OK, to get this out of the way: the law in the jurisdiction he's being charged in explicitly considers this to be rape. It's not trumped up by the media, it's h

OK, to get this out of the way: the law in the jurisdiction he's being charged in explicitly considers this to be rape. It's not trumped up by the media, it's how the law is written. > It's sad to see that the presumption now is that a man is guilty The presumption is that he is accused, and he ran away and never had a trial. You can't really run away from the trial forever, hide behind the "presumed innocent" doctrine, and say it makes you a saint. It just means you haven't been convicted, because it was mechanically hard to get you to the right place to convict you. > would you consider it rape and a crime if a woman said she was on the pill, and slept with you, and it turns out she was lying about it? Condoms offer protection from STIs, as well as pregnancy. Lying about using a condom potentially exposes your partner to myriad health problems, in addition to unwanted pregnancy. So no, it isn't equivalent to lying about using the pill - lying about the pill doesn't change your risk of contracting HPV, HIV, etc. If a woman lies about using birth control, and she does conceive, she's either going to have an abortion (which is physically and psychologically traumatic), or go through pregnancy and birth. The father has some obligation (which he could probably be free from if he can prove she lied), but there's not really any physical risk there. He's not going to catch a life-threatening disease from someone lying about the pill.