This is a very interesting scenario you bring up.
Anna and Bob agree to have sex. Anna would prefer without a condom, Bob insists they must have a condom. Anna sabotages the condom by poking a pin through the package. They have consensual sex with the condom, which unbeknownst to Bob has a hole placed there by Anna. Anna becomes pregnant. Is it an absolute unquestionable legal fact that Anna raped Bob? Should Anna be arrested? If Anna leaves the country, should she be extradited to face justice?
And does this only matter for a particular kind of birth control? Anna tells Bob she is on the pill but she is not. Bob consents only on the condition that Anna is on the pill. They have sex. Is it an absolute unquestionable legal fact that Anna raped Bob? Should Anna be arrested?
What about sex conditions not related to birth control? Bob agrees to sex with Anna only on the condition he be allowed to wear his warm wool socks to bed. During sex, Anna finds the socks to be scratchy and pulls them off. Is it an absolute unquestionable legal fact that Anna raped Bob? Should Anna be arrested?
There is a famous case before the highest court, where a doctor, after forgetting to perform a sterilization a patient requested together with the caesarian birth of her second child, was deemed liable for the financial loss incurred by the existance of her third child.
Assange argued that the accused act would not be illegal under English law; the High Court disagreed (and hence the dual criminality test was fulfilled).
Misleading in order to obtain consent is not the same as getting consent for activity A then undertaking activity B.
In the first instance one can complain that they wouldn't have given consent had they known the truth. In the second instance consent was not given.
I had sex with a girl who lied about being on birth control. Was I raped?
If I was uncertain whether someone was truly on the birth control pill, I would insist upon condoms if I wanted to fully hedge my risk.
I do see the point you're trying make, but it's a complex issue. I could easily make an argument for the opposite case, that it is rape. But I think being able to verify a condom is being worn makes the situation different enough to treat differently from lying about being on the pill.
The difference between being tricked into impregnating and being tricked into being impregnated is that impregnation only affects the bodily autonomy of the person being impregnated. There are other consequences and many of them are shared by both persons but the bodily autonomy part is present on in one.
There's a little difference, you wouldn't be the one getting pregnant.
It's more like she lied about being HIV positive.
That is, in fact, a crime.
You can make her pregnant.
If you don't want to risk it, use a condom.
Is it so hard?
Do you remember it?
First of all the story is titled "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"
But, most importantly, the boy was "crying wolf" when there was no wolf.
There may be differences of degrees to the stereotypical violent behind-the-bushes rape. Those should and would be considered for purposes of sentencing. But it's still rape.