Non-consent by race..

[The Horror Channel]

If that's considered rape then I expect to get arrested and charged with murder the next time I cut someone off in traffic.

[The Norwegian Blue]

And how would you suggest doing that? "Fraud voids consent unless we don't like the victim and think the thing she was defrauded about isn't a 'good enough' reason"? Do you think that would be a better law?

Fraud is defined on princeton as "intentional deception resulting in injury to another person "

Getting Arab ccooties should not count as injury, simple as that.

Okay, so non-consensual sex no longer counts as a harm in itself. Brilliant. Rape victims should definitely have to prove that their rape was sufficiently harmful to them, based on an arbitrary definition of harm in which other people get to decide whether your reasons for not consenting were valid. That's a terrific idea. I mean, it's not like the conviction rate for rape is already abysmal, or like rape victims aren't put through enough hell - being forced to demonstrate harm beyond the fact that the sex was not consensual will make things ever so much better.

[Neo Art]

If there is no intent to commit fraud, there is no fraud.

And intent was in no ways part of the standard I quoted you on. You defined fraud, contextually, thus:

To be fraud you have to demonstrate that you would NOT have had sex with this person at all, absent the lie being true.

Which says nothing of intent.

Considering you have at this point in your life apparently failed to learn the difference between a "condition" and "a definition" I'm not sure there's really anything I can say that will help you. My statement about what you must prove to demonstrate fraud is absolutely true. But nothing in your quoted statement states in ANY way that it was meant to be an exhaustive list. I showed one thing that would have to be proven. Your entire, angry, foaming at the mount, feet stomping screed basically boils down to your....bizarre misapprehension that because I addressed one element of a crime that somehow the other elements somehow, magically, ceased to exist. I didn't address it for two primary reasons. One, I had enough respect for your intelligence to assume that if you used a word, you knew what it meant, and I didn't have to walk you through it.

But more importantly, I didn't post the entirety of all the relevant elements because I had already done so right here, and I had assumed that before you'd actually go sounding off on a topic, you'd actually read it first. Which makes your entire rant about my "mistake" just basically boil down to YOU not actually doing YOUR job and familiarizing yourself with a topic BEFORE you decided to speak.

And since my "mistake" about "Incorrectly" defining a term basically boils down to me choosing to focus on one element, and not repeat myself yet. one. more. time. for people too lazy to actually read two whole pages worth of discussion. I didn't "make a mistake". I didn't "fail" to define it correctly. I chose to not repeat an argument, in its entirety, because I had enough respect for you to assume that you wouldn't speak before educating yourself.

It appears I was mistaken about that. And it is now obvious that you'd rather spend giant missives yelling and screaming about my "mistake" rather than bother to take a fraction of that time and actually educate yourself on the topic. Which basically makes you someone far less interested in undertaking the, frankly, minuscule amount of effort to actually be an informed contributor to a discussion, and more akin to someone who kins down the door and blows an air horn during a civilized dinner.

And while I am now aware that I can not expect you to take the slightest effort to familiarize yourself with an ongoing discussion before barging into it, I fear that such utter lack of any intellectual effort makes it quite obvious that you're not interested in an actual discussion, thus leaving me utterly uninterested in entertaining you further.

or, if I could break this entire post into basically 4 words it would be there: read first. Speak second.

It's like walking into a discussion of murder and defining murder as "one person does something that causes another person to die." You should know better.

Aw, let's be more honest here. It's a LOT more you wandering into a conversation, already in progress, and hearing someone say "murder is when an act causes the death of another person" and going "aha! No it's an act committed with malice aforethought that causes the death of another person, you IDIOT!" without realizing that 20 seconds before you showed up, that person already said that.

At least if it was in person you'd at least have an excuse about not hearing it first. But considering it's right two pages back, which you could have EASILY read if you had bothered in the fucking slightest.....well....

[Dopeonia]

Okay, so non-consensual sex no longer counts as a harm in itself. Brilliant.

I do not consider it non-consensual, not in a meaningful sense that, again, is used by people who try to use the English language to convey actual meaningful concepts.

