?

7. How do you calculate damages? Is it the difference between the value of screwing the guy with the lie and the value of screwing the guy with the truth? Can we hire Emperor's Club agents as experts? (it would make one hell of a Daubert hearing!)

6:27 and 6:38
There isn't a thing wrong with spanking your kids. There is a huge difference between spanking and beating.

Jim Steinman wrote this article a long time ago and Meatloaf put it to music. See "Paradise in the Dashboard Light."

You don't a specialized journal to publish the piece. The most downloaded law review article of all time, "Fuck," was published in a mainstream journal. It's been viewed 26,000 times on the SSRN and downloaded 22,000. The number is so much greater than second place that Brian Leiter refuses to include the article in his faculty productivity rankings.

Absurd.

Yeah one has eight letters and starts with an "s" and the other has seven letters and starts with a "b."

Spanking is, simply put, stupid. In what other circumstance do we attempt to modify behavior by hitting people? I'm quite sure that the small child who is the subject of such spanking has the emotional and mental capacity to distinguish the nuanced motivation behind getting smacked or hit. Or whatever verb you want to use to fool yourself into thinking that you're doing something that is reasonable.

The lack of spanking has created a generation of self-righteous narcissist cry babies.

5 year olds don't understand reasoning, but they do feel pain.

Sounds like a good idea. Men who oppose this deserve what they have coming.

I am convinced that the readership of ATL is primarily securities lawyers...deal flow really that slow guys?

Stop discussing this. This is stupid. Period. Nobody has a good argument for why this should be a law. Protecting against STDs is one thing, but lying to a girl and telling her you have a nice car is another. If a woman is really having sex for material inducements, the law should not protect her.

Yes.

"The lack of spanking has created a generation of self-righteous narcissist cry babies."

Don't be ridiculous. I was spanked and still managed to grow up and turn into a self-righteous narcissist cry baby.

7:42 - Or, Law Students cramming for securities exams. It's finals time, you know.

6:27 - Your scenario is highly unlikely unless the guy has genital warts which are caused by a different strain of HPV that does not lead to cervical cancer.

You already stated that men don't know that they are carriers of HPV because THERE IS NO TEST FOR IT. If there's no test for it, then how in the hell is a guy going to know he has it? Answer - HE ISN"T.

I am an identical twin...and you say I can't do my brother's GF without telling her it is not him first. Horse shit.

Wow, some serious immaturity in these comments. 99% of you likely have not read the article in question, so all you're basing your knee-jerk opinions on is a blog article. Do you know for a fact that in every state it is definitively identified as tortious to induce someone to sleep with you by knowingly falsely stating that you do not have a transmissible disease? I can't say that with certainty. I know some states recognize some torts like this, but I doubt many recognize all, and I would bet that they don't *all* recognize all of them.

For lawyers/law students, you are engaging in some really shoddy logic here with the straw men you're raising. No one will sue successfully over a guy telling her he has a better car than he does. Come on. It's not material. Period. The things you are saying here are as absurd as opposing lemon laws because then, the poor used car salesman won't be able to say "this car is a real pussy magnet!" First off, saying that ISN'T a violation of lemon laws, because most judges aren't completely retarded, and therefore assume that the average, reasonable person is also not completely retarded. Secondly, I can't say I particularly have a lot of sympathy for someone who lies so much that he's worried he won't be able to live a normal life without constantly telling lies about important things.

Seriously, is everyone here *actually* obtuse enough to think that a law like this would criminalize telling someone you love them when you don't? I mean, the average reasonable woman knows that most men are sniveling, emotionally stunted losers anyway, so it'd never hold water in court.

(hey, if you guys can assume the vast majority of women are stupid enough to sleep with someone because he has a nice car, then I can assume the vast majority of you are creepy and pathetic enough to lie about it).

8:02, he'll know because he's given it to all of his ex-girlfriends. Um, duh.

8:07 - I am a member of the lesser sex, and I wholly agree with your arguments. Only immature males can share the belief that smart, intellectual women could ever fall for a lie, much less sleep with a man on the basis of a lie.

This is why I would like to take you out to dinner. We can discuss the absurd views voiced on this immature blog. You can explain your views as I not approvingly and reassure your beliefs through short interspersed comments. After our meal, I'll bring you back to my place, drink a couple bottles of merlot, and have wild missionary-style sex on my couch.

