By | October 16, 2014 12 Comments

It’sOnUs – Why this pledge is important to Lovefraud members


By  Joyce Short

Editor’s note: Joyce Short is author of Carnal Abuse by Deceit. Visit her website

The frequency of sexual assaults on college campuses has become such a common occurrence that preventing further attacks inspired a nationwide campaign, endorsed by President Barack Obama. This effort, entitled It’sOnUs, calls attention to the many perilous ways students can be raped, but does not include rape by fraud, the crime of duplicitous sex that harmed many of us.

In addition to its obvious benefits for college students, why is this effort so important for us to address?

First and foremost, it establishes that “Non-consensual sex is sexual assault,” dispelling the long-held notion, by many states, that rape by extreme force is the only sexual assault that rises to a criminal level.

Legal myths

There are several legal myths that must be dispelled in order to create legal sanctions against rape by fraud.

The simple truth is that duplicity invalidates consent in all things. That’s why fraudsters, like Bernie Madoff, are punished when they make off with your money. Like Madoff, rapists who use fraud secure the consent of their victims. In Madoff’s case, his targets even ordered their brokers and bankers to transfer funds into his investment schemes. But the “consent” he achieved by his duplicity was not a legally valid consent. It was not freely and “knowingly” given. Only “knowing consent” is legally valid consent under the law.

What we’re fighting against, in the effort to create sanctions against rape by fraud, is the ironic concept that “knowing consent” is important in every other human interaction, but not in sex. Could the fact that the overwhelming majority of our law makers are men, and that the vast majority of rape by fraud victims are women, have something to do with it? And even though the protection would likely help far more women than men, the men who are targeted by female fraudsters deserve the same protections that women are being deprived of.

Non-consensual sex

The concept that “Non-consensual sex is sexual assault” is the very first declaration in the “It’sOnUs” pledge.

It is an important first step in ridding state laws of their onerous doctrines of “force.” Once achieved, the next hurdle is to establish that lies of identity engage you in having sex with a stranger.

For instance, when someone removes their wedding band to sidle up to you, they are not only breaking their wedding vows, embroiling you in adultery and fornication, but they are also raping you through their use of fraud. Their knowing act of duplicity deprived you of your self-determination over your choice of a sexual partner, defiling you at your most intimate core.

  • Rape by doping you undermines your knowing consent.
  • Rape by intoxicating you undermines your knowing consent.
  • Statutory rape of an underage minor undermines their knowing consent because they have yet to attain the age of consent.
  • Sex with a mentally challenged person is rape when the victim is considered unable to provide “knowing consent.”

Why then is rape by fraud, the deliberate act of depriving someone of their “knowing consent” to engage them in intimacy, not punishable in the vast majority of states?


The state of Tennessee has the most appropriate language in the nation to penalize rape by fraud. Their statutes prohibit intercourse “induced by deception, accomplished by fraud and obtained by ruse.”

I am currently seeking a rape by fraud victim in the state of Tennessee who is willing to come forward to seek justice through criminal prosecution of the offender. Doing so can raise awareness throughout the country and help knock down the barriers that prevent wider implementation of rape by fraud laws.

Mischele Lewis recently came forward to demand the arrest of William Allen Jordan for defrauding her of sex in New Jersey. Although the Grand Jury failed to indict Jordan on the sexual assault charge, her efforts brought about awareness by a state lawmaker who is considering language to submit in New Jersey to protect its residents from such a crime.

Could you be the next person who stands up to make a difference in your state?

Anyone seeking more state-by-state information can find it, and me, at

Joyce M. Short

Take the It’sOnUs  Pledge


Comment on this article

Please Login to comment
Notify of

Thank you Joyce for bringing this to our attention.



I just added Idaho and Texas to the database of state penal code that readers can access on my blog. I’ll be adding states on Mondays and Thursdays until all 50 states are covered. At that point, I’ll be adding updates and case histories.

If anyone would like to know about a specific state, I’d be happy to address their request. I can easily change the order of research.