Rape victims should definitely have to prove that their rape was sufficiently harmful to them, based on an arbitrary definition of harm in which other people get to decide whether your reasons for not consenting were valid. That's a terrific idea. I mean, it's not like the conviction rate for rape is already abysmal, or like rape victims aren't put through enough hell - being forced to demonstrate harm beyond the fact that the sex was not consensual will make things ever so much better.

No, if you're more specific about what actually happened, i.e. you were forcefully constrained, or you were penetrated in your sleep, there would be no need to demonstrate harm. If, however, you're relying on an obnoxiously broad use of the word consent, when you really mean that you don't like Arabs, then yes, under that situation, that shouldn't in itself be sufficient. Stop trying to generalise and universalise everything I say into something that applies to all rape victims to imply some sort of slippery slope, when it would actually only apply to rare and very specific sorts of situations.

[Neo Art]

No, if you're more specific about what actually happened, i.e. you were forcefully constrained, or you were penetrated in your sleep, there would be no need to demonstrate harm. If, however, you're relying on an obnoxiously broad use of the word consent, when you really mean that you don't like Arabs, then yes, under that situation, that shouldn't in itself be sufficient. Stop trying to generalise and universalise everything I say into something that applies to all rape victims to imply some sort of slippery slope, when it would actually only apply to rare and very specific sorts of situations.

Actually, that's exactly what you're saying. You basically just said rape victims don't have to PROVE that what happened ACTUALLY caused them harm, as long as it's something YOU could see causing them harm. It shouldn't be sufficient because YOU don't think it's sufficient.

[Sith Korriban]

Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?

Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.

"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"

vs

"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"

[Dopeonia]

Actually, that's exactly what you're saying. You basically just said rape victims don't have to PROVE that what happened ACTUALLY caused them harm, as long as it's something YOU could see causing them harm. It shouldn't be sufficient because YOU don't think it's sufficient.

For the last time, I do not consider her a rape victim in any meaningful sense. But yes, this is how the law works, something is not a crime unless SOMEONE or something (e.g. a legislator, the supreme court, the constitution etc..) deems it sufficiently harmful. I'm sorry for having an opinion on what the law should be.

[Neo Art]

Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?

Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.

"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"

vs

"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"

Yes, a profound one. And it's that difference that makes...well...all the difference.

[Sith Korriban]

Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?

Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.

"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"

vs

"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"

Yes, a profound one. And it's that difference that makes...well...all the difference.

And thus one might ask if he knew her consent would only be given if he was Jewish, or if he just thought she might find him more appealing if he said he was.

[Neo Art]

Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?

Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.

"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"

vs

"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"

Yes, a profound one. And it's that difference that makes...well...all the difference.

And thus one might ask if he knew her consent would only be given if he was Jewish, or if he just thought she might find him more appealing if he said he was.

I think the fact that he was convicted implies quite strongly that the question was asked, and answered.

[Neo Art]

I'm sorry for having an opinion on what the law should be.

You're allowed to whatever opinion you damned well choose. But when that opinion boils down to "harm should be what I say it is, and not what the victim says it is" your opinion is...well...what's another word for worthless?

[Sith Korriban]

Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?

Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.

"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"

vs

"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"

Yes, a profound one. And it's that difference that makes...well...all the difference.

And thus one might ask if he knew her consent would only be given if he was Jewish, or if he just thought she might find him more appealing if he said he was.

I think the fact that he was convicted implies quite strongly that the question was asked, and answered.

Not necessarily, taking into account the possibility of racism-based wrongful conviction. If he did know that for sure, then yes, he is guilty. If he didn't, then Justice is currently being reamed from behind by Bigotry, so to speak.

[Tahar Joblis]

Considering you have at this point in your life apparently failed to learn the difference between a "condition" and "a definition"

Neo Art, your constant attempts to insinuate that I'm stupid aren't getting you anywhere.

But more importantly, I didn't post the entirety of all the relevant elements because I had already done so right here

And that is supposed to forgive you getting sloppy subsequently? If you incorrectly set forth an insufficient set of conditions to define fraud, you incorrectly set forth an insufficient set of conditions to define fraud.

