DA Dudley Sponsors New Rape-By-Impersonation Bill

"When asked how any male could 'impersonate' the husband or partner of an otherwise alert woman to initiate sexual relations, Dudley responded, 'That is such a guy question,' adding, 'You’re not that special.'”

What a dismissive, arrogant response. This was a teachable moment -- an opportunity to explain a serious offense to someone who doesn't understand. Would that our community leaders would educate rather than ridicule their questioners.

"To have sex with an unmarried woman by false pretenses is currently defined as sexual battery."

What does this mean? Can a woman claim that she met some guy at a bar and the man said he was "rich" and would take her on a vacation somewhere, have a one night stand and never call her back and end up with a sexual battery charge because it turns out he isn't rich and had no intention of taking her on vacation? What if he wasn't that rich, had some money saved up to take a girl on vacation, but he decided after all was said and done he didn't like her as much as he thought? Still false pretenses? Does a woman need to audio record all this evidence, or simply convince a jury that he said this stuff?

If that's the case, if I end up having sex with a blond girl and find out she is actually a brunette with dyed hair, can I charge her with sexual battery? What if she has breast implants? Both of those things are "false pretenses" as well.

Any women with this attitude that if a guy lies to her before they have sex then it is some how rape needs to buck up and take some personal responsibility for their actions.

As far as the main topic of the article, I'm still pretty damn confused. The only situation I can imagine is if some guy starts initiating with a woman who is asleep in bed, she wakes up but never opens her eyes assuming it is her boyfriend or husband.. or perhaps if it occurs in the dark somehow. Is there any other situation where this can occur? And what if I was in a pitch dark place and some woman came up to me and started making out with me thinking that I was her husband/boyfriend, I had no idea what was going on but just went along with it?

Ultimately I think a lot of this type of stuff diminishes and distracts from the brutality of real, violent episodes of rape. If you don't want to have sex, just say no. I don't know if I'm entirely against this whole "impersonation" thing, but maybe before you have sex, open your eyes first, or have some secret action/response combination with your partner? It just seems like one of those things that can be easily avoided. The other problem I can see is that if a woman was cheating on her (let's say, rich) husband and she got caught, she could use this law to stay in the relationship with her husband and screw over the guy she was cheating with by charging him with rape by impersonation, and that's just messed up.

I'm assuming this "article" is merely the introduction to the Cliff Notes of the real one that will come later? Tell me these are the Cliff Notes intro, please.

Attempting to legally take the lying out of sex might actually prove to be the overpopulation solution we've been looking for.

Er, not.

If "we're not that special" then what's the big deal with impersonating? Sounds like Dudley thinks all men are interchangeable, which severely undermines her legal position.