Statutory rape is generally a strict liability offense, where mens rea is not an allowed defense.

One of the common forms of being tricked is when the other person claims to be at least 18 (or rather, at least of the age of consent). Quoting https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-con... :

> Historically, statutory rape was a "strict liability" offense, meaning that it didn't matter whether the actor knew that the other person was too young to consent to sex. Some states now permit a defense of honest mistake. Basically, the actor argues "I honestly thought she was old enough because...." However, other states don't recognize this defense.

As a specific example, in Tiba Francis vs. the Government of Virgin Islands (quoting https://web.archive.org/web/20110928024344/http://www.vid.us... ):

> Appellant Tiba Francis appeals his conviction for aggravated rape. ... At trial, he argued that mistake of fact is a defense to the aggravated rape charge, and moved that the trial court should allow the jury to consider such defense. ... The jury convicted appellant of the Aggravated Rape charge based on the trial judge's instruction that mistake of fact as to the victim's age is not a defense. ... Because the trial court correctly interpreted section 1700(a),this Court will affirm Francis’s conviction.

I see this as clear evidence that rape in the Virgin Islands does not always have a mens rea requirement.

On the general topic of "being tricked", here's some history from the UK, where the mens rea requirement was allowed as a defense (from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/the-... ):

> Rape and its mental element was considered in the case of DPP v Morgan by the House of Lords, in 1976. The victim, Mrs Morgan’s husband (Morgan) invited three men, who were strangers, to have sex with his wife (Mrs Morgan). Morgan had, allegedly, told the three men that his wife was ‘kinky’ and was likely to resist and say no to sex and that this would mean she was actually saying yes and was only resisting to get ‘turned on’. Morgan denied that he had said this to the three men. All four men had sex with Mrs Morgan by using force and violence against her resistance. The three men claimed that they believed that Mrs Morgan was consenting due to what Morgan had told them prior to inviting them. The jury was directed by the trial Judge who stated that ‘unless their belief was based on reasonable grounds, it could not constitute a defence to rape. The three men were convicted of rape and Morgan was convicted of aiding and abetting. All four men appealed to the Court of Appeal then the House of Lords against their convictions. Here it was held that there could not be a conviction of rape if the man honestly thought that the woman had consented to sexual intercourse with his belief not having to be reasonable. However, the proviso was applied and the convictions were upheld.

However, it is no longer allowed. Continuing to quote from the same source: "There was widespread public disapproval of the decision made by the House of Lords in DPP v Morgan, with the decision being hailed as the ‘rapists’ charter’, which was formally known as the ‘mistaken belief’ because it meant that the victim (woman) could actively not be consenting by resisting with struggle and even shouting ‘no’, but the man’s conviction could still be upheld." ... "One of the major changes in the law of rape brought by the 2003 Act was the abolition of the ‘Morgan Rule/Defence’, which as mentioned earlier, could have been used when a man believed the woman had consented, no matter how unreasonable the belief. The law today to determine a belief to be reasonable or not is done by analysing if any steps were taken by the man to be sure whether or not the women had consented."

This is the "honestly and in good faith" requirement you pointed out was the case for some jurisdictions in the US. I wanted to highlight it as an example of being tricked into having sex that was different than the scenario you presented.

Stallman may be making the argument you say he is. However, the relevant law appears to be one of strict liability, and has been for a long time.