What do you think?

What's the fascination on this blog with Randazza? Like Edelman, he's an adjunct at a TTT. In Randazza's case it's a FTT (Barry University School of Law?). And his law school claim to fame is that he won a negotiation competition. BFD It's not surprising that he sounds like a middle schooler on a bathroom break.

7:35
You don't need a law for everything. The issue of STDs is a red herring because people have long been able to sue when their sexual partners fail to disclose that they have an STD.
I wonder what the professor would think about having a tort claim for when "the baby isn't his." I'm sure she'd jump through hoops as to why letting a man recover for years of paying for a child the mother knew or had reason to know does not belong to him doesn't merit similar statutory redress.
As an aside for some of the self proclaimed feminist law profs, the idea of equating sex based on a lie with rape is really, really insulting to victims of rape violence. Try explaining to a gang rape victim in Darfur that you understand their pain because you once slept with a dude you thought was an Ibanker at Goldman, but turns out was an intern at Bear Stearns.
Seeing cases litigated under these sex by trick laws would be really interesting reading though. "Your honor, she told me she loved me, but she was lying. I would NEVER sleep with someone I didn't love." Then watch the defendant trot out everyone from the plaintiff's black book who will testify that the plaintiff would eff anything that moves. Queue the whining that evidence like that is completely irrelevant no matter what this "victim" says on the stand.

Women are nothing but receptacles for my penis vitamins.

Aren't there a lot of seriously gender biased assumptions by Professor Sacks that it's just guys who lie to get sex, or would find themselves sued under these statutes?
I'm sure the following gets said quite a bit each day, which may prove to be less than true: "Don't worry about it, I'm on the pill." Seems to me that there a lot of baby's daddies who could use this law to argue that they wouldn't have had sex with the defendant had they known she forgot to take her pill that morning. My damages are that now I'm on the hook for this brat.

8:35 - That's why we need laws protecting men's right to choose. Women have Roe v. Wade and Cassey v. Planned Parenthood, what do we have? Bills to pay.

Why don't men have a right to choose? You can keep the brat, but if I don't want him, it should be on the woman's dime. It's easy for someone to choose when their decision is predicated on someone else's bank account.

"You know, the ones where the guy reasonably but incorrectly believes she's an adult?"

Yeah, right.

Nobody is gonna make a joke about Professor SACKS?????

8:35

you don't need to win a rape suit to destroy the target, you just need to file it.

I find Professor Sack's bigoted description of sexual dynamics disgusting. Why is it that men are depicted as sexual predators doing anything possible to "invade" a women's bodies? And women are these bastions of sexual virtue knitting in the castle tower only trying to fend off attacks from the raving hordes below? Does she not realize that all human beings are sexual animals and will occassionally lie to get it?

I think her spirited defense of these laws would be akin to to jutsifying the toughening of assault laws by sayinig it is to protect white people from violent attacks by blacks. It's just twisted and sick.

Assuming, arguendo, that this should be a matter for the courts at all, I think it'd be better served under a contract theory. That way, when "I'm going to make you cum all night" fails to perform, you can demand specific performance or expectation damages.

this was one of my 1st year crim law exam questions actually.

except the statute was changed to have criminal instead of tort liability; but it was based on CA's statute and the fact pattern involved a man pretending to be the woman's boyfriend in a dark bedroom and then having sex with her. when the real boyfriend came in and turned on the lights, the female jumped out of bed and ran to get a gun as the impostor tried to away. the boyfriend got a gun too, of course, and shot them both. but not before the girlfriend also shot the impostor so he was already dead when the boyfriend shot him. impossibility defense! also a crime of passion defense and all that nonsense.

but anyway, point is, they punish this because it's basically rape by deception.

thank you 10:09, i was wondering the same thing.

So when a girl wears makeup to make herself look more attractive than she really is, and then gets a guy to go home with her, is that rape by deception?

When a girl tells you she's 25 but is really 30, is that rape by deception?

Or for the depressed male lawyers out there, when a girl tells you she loves you but is really marrying you for your big law salary, is that rape by deception?

I'd like to make the point that radical feminists are getting increasingly more irrelevant. Legally, men and women have practically the same rights now so now these wackos are just making up stuff to get mad about. These people literally see the world as a cosmic battle between men and women, and women need to fight back in any way they can. Pathetic.