I’m pleased to relate that the office of the Assemblyman working on the NJ bill informed me that (along with additional language,) they’ll be using language I fashioned for their submission in the NJ Legislature. Here it is:

“The differentiation in the law should be one of “violent assault” vs “non-violent assault.” Non-violent sexual assault would be sexual assault committed by doping, intoxicating, DUPING, or coercing, and sexual penetration of someone unable to consent by virtue of age or mental capacity.”

I hope LoveFraud readers, and all members of society, can clearly see how defrauding someone of sex is a crime by framing the language in this way.

In addition to looking for victims to come forward in TN, I’m interested in hearing from anyone who believes they have a case of sexual assault by fraud in any other state, as well. I will treat their information with the highest degree of confidentiality possible (if they want to remain private.) Current or recent examples provide the traction needed to bring about change. I am currently working on cases in additional states. The more victims that come forward, the more important the issue becomes to a legislator.

I am consistently in awe of the wonderful job you do to help victims recognize what was done to them, and heal.

Because sociopaths are totally unmoved by the harm they cause others, they are only controlled by their fear of exposure or fear of punishment. They can talk their way around personal exposure. But I believe they will be deterred only when criminal sentences are handed down for the havoc they cause. And I’m hoping to bring about that change in every state.

Thank you for your continued support!


I was just thinking about this last week. It is appalling how many men get away with sexual assault on women. I use the term sexual assault because of the distortion the courts have done to the terms rape and consensual sex. There is often a point where consensual stops and it becomes assault. I am sick of the courts determining that taking off your pantyhose to walk in the sand is consent and that wearing Victoria’s Secret underwear is consent. It is still, “blame the woman” especially when we have a wealthy perpetrator.

When the situation changes from consensual to assault is when the woman says no or becomes too frightened to say no. This is when the rapist has finished his fraud and takes what he thinks he is entitled to without consent. This is when the woman becomes an object to him instead of a human being and it turns from consensual to assault. The mutual consent stops and he forces himself on her. It is assault, it is violent and it is in no way consensual even if it began that way. It is rape. The courts ignore that it happens this way. Police chuckle and smirk over college rape implying that it is not rape. But ugly violent or forced sex by assault is rape regardless of previous consent to kiss or snuggle.

We all know that consensual sex must be consensual from beginning to end. If it changes to being forced and violent it is no longer consensual. It does not matter whether he has a knife to her throat or if he deceived her into partial consent and then dehumanized her and attacked her for his own sexual gratification or power over her. She is the victim when this occurs and he is guilty of assault and rape.


When we cast blame on someone, on “the courts,” say, for a problem—like allegedly “distorting” the meaning of terms like “rape” and “consensual sex”—it’s only fair to make sure we’re pointing the finger at the right set of people. For instance, in all the discussion we’ve had here about the injustices perpetrated by what has been rightly branded the divorce “industry,” it’s clear that paid professionals who profit from that “industry” are to blame, whether that means judges, lawyers, GALs, evaluators, or whoever. However, if an accused rapist goes free due to the verdict of a court, we need to remember that while judges and lawyers have influence, it’s JURIES—unpaid members of the public—who are responsible for those decisions.

So do you think MEN can be trusted to serve on a jury tasked with deciding a rape case? Or do you think men in general, not just police, are too prone to “chuckle and smirk” over an alleged rape, or to let the perpetrator off on the principle that “boys will be boys”—and that only WOMEN should be allowed to sit on rape juries because only women can be trusted to keep other women’s interests in mind?

Redwald – actually, lawyers know that women are harder on other women, so they want women on juries for rape cases.

This happened in the Jeffrey Marsalis date rape case in Philadelphia.

This article doesn’t mention the fact that the juries were mostly women, but I remember that being discussed when the case was in the news.


Precisely, Donna! I have to confess that was a mischievous “catch question” on my part! 😉 The reasons why rape cases can be notoriously hard to prosecute successfully are more complex than some people realize. Thanks for pointing to that detailed discussion of the Marsalis trials. That does highlight some of the factors involved.

It’s a great pity that “the jury isn’t talking” (as the article tells us), because researchers do need to understand why jurors arrive at the decisions they do, instead of being forced to guess. It’s certainly true in general terms, as you said, that women are “harder” on other women. Why exactly they are is another question.

