The Restatements Need to Be Amended

I have often made the comment that one of the reasons the law feels so alienating is that it is based on precedent and our nations history on which precedence is based is shameful. It's a history of slavery and the view of women as the properties of the their fathers and husbands, enforced by the law. An example of what I mean can be found in an all too often cited portion of the Restatments (a summary of the common law with illustrative examples).
A man who obtains consent to sexual intercourse by promising a woman $100, yet (unbeknownst to her, of course) he pays her with a counterfeit bill and intended to do so from the start. The man is not guilty of battery, even though the consent-to sexual intercourse is a battery. Yet we know that to conceal the fact that one has a v.d. transforms "consensual" intercourse into battery. Seduction, standardly effected by false promises of love, is not rape; intercourse under the pretense of rendering medical or psychiatric treatment is, at least in most states. It certainly is battery... See Desnick v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1995). Which goes on to say, "The woman who is seduced wants to have sex with her seducer, and the restaurant owner wants to have customers.
There is so much that is problematic with that statement but for now I will just say: See what I mean?!!!