I don't know if they are that worried about sexual torts and the invasion of a woman's body by a liar as they are affording women the option to say no to sex up to three years after the fact. What is the statute of limitations on getting a girl drunk anyway?

This guy Randazza looks like a real creep. I dig the spiked-up-hair do with the big balding spot in the middle. http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/imus-and-free-speech/

First, "Low" is a FloRida song, not a T-Pain song. The T-Pain song you all are probably thinking about is "Buy you a Drink." ("Low" is also a Little John song, the one that had lyrics of "skeet, skeet, skeet" and "to the window, to the wall, till the sweat drip down my balls, all these b****** call.")
Second, this law is stupid. I have had several women lie to try to get in lotsalove's pants, would I prosecute them, hell no. They get lotsalove!

5:36, don't you mean to say "I say T14 because I am insecure about not getting into HYS"?

T14 is just puffery too. Just a weird number picked to include yourself in the top tier. Stop being so insecure.

yeah my law review definitely passed on this article when she submitted it to us! what a crockpot!

Name: OneSidedDialogue

I feel this is not progress, that it:

1) Actually reaffirms and validates certain perceptions of women, men, and sex that are ultimately detrimental to gender equality.

Implicit in the argument already is an idea that women lose value after having sex, that, and the applications of contracts to our bodies in a way that commodifies sex, and places our intimacy in the (typically male-dominated) language of contracts. The relations imposed by surrounding sex in contract terms like inducements already subjects our bodies as sites – as if bodies are venues for rent.

The thing that makes me uncomfortable is how this ties in with our sex for sale culture. Now, not only are the bodies of men and women used in the pornography of advertising, but they come with contracts to match.

This further crafts sex as prostitution by placing it in a model where there is a contractual benefit to sex. What we are saying is that if someone lies about their salary to a potential partner, or lies about having a yacht, in order to get sex, that it was implied that there would be some benefit to having sex, essentially, what the law is saying is that fair payment for sex was not delivered – it ties sex into material benefits of some kind, thus changing it from a possibly liberating activity into just another for sale sign in a world where everyone has a price.

2) Informed consent to sex is a myth.

The actual social or emotional consequences of sex with another human being are often unknowable or unpredictable. I would argue that no one, woman or man, can consent to their first time, as they have no real idea of what sex is, what sex will be like, how they will feel afterwards, what social repercussions there may be, there is no possibility for informed consent, just guesswork, based on the experiences of others and from literature which is already laced with patriarchal notions of what sex is, how we should feel, and what sex should be for us. Worse, everyone has conflicting and particularized ideas on what sex should be like. Unfortunately, counter-patriarchal literature can be just as unhealthy and inapplicable. Ideas like “all sex is rape” or that every sexual encounter is essentially a woman being exploited – that oral sex is demeaning – etc, reinforce that same sense of guilt and shame that women are made to feel the morning after.

And even beyond the first time, there are encounters where full consent is given with truth and at the time everything goes well, and then days later there are regrets anyways – friends approach you, you overhear a conversation where you are called a slut, you wish you could go back to being friends but now it’s too late – yes, consent allows you to accept an assumption of risk – but often, the risks are unforeseeable – the consent is not and cannot be considered informed.

3) STIs/STDs are a shared risk and distract from the deeper and more serious questions, or are perhaps part of a different set of questions.

With or without inducements, both parties face risk in the “transaction”. Granted, men do not face the exact same degree of risk during sex, but it is close enough and the severity of infection is similar. I also feel this issue is not at the core of what is being discussed.

4) What constitutes an inducement? What statements are material?

Further, what constitutes inducements? If someone asks me how many relations I’ve had and I reduce the number, or if I say I’m a 36C when I’m not, is that an inducement? Past relations are a material fact which is correlated to the risk of STIs/STDs. What about protection? What if I say I always use condoms and it’s generally true, that I have had sex three or four times without? How great does the discrepancy need to be? What if I say I’m just looking for fun when really I want to find someone who loves me? Or vice-versa?

