Non-consent by race..

[Barringtonia]

Or when he's the wrong ethnicity and your parents don't approve...

Well, who knows.

Simple fact is that any form of lying, regardless of how common it is, creates a situation whereby technically you are not being given due consent. Where you have sex without consent, depending on the nature, constitutes rape or sexual assault.

Again, just because it's very common doesn't deny the fact that deception is being used to procure sex. Stealing a sweet from a confectionary store might not be armed robbery on a bank but it remains theft.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Or when he's the wrong ethnicity and your parents don't approve...

Well, who knows.

Simple fact is that any form of lying, regardless of how common it is, creates a situation whereby technically you are not being given due consent. Where you have sex without consent, depending on the nature, constitutes rape or sexual assault.

Again, just because it's very common doesn't deny the fact that deception is being used to procure sex. Stealing a sweet from a confectionary store might not be armed robbery on a bank but it remains theft.

... and so the only way to be fair and even handed in this scenario is to jail everyone over 20 for rape...

[Tungookska]

... and so the only way to be fair and even handed in this scenario is to jail everyone over 20 for rape...

makes more sense than the other arguments in this thread

[Barringtonia]

... and so the only way to be fair and even handed in this scenario is to jail everyone over 20 for rape...

Yes, clearly that is the result of what I'm saying, nothing if not the extremes me,

[Lauchlin]

An interesting case to be sure, with interesting implications.

It would infer that every man and woman in the western world, nearly without exemption, has been raped. No doubt, the numbers would be high in the eastern world as well.

Fascinating turn of events this is.

Every time Kiskaanak gets really into a thread, I discover I've been sexually assaulted in dozens of new, horrifying ways.

If this keeps up, I'm going to start sending her my therapy bills.

[Galloism]

An interesting case to be sure, with interesting implications.

It would infer that every man and woman in the western world, nearly without exemption, has been raped. No doubt, the numbers would be high in the eastern world as well.

Fascinating turn of events this is.

Every time Kiskaanak gets really into a thread, I discover I've been sexually assaulted in dozens of new, horrifying ways.

If this keeps up, I'm going to start sending her my therapy bills.

Hmm. If I was not an uncaring asshole, I might have therapy bills from her too.

Fortunately, genetics/environment was kind to me.

[Dyakovo]

That did not really deal with it since you are now saying that it is the "fraud" itself which is the important factor.

As for the religious convictions, they simply cannot be strong enough to consider as she has not shown any compunction about breaking them.

I have always been saying the issue was the fraud.

And again, you are in no position to judge her religious convictions. It is a ridiculous standard you are holding her to, "if you violate any of your beliefs (despite the fact that everyone does in some way or another) then you cannot choose who you want to have sex with".

She absolutely can, even if her objections are not religious, but rather, she's just a big fat racist who hates non-Jews.

No matter how disgusting her motivations are, she is entitled to them absolutely, and someone who deceives her deliberately to have sex with her is committing a crime.

Note: this is a reply only to the bolded, specifically the part also underlined.
Bullshit, I have never violated any of my religious beliefs.

[Galloism]

Something else occurred in my sick little mind last night. Every statement, nearly without exception, from a statuatory rapist begins with, "but officer, she said she was 18."

If that claim were proven true, it would mitigate his consent after the fact, making it so he couldn't have possibly raped her, as he didn't consent. Actually, she would have raped him, so the child would be the one going to jail.

Or, perhaps, they would both go to jail for raping each other. I'm not sure.

Edit: If you like, you can change/reverse the gender(s) of the participants in your head. The scenario still stands.

[Neo Art]

Where is Neo-Art or The Cat Tribes when you need them... talking to Kiskaanak is like attempting to break a brick wall with your forehead.

Alright, alright. I'm here. What do you want, what am I supposed to do here? Oh, school some upstart in the law? Well, alright then, let's take a look.

I have always been saying the issue was the fraud.

And again, you are in no position to judge her religious convictions. It is a ridiculous standard you are holding her to, "if you violate any of your beliefs (despite the fact that everyone does in some way or another) then you cannot choose who you want to have sex with".

She absolutely can, even if her objections are not religious, but rather, she's just a big fat racist who hates non-Jews.

No matter how disgusting her motivations are, she is entitled to them absolutely, and someone who deceives her deliberately to have sex with her is committing a crime.

I agree.



........shit, that wasn't what you were hoping for, was it?

[Maurepas]

Where is Neo-Art or The Cat Tribes when you need them... talking to Kiskaanak is like attempting to break a brick wall with your forehead.

Alright, alright. I'm here. What do you want, what am I supposed to do here? Oh, school some upstart in the law? Well, alright then, let's take a look.

I have always been saying the issue was the fraud.

And again, you are in no position to judge her religious convictions. It is a ridiculous standard you are holding her to, "if you violate any of your beliefs (despite the fact that everyone does in some way or another) then you cannot choose who you want to have sex with".

She absolutely can, even if her objections are not religious, but rather, she's just a big fat racist who hates non-Jews.

No matter how disgusting her motivations are, she is entitled to them absolutely, and someone who deceives her deliberately to have sex with her is committing a crime.

I agree.



........shit, that wasn't what you were hoping for, was it?

Some greedy lawyer you are! You're supposed to argue for the case, not your opinion!

I agree too, ;P

[Neo Art]

Neo Art will make your genitals wither

Thanks. Who are you?

[The Norwegian Blue]

Neo Art will make your genitals wither

Thanks. Who are you?

Someone who knows you, knows Canadian law, largely agrees with both of us, and has a username like "Kiskaanak." I didn't find this one to be a major challenge.

[Neo Art]

Neo Art will make your genitals wither

Thanks. Who are you?

