Devil's Den - Devini haye haye - Page 18

Originally posted by: swan20

@Jyo...i think they need to up the passion now. He has already started feeling the attraction...they should expand it now. And i agree...yesterday and today's saree scene was really intense but it went unnoticed in the circus that's happening around them. To develop Maaneet's story the focus has to be on them...

@Shali:Nandu is not a orphan that Geet had to fulfilled Beeji ka wishes 😡...ufff me too feel like banging her head here

Originally posted by: CraziestGurtian

OMG...found the RTM den and had a roll...🤣...btw...You Guys are NUTZILLAS...😳 🤣...Itne awesome song mein bhi character consistency...🤪...

But, not all kinds of deceit vitiate consent. There are only two types of misrepresentation that vitiate consent. One is that which induces an error in negotio, where the nature of the act is misrepresented (ie the perpetrator pretends it's not intercourse but something else, like a medical intervention or something) and the other is the one that induces an error in persona (as described above). That Geet would not have slept with Dev if he had not deceived her, is, sadly enough, irrelevant.

And also, by the way, the lawfulness of the marriage has no bearing on the status of the act itself. Because somebody's lawfully wedded husband may also rape his lawfully wedded wife (aka marital rape).

The key is really to look at consent, and figure out, based on objectively ascertainable subjective facts, whether or not it was really there. And the consent would be there if, the woman (who has the requisite mental capacity) voluntarily (ie without being under duress) consents to sexual intercourse (no error in negotio) with the actual person (no error in persona).

I think some of you are being overly emotional. It's true that what happened was wrong, and that there were traumatic after-effects (you say, similar to that of rape, which is debatable but anyway), but that still does not make it rape. And anyway, you can't base the enquiry on after-effects because different people would have different thresholds of sensitivity. An actually raped person may not really feel violated for whatever reason, but that (thankfully) does not make her any less raped. And, what if Geet was somebody who did not belong to a close-knit conservative family and did not believe extramarital sex to be a big deal? Then, no rape? Surely, you can't have a different definition of rape for different people.

Now, maybe you just mean, based on your emotional response to what happened, that what happened was "like" a rape, in which case, you must say that Dev is "like" a rapist.

Just before I leave, imagine the appallingly prevalent scenario where two people sleep with each other out of wedlock and the guy promises the (adult, sober, mentally fit) girl that she wouldn't get pregnant and she does, and he leaves her. Rape? Shouldn't she have been wiser, no matter what a disgusting jerk the guy was?

At most, she can drag the guy to court on the basis of his deception, and under tort law, sue him for causing her physical and emotional distress, and yes, she can include in the claim, damage to reputation, medical bills, etc. She might even win. And over and above all that, she might even be able to get maintainance for her child. But to secure a rape conviction, based on the facts, would be impossible. The elements of the crime are just not met.

And to end, ever wondered why, in the serial itself, rape/zabardasti was never mentioned, not even once? Only dhoka was mentioned? Most probably by sheer coincidence, but maybe, serials' portrayal of law/medicine/business can be accurate sometimes? :)

@Nirvy:I guess in early days we used to get things without even asking for it and that sort of spoiled us all and so we kept cribbing even for the smallest of things 😆 and today even after begging ,we get nothing but only trash and so we r more than happy with even a slight ray of hope 😆😆...right now we r beggars who cant b choosers 😆😆