I discussed this with my guy friends and they brought up a somewhat predictable but never-the-less relevant argument:

Is makeup then false advertising? Push-up bras? Nice clothes when I normally dress like a slob? If a man seeks relations with a girl he is making a time investment, if he is doing so under the false premise that her “value” (keep in mind, it is this consent/contract system that contributes to positing relative values in women) is not what he has been led to believe, than has he been robbed of his time to find someone who is actually what he is looking for as opposed to just being the image of it? Has he been deceived or wronged?

What about cheating? If I cheat on my partner and then we have sex there is an implied promise that I am in fact loyal when I am not being loyal, the sex we are having is happening with that inducement. Is that rape?

5) More sex governance undermines the privacy of women and men.

More, is making sex a matter of public record a practice we want to engage in? Should a bureau of statistics keep track of who is having sex with whom? Should an excel spreadsheet be available for every partner so I can make a more informed choice? Whether or not we had oral, anal, or vaginal sex (each carries differing degrees of risk for STIs/STDs)? Does it undermine agency and decency to thrust the government into what is among the last bastion of our freedoms?

I am not without sympathy for those who have “given” sex under false pretenses. A hug with feigned affection, an unfelt “I love you”, a disloyal “partner”, lies about sexual history, a promise that there will be more than just the night . . . But I live in a glass house, I have felt pressured to say an unfelt I love you, I said I’ve been with one or two less to keep from double digits (“will they think I’m a whore?”) , and we all live in glass houses. Only at present, that glass is tinted, this philosophy of law strips that.

I don't like Randazza's blog

10:07 what's the matter with you? Who's gonna read all that shit?

Lawrence v. Texas. This tort law infringes on the constitutional right to F**k. Substantive due process requires a "compelling interest" in order to overcome the fundamental right to F**k. However, the actual test the court will apply is more likely a reasonableness test based upon Lochner. Since the Supreme Court is full of Pricks, cock-blocking and fraudulent inducement to F**k violates the fundamental right to F**k, and the government cannot demonstrate such a compelling interest. In addition, said fraudulent inducement law, as applied, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, in that it will be used as a means to discriminate against men. Since sex Classifications require intermediate scrutiny, meaning that the Governmental restriction must substantially relate to an important governmental interest, although a state has an interest in the procreation of the human race, there is no such interest in preventing men from copulating. Hence, said law is unconstitutional, as a 'government actor' can be a legislature passing a law, allowing a class of individuals (women) to discriminate against men.

As an aside, Since Intermediate scrutiny allows affirmative action based upon the substantial interest in remedying past social discrimination, I propose the following Constitutional law:
As men have been historically cock-blocked and denied sex from certain women, in order to remedy such discrimination, women SHALL be required to lower their standards. Failure of a woman to consent to sex with a man 1-2 social prongs lower, absent a marriage or monogamous relationship defense, when said F**king does commence with a man of greater social status after said lower social status male has offered sex, is a class 4 Felony, so long as no more than 4 hours have passed between the offer for sex and the F**king with the man of higher social status.

Lawrence v. Texas. This law interferes with the Fundamental Right to F**k, and there is no compelling interest the government can claim to overcome said fundamental right.

10:07 - You need to get laid. And "nevertheless" is one word.

10:07 - Interesting comment. 1 is a good point that hasn't been made yet. 2. The fact that quantifying risk accurately is not possible may make lying less of a problem, but it doesn't make it a non-issue. People still try to estimate- and I think often have a pretty good idea - of what sex will cost them. 3. I agree that STDs are a non-issue, but only because lying about having an STD is already a tort. 4. Materiality is an issue in any fraudulent inducement context but that does not mean we should abandon securities law, which is rife with fraud/materiality issues. All it means is we would need to come to a social consensus on the line between puffery and material deceit. 5. The privacy issue is a good point, but only applies to the inducer. If you had a tort claim and valued your privacy more than the claim, you could decline to enforce it. The only people bearing the privacy risk would be those allegedly inducing sex. All that said, I agree that having a fradulent inducement tort in the sex context is a bad idea.

Laid off from Sutherland Asbill & Brennan: "Will lie for blow job."

This law is great. It will do wonders to increase pro bono hours at firms. Who wouldn't want easy access to chicks willing to bang you in exchange for little white lies? Screw Rule 1.8(j) of the model rules of professional responsibility!

This is paternalistic. What? Women are too stupid to figure out when those wily men are lying?