You were replying to me here when you offered your simple test. I had not memorized the entire 20 page thread, this is true; I had skimmed over that post, but I had clearly not memorized who was saying what in each and every post (exhibit A, my misquote on entry to the thread) and that post was no exception; I replied therefore to precisely what you said in your reply to me rather than reviewing to see what you might have meant to include in your post but omitted in the interest of brevity.

Yes, if you post something even the slightest bit sloppy while getting snippy with me, I will very likely tear it to nice logical shreds. So if you want to debate with me, either don't be snippy, or don't get sloppy.

And it is now obvious that you'd rather spend giant missives yelling and screaming

No, the "giant missive" part had quite little to do with your error. That was addressed in several (about ten) brief sentences at the very beginning; you subsequently proceeded to ignore everything else, namely, the material arguments of the post on the topic, to wit, said "giant missive":

Of course, I picked a relatively robust example to outline the absurdity of your stated position, one in which we could easily adjust the deceptions to be non-accidental to further develop discussion once you realized your mistake and moved to a slightly more correct definition, but you, in your pomposity, have chosen to ignore it. Too bad, I'm bringing it back around. We now say that both of them intended to lie to each other and expected that lie to help them get in the sack, and pronounce their behavior truly fraudulent and not merely a dishonesty that resulted in sex.

We now proceed to the sentencing phase. Judge Neo Art, this woman charges this man with fourteen counts of rape based on the fact that he pretended his brother's Mercedes was his, when it was only borrowed for the week. This man charges this woman with fourteen counts of rape based on the fact that she told him that her natural hair color was auburn when, in fact, it is by now naturally gray.

Neither defendant disputes the facts which either accuser has laid out, for they did indeed deceive one another in order to have sex with one another. Judge Neo Art, under the sentencing guidelines set forth in Jewish Woman Thinks Arab Man Has Cooties, 2010, the standard is 18 months in jail per count of rape by deception. Your Honor, will you sentence these forsaken individuals each to twenty one years in the slammer?

Simple fact. By the standard you have set forth - whether as stated incorrectly or as correctly amended - we can exhibit easy absurdity in the form of a common scenario that would likely be thrown out of court were it brought to trial in nearly any jurisdiction between common plaintiffs of equal status, and which most plaintiffs would not even consider bringing to trial. Nor consider rape, for that matter. Just two sad fools deluding themselves about things that really don't change the person - a few stray gray hairs and a flashy car - and then going through an angry break-up after a short doomed relationship. I doubt there are many judges in the civilized world that would throw the both of them in jail for years.

In the sense of the Israeli legal definition, why, yes, this is obvious. And in fact, is likely to happen with great frequency if thoroughly enforced, unless Israel is a remarkably different place than any other I have lived.

In an ordinary sense of rape, in the real moral and ethical sense of sex without consent, to wit, without regard to Israeli law? It is rare to have mutual rape, and this is generally the case where neither party is considered competent to provide consent (e.g., both are drunk, both are children, both are classed as retarded, et cetera). There are four issues in this case that I see worth speaking on.

First is the definition of what strikes me as fraud pure and simple as "rape" in a manner that appears to rely on post facto determination of consent via means well beyond the scope of act or personal identity. We have in the very news article a description of the act in question as "consensual sex," something I view as being fundamentally at odds with "rape."

Second is the legal principle of punishment fitting crime. As an act of fraud, we should see punishment proportionate to the damage caused. "EW EW EW I HAVE ARAB COOTIES IN MAH COOTER BLEACH IT OOOUUUT I TOUGHT HE WAS JOOISH!" is, on a scale of one to ten with one being "That ruined my breakfast" to ten being "That ruined the rest of my life," it's probably realistically around a 2.5. I'm not sure that warrants eighteen months in the slammer.

Third is the fact that every time we have one of these court cases hashed over on NationStates, we usually don't really know what the facts were, especially not from a brief news clip, and not in a plea bargain either, so it's best to speak precisely and caveat everything with "based on what seems to be the case" (et cetera).