From one angle, some women can be excessively critical of other women, sometimes for the pettiest of reasons, picking fault with another woman’s clothing and so forth. I’m sure that can play a part in rape cases if the defense chooses to make an issue of such matters. Many men by contrast are disposed to be chivalrous toward a woman who is being presented as a victim. Especially an attractive woman—who unfortunately could have the opposite effect, arousing jealousy and spite, among some women jurors.

From another angle, many women know very well the kinds of manipulations that some other women can be guilty of, the stunts some women pull on men, and the subtle motivations behind them. Conversely, some men (not all, but some) can be naive about women—while plenty of men know the kinds of stunts some men can pull on women to get them into bed! All of that too can work to a woman’s disadvantage—and a rapist’s advantage—when the jurors are female rather than male.

Compounding this problem is the documented fact that far too many women—many more than some people would like to pretend—are guilty of making false accusations of rape. This imposes serious issues of doubt on many rape trials. I imagine it’s women jurors who are more likely to understand—and entertain—the obscure and twisted reasons why some female accusers might have made such a false accusation, whether or not this is true of the complainant herself.

Still, the Marsalis trials raise additional questions. If female rape victims don’t always behave in the stereotyped ways so many people expect of a rape victim, it’s women jurors especially that I’d expect to understand the subtler reasons behind this “nonstandard” behavior, and give credence to these women’s accusations in spite of it. Regrettably this doesn’t seem to have happened in the Marsalis case, where the women jurors may have been just as ignorant as anyone else of the ways that genuine rape victims often do respond to what has been done to them.

Perhaps someone has to go through the awful experience of actually being raped to understand these things. But if a potential woman juror has been raped, she’s likely to be excluded from serving on such a jury on the grounds of possible “bias.” That’s a real Catch-22, since her experience would have been valuable to a jury in legitimating the “unusual” behavior of genuine rape victims.

Apart from all that, who’s to say the outcome of these trials depends solely on the jurors’ attitude toward the accusers? How does the sex of the jurors affect their impressions of the defendant?

It’s clear from this article alone that Marsalis had marked psychopathic traits. These naturally include that deadly psychopathic “charm” we all know about. But uninformed jurors wouldn’t necessarily see that as a probable marker of psychopathy, which is perfectly consistent with the defendant being a predator and a rapist.

Male jurors however can be hostile toward a defendant they see as a “ladies’ man”: not your rugged ideal of honest-to-good masculinity, but the fellow who’s a little too slick, too smooth, a mite too good with women. Men do see this for what it is—manipulative—even if their hostility springs from jealousy of a man who’s better at maneuvering women into bed than they are—and who does it by unfair and “unsporting” means, as judged by a male system of “fair play.” The fear that a man’s own wife or girlfriend could fall victim to such a seducer only makes these snakes look more of a threat in men’s eyes. If the defendant in a rape trial comes across that way and the jurors are male, he’s going to put their backs up.

But a psychopathic defendant like Marsalis could well have the opposite effect on many female jurors, lulling rather than arousing their suspicions. His charm might work on a lot of them. Some might be telling themselves that “such a nice guy” couldn’t possibly be a rapist. Or, in defiance of the true psychology of rape, falling victim to the myth that “such an attractive guy would never ‘need’ to rape anyone, since he’d have no trouble getting all the sex he wants.”

Now I come to think about it, compared with the impression that female accusers make on juries, I wonder if the impression that male defendants make on juries gets as much discussion as it deserves. In the public arena, I mean, as opposed to the lawyers, who know better. I say that for a couple of reasons. First, that so many of those who interest themselves in the outcome of rape trials are “women’s advocates.” And “women’s advocates” may be far too wrapped up in their concerns about “how women are viewed” by the public, while possibly caring too little about how men are viewed—even in contexts where the latter is important. And second, these “advocates” are bound to contain the usual (and disproportionately vocal) contingent of the man-hating feminazi gang. And among the many lies that crowd likes to spread, we find the myth that “men in general” somehow “join together” to “oppress women,” and the infamous slander that men “teach other men to rape.” These pretenses, like so much in that poisonous ideology, are the opposite of the truth. However, the reality that male jurors in a rape trial can be harder on a male defendant than women jurors is inconveniently at odds with this ideological garbage, and for that reason may not always have been given the visibility it deserves in public debate.