Someone who knows you, knows Canadian law, largely agrees with both of us, and has a username like "Kiskaanak." I didn't find this one to be a major challenge.

Is an espresso machine?

OK SOMEONE has to get that

[Maurepas]

Neo Art will make your genitals wither

Thanks. Who are you?

Someone who knows you, knows Canadian law, largely agrees with both of us, and has a username like "Kiskaanak." I didn't find this one to be a major challenge.

Did you say...Canadian Law? *raises eyebrow*

[Buffett and Colbert]

Racism doesn't make it rape.

But unfortunately Israeli law says otherwise, I guess.

[Ifreann]

Something else occurred in my sick little mind last night. Every statement, nearly without exception, from a statuatory rapist begins with, "but officer, she said she was 18."

If that claim were proven true, it would mitigate his consent after the fact, making it so he couldn't have possibly raped her, as he didn't consent. Actually, she would have raped him, so the child would be the one going to jail.

Or, perhaps, they would both go to jail for raping each other. I'm not sure.

Edit: If you like, you can change/reverse the gender(s) of the participants in your head. The scenario still stands.

A few years ago the law in Ireland re:statutory rape was changed to allow for a reasonable mistake defence. If, for example, you were to meet a girl in a nightclub, and it turned out that she was actually 16, you could argue that her being in a nightclub(where one's ID is checked on entry and under 18s are turned away) made it perfectly reasonable to assume she was 18 at least. After all, if the bouncers, whose job it is to keep underaged people out, didn't cop she was 16, why would you, John Q. Sean O' Public, be expected to?

My point is that "But officer, I thought she was 18" could, in some cases, be a perfectly legit defence, just like how some women really do get black eyes from walking into a door.

[Robarya]

He deceived her of his ethnicity so he only has himself to blame.

[Neo Art]

And now that I have a moment, let me elaborate on my original point. Fraud, almost universally, is defined as a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact upon which the other party reasonably relied.

A lot has been said about whether this woman’s reason was “good enough”. At the end of the day, that’s not a relevant concern. She is not obligated to justify her reasoning for not wanting to have sex with someone. That’s her reasoning. If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with someone who is left handed because she believes that being left handed makes one sinister and means they are marked by the devil, and that having sex with a left handed person would endanger her mortal soul, no matter how odd, funny, or just plain weird we find her reasoning is irrelevant to the fact that it is her reasoning. Law doesn’t care WHY someone does not want to have sex with a particular person. We don’t care what their rationale is. The law is only concerned with that it existed.

And, to this hypothetical woman, if I, a leftie, intentionally lie to her, and pretend to be right handed, with the explicit purpose of getting her to have sex with me, and it works, then I have committed a fraud. I have committed a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact, with the expectation it would be relied upon. I have lied to this woman with the express purpose that my lie would induce her to commit an act that she, fully informed, would certainly not have committed.

Thus all that needs to be proven for this to be a fraud is:

1) this man knew it was a lie
2) His purpose in telling the lie was to induce this woman to do what she otherwise would not have done
3) She ended up doing what he was attempting to get her to do
4) The woman, had she known the truth, would not have done what she did

If all four things are true, if he lied to her with the express purpose of getting her to have sex with him, she did have sex with him, and she would not have sex with him but for the lie, then he defrauded her.

And when you defraud someone for the purposes of getting them to engage in sexual acts with you, then you invalidate the consent they’ve given for that act. When you lie to someone with the express purpose of getting them to have sex with you, knowing that but for the lie they would not, then you invalidated the consent.

And when you have sex with someone without their consent it’s rape.

[North Suran]

And now that I have a moment, let me elaborate on my original point. Fraud, almost universally, is defined as a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact upon which the other party reasonably relied.

But the legal definition is not universal, and so arguing about whether this is fraud or not is a moot point.

[Neo Art]

And now that I have a moment, let me elaborate on my original point. Fraud, almost universally, is defined as a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact upon which the other party reasonably relied.

But the legal definition is not universal, and so arguing about whether this is fraud or not is a moot point.

Actually it fairly is. Fraud is pretty much one of those things that is largely the same (minus a few tweaks, of course), where ever you go, at least in the western world.

Fraud is fraud, and its definition is very largely universal in pretty much ever “western” country. Moreover, it’s not relevant what the definition of fraud is universally. It matters what it is in the country where this man has been convicted of a crime.

And given the information already posted here, my definition seems fairly consistent. Yes, I’m willing to concede that my definition of fraud may be different in, say, the People’s Republic of Congo.

But it isn’t in Israel. And, considering that this man has been convicted OF A CRIME, and this discussion pertains to his conviction OF A CRIME, discussing what the elements OF THAT CRIME were, would be actually exactly the point of this thread. So you have a very unusual definition of the word “moot”

[Tungookska]

He deceived her of his ethnicity so he only has himself to blame.

because othersk nowing your ethnicity is a legal matter

[The Alma Mater]

He deceived her of his ethnicity so he only has himself to blame.

because othersk nowing your ethnicity is a legal matter

Yes, because sex is special yaddieyadda.

[Tungookska]

He deceived her of his ethnicity so he only has himself to blame.

because othersk nowing your ethnicity is a legal matter

Yes, because sex is special yaddieyadda.

god dissaproves of non jewish peenor

thats why jesus died for you

[Dyakovo]

He deceived her of his ethnicity so he only has himself to blame.

because othersk nowing your ethnicity is a legal matter

I suggest you look at Neo Art's posts...
I suggest this one in particular...

[Tungookska]

He deceived her of his ethnicity so he only has himself to blame.

because othersk nowing your ethnicity is a legal matter

I suggest you look at Neo Art's posts...
I suggest this one in particular...

so ethnicity is a legal matter?