Fourth is that people lying their way into others' beds is actually a big issue. And it's not a big issue because it somehow undermines consent when you dye your hair, drive around a fancy car that isn't yours, et cetera. It's a big issue because romance is one of the major angles used for con jobs. This is all about fraud and not at all about sex. Let's move back over to the US, which most of us are more familiar with (myself included). Actually, I'm going to talk about life below the salt in the US.

Ladies love a military man, because he actually has a job. A steady job that he can keep for a long time, and if he doesn't completely fuck up, it'll get him other jobs afterwards. And the benefits are great, even if the pay is cruddy, so if you set yourself up with a military man, you might be putting down most of the cash on rent and such, but he'll make it up to you easily when you take advantage of his non-cash benefits. Only the red tape is tied up. The military messes things up, dontcha know? He's been trying to get it sorted out but it might take a while. And then one day you go down to base looking for him, and he isn't there, and nobody can tell you where he is, and you wonder. And then you have to have an operation, and you try to get through the red tape, and you discover the cold fact: That man wasn't in the military at all. He was just playing you the whole time. He may have gone as far into the military as failing basic training, which is where he picked up that uniform, but it might also just be from the military surplus store.

You might even be married by then. Have a kid on the way. And everything he's ever told you has been a lie. And it's not three hundred and seventy four counts of rape spread out over three years that you're after filing, since you never would have taken up with the schmuck if you knew he was unemployed and dealing drugs haphazardly to make petty cash; he may not be half the man you'd thought he was, but he was still the same man you let into your life. He didn't rape you. He conned you. And yeah, the judge should bring the hammer down on him as best as he can at that point, because he's done some real damage there - eighteen months in the slammer would be light in my opinion, at that point.

Guy conned you into sleeping with him by pretending to belong to your religion when he wasn't even thinking about converting? It's not rape. It's a con job. And if all she did was sleep with him once and then, a month later, find out that the guy was an Arab and freak out, it wasn't even that big of a con job.

Instead of replying to this, you choose to simply spend your time complaining and calling me stupid, instead of addressing what I've had to say to add to the discussion, including what I pointed out was a severe lack of explicit discussion in this thread of the dangers of tip-toeing over the line into consent post facto. You're performing the argumentative equivalent of cutting and running while screaming "I HATE JOO!" at the top of your lungs.

Now, I'll neatly re-encapsulate the core of the problem by addressing your briefest definitions of all in a recent post of yours that contained some small measure of content:

rape = sex + lack of consent

This, as I see it, is the correct definition of rape. Performance of a sex act upon an individual without consent of that individual. It is that simple.

lack of consent = lack of informed agreement when such lack of informed agreement is due to intentional misrepresentation

"Consent" is not appropriately defined negatively via the lack thereof.

Consent is simply this: Agreement. That's the definition in plain English. Legally, we want to add that only competent parties can truly consent; we do not presume that a teenager is not agreeable to the idea of sex, but instead that a teenager is not yet entirely competent to make decisions about their own body, and likewise with individuals who are drugged, intoxicated, or mentally retarded. However, information is in most cases wholly irrelevant to whether or not consent exists, and I am free to make terrible decisions, having been deemed mentally competent enough to make any decisions at all.

I can consent to a sex act with someone about whom I know nothing. "Hey you - yeah, with the glasses, by the counter! You look cute, let's bang!"

What matters are the details which define the scope of the consent granted. This consent is contingent on continued cooperation, and is specific to a particular instance - a combination of person, time, place, and act. It may be implicit or explicit; if implicit (afforded by actions) it is quite limited in scope. It may not be presumed to be continued forward in time "by default" (although we will note that there exist prior legal traditions which did so, particularly in the case of spouses; these traditions are morally inadequate IMO). It is neither contingent nor retroactive. You either consented to a specific act with a specific person in a specific time and place, or did not.

