that does not quite answer the question, because, as i have mentioned above, lying about your age or financial status to get sex is just as fine as lying about having no children etc etc.
Fraud in this section is very narrowly construed.
Notably, promising to pay for sex and then not pay is not a sexual assault.
Clearly there's a line, and it's going to be unclear where exactly that line is until a court rules on it.
Stealthing is different in that it's an ACT that was not consented to. It's not informational, it's not situational, it's a sex act that was not consented.
What you're raising is a subtly different question about the basis of INFORMED consent and what information being misrepresented defeats that. I agree that some of that could prove criminal under the law but that's about what level of misrepresenting information would amount to fraud, it's nothing about the act that was performed itself.
On your different topic of whether misrepresenting yourself would result in enough fraud to claim sexual assault, I agree it could. But exactly where the line is remains unclear until a court rules on it.
My guess is that a court will weigh materiality of the fraud. Is there evidence that the victim would absolutely and unequivocally refused sex had they known the truth, and did the perp intentionally mislead because they knew it?
So there was a case in another country where a guy lied about his religion because the victim was only interested in men from her own since she was seeking relationships that could result in marriage. She clearly would have refused had she known.
But age? Financial status? I think the victim would have to show evidence that this was a deal breaker, like the religious example. If the victim had been very vocal about seeking a successful husband and the perp was unemployed but lied, and the victim could show she had made her conditions clear, I think you'd have a case.
But if it was just something that made the guy more attractive and the victim had never expressed any conditions, then I think it's hard to argue it was truly material. She'd have to show something like they meet through a dating site where her profile and messages made it clear that financial status was a prerequisite for her, or similar evidence, and that the perp lied specifically to overcome her objections.
At any rate that's my opinion, we will need a judge to set a precedent to know where exactly in the slippery slope the line is drawn: but it's drawn SOMEWHERE on that slope.
THIS case though it's much simpler: the act itself of unprotected sex was never consented.