Whether my idle speculation is true or not, I don’t doubt that how jurors (male or female) view the defendant is just as important as the way they view his accuser(s). It’s more important still with a (probably) psychopathic defendant like Marsalis, who can be so cunning at giving others a false impression of himself. It’s good to hear this did not work on the judge who sentenced him!


Oh, how interesting! I’ve just seen that we now get 1440 minutes—that’s 24 hours, in other words—to edit a post if we need to. Very useful!


Wow, Redwald, what a great writeup of this issue of victim and defendant credibility with the jury, and the judge. I think you are absolutely right about also looking harder at the credibility of the male defendant in rape cases. This sounds like something you should write up for somewhere. Understanding what sociopaths are capable of, there needs to be more education about how they come across and then activism and reform to be sure that the victims and defendants in any type of trial are as accurately understood as possible.


You’re correct that “No” means “No!” But there are instances when “Yes” can also mean “No.” And the victim of this type of sexual assault allows access because they don’t know that they are being defrauded.

Fraud is the act of hoodwinking someone into behavior that they otherwise would not go along with. For example, Bernie Madoff hoodwinked countless victims into investing in his securities scheme. They relied on his information and handed over hundreds of millions of dollars to him. They didn’t know, until the authorities stepped in, that everything he’d told them was a lie. They all told him yes, they even took steps to support their “yes” by turning over their money to him. But Bernie Madoff knew he was defrauding those people even though they did not know it at the time.

The same is true of rape by fraud. The perpetrator hoodwinks the victim into sex. But just like when Madoff targeted his victims, the “consent” was not “knowing consent” therefore, according to the law, and everything reasonable, society understands that their “consent” was “invalid.”

The ItsOnUs pledge, endorsed by President Obama, clearly states that Non-Consentual Sex is Sexual Assault. And the laws of all states cover FRAUD as the act of fooling someone to deprive them. While most states are clear that depriving someone of their assets by fraud is a criminal offense, very few recognize that depriving someone of sex is as much a sexual assault as doping or intoxicating them would be. Duplicity invalidates consent in all things.

There are violent rapes, and non-violent rapes. In enlightened states, every sexual penetration is considered an act of force because it takes a physical act of force in order to penetrate someone’s body, whether consent is present or not. When consent is not present, sexual assault, not seduction is taking place.

By the way, the terms rape, sexual assault and sexual battery are all synonymous. Their use simply depends on the particular preference of the state. You can see which states use which terms in my blog.


I agree with Donna that women can be particularly hard on women. I’ve been involved in the discussion of rape by fraud for a long time. I’ve had this discussion with countless people.

What I find is that people’s awareness of rape has more to do with whether they are empathetic and can put themselves in another person’s shoes, than whether they are male or female. Also, some people have logical minds and can see how the pieces of the puzzle fit, while others have limited ability to do so.

Both men and women have commented to me about my book, which is my story of rape by fraud. I’m always amazed at how much their opinions reflect their own behaviors, morals, or lack thereof. I can clearly see by their reactions which people have empathy and which would think nothing of taking their wedding band off to hoodwink someone into thinking they were single and available.

The jury pool contains people with assorted codes of conduct, intellect and reasoning ability. The same can be said for both women and men.



Yes, Joyce. It’s a pity we can’t always count on “logical” jurors, as opposed to those swayed by emotion and prejudice.

Just the same, there’s everything to be said for the jury system. It reminds me of what Churchill said about “democracy.” Namely, that “Democracy is the worst form of government… except for all of the others!” The same biases we find among some jurors… can also be found among lawyers and judges!

Amen to that!

Like that misogynist dinosaur, Judge John Tomaello, in Burlington County NJ, who said that Mischele Lewis, the victim of rape by fraud from a convicted pedophile and bigamist, was “gullible” and that she was just disappointed because the guy wasn’t wealthy with a fancy car!

A perfect example of how devaluing and inappropriate a judge can be!


Lovefraud is being upgraded. Comments and forum posts are temporarily disabled. Dismiss

Send this to a friend