If I should agree to have sex with you on the understanding that tomorrow you will repair the garden shed, it is not rape at the time, and it remains not rape even when tomorrow, you fail to repair the garden shed, though I have been cheated. If I should agree to have sex with you for money, and you skip out without settling your bill, I have been again cheated, but again not raped. If you should find yourself drugged by a famous filmmaker who then has his way with you over your objections, you were raped, and this does not change if you should later forgive him and decide that you wanted to have had sex with him. Once the act is complete, consent may not be retroactively revoked or created, and I can see only a few circumstances where it would retroactively be revealed to have not applied (c.f. "quack" example regarding act, "husband in the dark" example regarding person).

What is suggested by Neo Art and others supporting the use of the term "rape" in this case is that the woman in question consented to have sex with an eligible Jewish bachelor rather than to have sex with a specific person (who she at the time believed to be an eligible Jewish bachelor). This is generally not the way of sexual consent, IMO; it should, as a rule, be taken to be specific rather than categorical. You do not consent to have sex with a 6'9" retired basketball player, but with Michael Jordan. You do not consent to have sex with a lawyer, but that cute guy you just met in the bar who claims to be a lawyer.

In fact, the latter route, assuming that it's a set of relevant descriptions that matter, is the route to approving of rape. Imagine the scene if, rather than fucking her himself, the man in question bent her over a table in a dark room, and then, rather than doing the deed himself, quickly exited "to put on my condom" but in fact instead handed off the baton to a passing eligible Jewish bachelor. After all, she consented to have sex with an eligible Jewish bachelor, did she not? I believe that demonstrates the problem with presuming sexual consent to be anything but highly specific to the person rather than to arbitrary characteristics thereof - Jew, lawyer, basketball player, drummer, what-have-you. You need to have the right specific person; it is also sufficient to have the right specific person with respect to this dimension.

Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?
Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.
"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"
vs
"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"

Yes, a profound one. And it's that difference that makes...well...all the difference.

And thus one might ask if he knew her consent would only be given if he was Jewish, or if he just thought she might find him more appealing if he said he was.

I think the fact that he was convicted implies quite strongly that the question was asked, and answered.

Not necessarily, taking into account the possibility of racism-based wrongful conviction. If he did know that for sure, then yes, he is guilty. If he didn't, then Justice is currently being reamed from behind by Bigotry, so to speak.

I, for one, would be amazed to learn that the woman at any point actually explicitly told him "I only have sex with Jews and never with Arabs!" (An openly bigoted statement like that is probably considered quite gauche.) I would be equally amazed to learn that he did not think he was getting some mileage out of pretending to be an eligible Jewish bachelor.

[Bendira]

Suggestion: Read the thread. This objection has been answered roughly 27 separate times now.

no it hasnt

Yes, actually, it has.

Just a tip on debating. Never say something has been "answered" when clearly it is just an opinion.

[Zatarack]

She was deceived as to the nature of lover, however, and I am by no means an expert in Israeli law, I doubt the extent of the deception was criminal, as there did not appear to be any fraud.

[Quelesh]

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

God apparently disapproves of Jewish penis as well, since he makes them cut part of it off.

[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

God apparently disapproves of Jewish penis as well, since he makes them cut part of it off.

true dat

[Nodinia]

Interview with the "Dudu" himself.
link

[Ashmoria]

Interview with the "Dudu" himself.
link

wow

leaving off any question of how he identified himself ethinically/religiously, how could she think that hooking up with a stranger she had just met in the most casual of circumstances was in any way an indication that he was looking for a serious long term relationship?

[Tungookska]

Interview with the "Dudu" himself.
link

wow

leaving off any question of how he identified himself ethinically/religiously, how could she think that hooking up with a stranger she had just met in the most casual of circumstances was in any way an indication that he was looking for a serious long term relationship?

he seduced her with his evil non jewish arab mind powers and then raped her

[Ashmoria]

Interview with the "Dudu" himself.
link

wow

leaving off any question of how he identified himself ethinically/religiously, how could she think that hooking up with a stranger she had just met in the most casual of circumstances was in any way an indication that he was looking for a serious long term relationship?

he seduced her with his evil non jewish arab mind powers and then raped her

so it seems.

or she took a walk on the wild side then thought better of it later.

its an odd standard for a quickie with a stranger. i wonder what else he might not have told her about that might qualify as deception "ohbythe way, im just renting this house"

[Dyakovo]

The penal code in question makes it an offense to obtain consent to sex by engaging in deception as to WHO HE IS.

And here, precisely, is the crux of the matter. Who he is is some guy that she met and hung out with. That, there was no deception about. There is only deception here as to what his religion/race was.

In no part, in no way, was he pretending to be someone he was not, as in Kiskaanak's persistent analogy.

Yes, he was. He was pretending to be a jew when he is an arab.

[Tahar Joblis]

The penal code in question makes it an offense to obtain consent to sex by engaging in deception as to WHO HE IS.

And here, precisely, is the crux of the matter. Who he is is some guy that she met and hung out with. That, there was no deception about. There is only deception here as to what his religion/race was.

In no part, in no way, was he pretending to be someone he was not, as in Kiskaanak's persistent analogy.

Yes, he was. He was pretending to be a jew when he is an arab.

That's not a who, that's a what. Dentist, Arab, what-have you. Single. Rich. Helicopter pilot. The analogy that is offered by Kiskaanak - which is one also found, I see, in related criminal cases - is to someone pretending to be the pre-existing sexual partner of the victim. The victim is then approached and consents implicitly to having sex with that sexual partner. Consent has in fact in such cases been offered - it is simply that the person to whom consent is offered is not, in fact, present, and thus the person actually engaging in the act falls outside the scope of offered consent. Similarly, a form of bodily consent is offered in the medical examination cases - consent to undergo a medical examination, which is of course not at all consent to have a sexual act performed upon oneself.

Now, that said, what has been pointed out previously is that some more information is now available about this particular case. The Atlantic has been a useful launching point.

From Haaretz (the article is worth a read).

In 2008, the High Court of Justice set a precedent on rape by deception, rejecting an appeal of the rape conviction by Zvi Sleiman, who impersonated a senior official in the Housing Ministry whose wife worked in the National Insurance Institute. Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him.

Here we see the past application of the "rape by deception" law. A man was impersonating a specific person and then abusing that person's office to get women to sleep with him. The article also cites the standard for rape by deception from the 2008 case:

High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a "person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him."

Rubinstein said the question was also whether an ordinary person would expect such a woman to have sex with a man without the false identity he created.

The result is that the case in question represents a decision that being Palestinian is a critical matter that a reasonable woman [presumably here a reasonable Jewish woman] would conclude is a bar to having sex.

In the past, men who misrepresented themselves in this way were convicted of fraud.

One such case was that of Eran Ben-Avraham, who told a woman he was a neurosurgeon after which she had sex with him, and was convicted of three counts of fraud.

Fraud for claiming to be a neurosurgeon, but apparently prior to the 2008 case: Is being a neurosurgeon a critical matter to a reasonable woman? A case like that is all about implicit economic exchanges and expectations. It is - IMMHO - fraudulent behavior beyond any doubt.

One Israeli reader of the Atlantic wrote in to describe a second "rape by deception" case:

A point which is rarely mentioned in the coverage of the "rape by deception" case - either by Israeli or foreign media - is that the case started out as a regular rape case. The woman claimed she was forcibly raped by Kashour. Once on the stand, however, the defense demolished her story and she admitted she lied and that they had consensual sex. She admitted that after learning Kashour lied to her, she felt humiliated and went to the police. It was at that point the prosecution came up with the plea bargain. A normal court would have just acquitted Kashour, but this court decided to convict.

Several further points:

1. If the woman had told the true story to the police in the first place, there would have been no trial, not to mention any conviction.

2. Kashour has no earlier convictions. In another "rape by deception"" case, which involved a lesbian masquerading as a man in order to have sex with women, she received only six months of suspended sentence. Kashour got 18 months of incarceration.

3. One of the three judges is Moshe Drori, who was embroiled in a scandal last year, when he refused to convict a very well connected yeshiva boy who admitted - and was filmed - running over a security guard with his vehicle. The security guard was an Ethiopian woman. Drori, a Jewish Orthodox, forced the guard to accept the apology of the yeshiva boy, and then invoked a judgment by 12th century scholar Maimonides (I shit you not), which says once an apology is accepted by the victim, the case is closed. And he closed the case. He is apparently a Maimonidas affectionado. The case was overturned in the Supreme Court, and this schtick cost Drori his chance at becoming a Supreme Court justice. Let's say that a non-Jew masquerading as a Jew won't stand much of a chance in the court of Judge Drori.

So if you're a woman pretending to be a man and have sex with several unwitting women that way, it's worth six months of suspended sentence, while Arab passing for Israeli and having sex with one once is worth eighteen months in the slammer?

Rape by deception cases in the US:

Without the new legislation, police and prosecutors are virtually helpless when someone reports a rape that occurred because the victim was deceived or tricked into consenting. Legislators cited a case in western Massachusetts in which a woman consented to intercourse with her boyfriend's brother because he claimed to be the woman's boyfriend.

Pretending to be a specific individual - here a boyfriend - that you would have sex with. Consent was therefore offered to the woman's boyfriend that act in that time and that place. As previously noted, the boyfriend's brother's activity therefore lies outside of the scope of the consent offered.

In another case of "fraud" rape, a lab technician posed as a medical doctor and sexually assaulted a woman. Legislators said they hope changing the law will prevent future rapes and bring those guilty of any form of rape to justice.

Deception regarding act - pretending that what's going to happen is a medical examination and then engaging in sexual assault. These two scenarios - "spousal impersonation" and "medical examination" are the primary categories of "rape by deception" within US law.

What seems to be indicated in the more detailed accounts available at this time - which, it must be admitted, are primarily from the defendants' side of the table - what is described is that Kashour was passing for Jewish in a very casual fashion - using a nickname that can be taken for Jewish (which he uses all the time), dressing in a way that blends in with Jewish Israelis, and speaking totally unaccented Hebrew. He claims the woman then assumed him to be Jewish based on these facts.

In closing, I will note that I am finding this article interesting reading; it is thus far the most detailed discussion of what US law is on the topic that I have found, although the primary subject is the tie between rape by fraud laws and the standards of statutory rape cases rather than the tie between rape by fraud laws and passing as a member of an advantaged group in order to avoid discrimination.

[Dempublicents1]

Yeah, with the Jew woman's logic, 95% of men who say "I love you" to a girl and has sex with her should be sent to prison for rape.

Is he saying it intentionally knowing it isn't true so that she will have sex with him? I can't speak for anyone else, but if I found out that someone pretended to be in love with me in order to get me to consent to sex, I absolutely would feel violated afterward. And I wouldn't feel one shred of sympathy for someone who did that and ended up in jail for it.

The whole point is the law DOESN'T care about "subjective emotional harm". The law cares about CONSENT. It cares about freely given, informed consent. And she didn't give it. Thus she was raped.

rape = sex + lack of consent

lack of consent = lack of informed agreement when such lack of informed agreement is due to intentional misrepresentation

ergo rape = sex + intentional misrepresentation which leads to a lack of informed agreement

I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.

Then the law needs to be made more robust to account for absurd situations like this.

Or, you know, people need to stop trying to have sex with people who have not freely given informed consent. Just a thought.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I think approaching this from the question of "Just how much can I skirt the line and not get in trouble?" is a bad idea. It is the responsibility of every person who engages in sexual activity to ensure that she has freely given and informed consent from her partner. Period. Someone who wants to try to have sex without doing so and then wants to whine about getting in trouble for it is the person who is being absurd.

[Dyakovo]

The penal code in question makes it an offense to obtain consent to sex by engaging in deception as to WHO HE IS.

And here, precisely, is the crux of the matter. Who he is is some guy that she met and hung out with. That, there was no deception about. There is only deception here as to what his religion/race was.

In no part, in no way, was he pretending to be someone he was not, as in Kiskaanak's persistent analogy.

Yes, he was. He was pretending to be a jew when he is an arab.

That's not a who, that's a what.

So your ethnicity, background, experiences supposedly aren't part of who you are? Bullshit. Everything about you is part of who you are.