Non-consent by race..

[Kiskaanak]

I need to point out, just in case it isn't obvious, that I am not defending rape in any way. I am just pointing out what I understand to be what rape means, the use of force or other means to have unconsensual sex. It can be consensual then unconsensual, and vice versa. But not after the act can it change, because the sex, the action of consent or nonconsent has ended. When sex ends there is nothing to consent or unconsent to, it's already happened.

The other means in this scenario is fraud.

Fraud always vitiates (cancels) consent. Why? Because what you are consenting to is the lie, not the reality.

If someone tells you that they will sell you a carton of milk for $0.50, and you consent to the purchase, you have consented to buying milk, nothing else. If you end up with a brick of shit, you did not consent to that transaction, despite the fact that you agreed to the deal and handed over the money.

[Kiskaanak]

The argument some of you are making is this:

This isn't rape, it's just fraud that gets you sex.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously? Who the fuck are you to decide when a woman is raped and when she isn't?

Rape is sexual activity WITHOUT CONSENT. Period. No fence sitting. Once more, those of you crying about how this offends "REAL" rape victims (again, who the fuck are you to decide who is a 'real' rape victim?) are totally ignoring the obvious and common sense difference in degrees that is possible in any other crime...why can't you allow it here? Killing one person isn't as bad as killing 10, but it's still murder. Stealing gum isn't stealing your car, but it's theft.

Get over the term 'rape' if the only way you can think of it is some back-alley stranger-perpetrated violent assault. Sexual assault is a better term, and it includes offenses ranging from improper touching to a biker gang-bang rape.

This is not some sort of fucking 'sexual fraud'. You don't like where the fraud lands you? Don't lie in order to fuck someone who would never otherwise sleep with you. It's not just an assholish thing to do, it's a CRIME.

And it's about time this shit gets enforced. That slippery slope you all whine about actually works to ensure women are beaten, emotionally abused, or defrauded in order to have sex with people who are absolute scum bags....and then told it was their fault after. You feel sympathy for the scum bags? Really? I find that pretty telling. What are you willing to do to get an unwilling woman on your cock?

[Tungookska]

"I had sex with someone I didnt even know and im suing since he didnt tell me personal information i didnt ask for"

[Hydesland]

-snip-

On the other hand, this technical fraud element of rape (especially when it comes to lying about something as insignificant as ethnicity and how it has no real affect on the person, unlike with other frauds) just completely divorces the word from how normal people actually use it (the judge even admitted such). In fact, it completely divorces the word from even dictionary definitions:

# force (someone) to have sex against their will; "The woman was raped on her way home at night"
# the crime of forcing a woman to submit to sexual intercourse against her will

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rape

[Kiskaanak]

On the other hand, this technical fraud element of rape (especially when it comes to lying about something as insignificant as ethnicity and how it has no real affect on the person, unlike with other frauds)

And here is the crux of the problem I have with the 'it's not rape!' crowd.

You are telling someone that this did them no harm.

Having sex with a stranger you thought was your husband? No harm.

Having sex with someone who promised to marry you in order to fuck you? No harm. (sucker)

Having sex with someone who pretended they were someone else? No harm.

Having sex with someone with an STI, who never told you about it? Well, if you didn't get it from them, no harm!

I'm sorry, but WHAT. THE. FUCK.

How are you defining harm? You seem to be ignoring that the harm doesn't have to be physical...that even in a clear cut rape, the victim might be physically totally 100% after...are they not harmed?

just completely divorces the word from how normal people actually use it (the judge even admitted such). In fact, it completely divorces the word from even dictionary definitions:

# force (someone) to have sex against their will; "The woman was raped on her way home at night"
# the crime of forcing a woman to submit to sexual intercourse against her will

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rape

The ordinary way people think about rape is a serious problem, yes. It's why people still seriously say shit like 'well look at what she was wearing'.

So on that we agree. It's time people fucking caught up to the idea that 'normal' isn't necessarily the way things should continue to happen. Christ...'normal' used to have it that you couldn't rape your spouse. Apparently we have a major hurdle to overcome when it comes to lying about a material fact in order to convince someone to fuck you who would never otherwise do so.

So try repeating it to yourselves. IT'S NOT OKAY. IT'S A CRIME.

Eventually it'll sink in.

[Hydesland]

How are you defining harm? You seem to be ignoring that the harm doesn't have to be physical...that even in a clear cut rape, the victim might be physically totally 100% after...are they not harmed?

The only harm here is that this woman got, as dope put it, 'Arab cooties'. I don't consider the harm from that proportional to a year in prison in the slightest.

So try repeating it to yourselves. IT'S NOT OKAY. IT'S A CRIME.

Eventually it'll sink in.

It's also remarkably trivial, in this particular case.

[Kiskaanak]

The only harm here is that this woman got, as dope put it, 'Arab cooties'. I don't consider the harm from that proportional to a year in prison in the slightest.

Again, you're thinking only of physical harm, when the real harm of a rape is more often than not psychological, and lasts much longer than the physical damage.

The way you talk about this is the way that rape is commonly discussed in the public sphere. Everyone feels some sympathy if the rape was violent. Not so much when it wasn't 'real rape'. Like date rape.

That's some seriously fucked up thinking you're supporting.

It's also remarkably trivial, in this particular case.

I don't know if it is. I don't know enough of the facts in this particular case, and neither do you.

And if you meant 'rape by fraud', then I unequivocally disagree. Everyone has the absolute, inalienable right to make a full and informed decision about who he or she has sex with.

If you DON'T CARE, that's your choice.

But it is also your choice to deny your body to someone else for absolutely any reason, at any time.

[Hydesland]

Again, you're thinking only of physical harm, when the real harm of a rape is more often than not psychological, and lasts much longer than the physical damage.

No, I'm not. I'm considering her emotional torment for sleeping with someone of a 'lesser' or 'unworthy' ethnicity, and dismissing it as trivial.

The way you talk about this is the way that rape is commonly discussed in the public sphere. Everyone feels some sympathy if the rape was violent. Not so much when it wasn't 'real rape'. Like date rape.

Stop trying to draw comparisons to a vague mega-super-humongous-generalisation about ALL possible non violent rapes, that's just poor debating. It doesn't follow. I think this particular incident is not very significant, therefore I think ALL non violent rape is insignificant. Massively illogical.

I don't know if it is. I don't know enough of the facts, and neither do you.

Alright, assuming the reporting is accurate then.

[Hydesland]

Also, I'm not saying it's not a crime at all. Or that it wasn't wrong. I am saying that a year long prison sentence is disproportionate.

[Dyakovo]

The woman in the OP consented to sex with a jewish man, not an arab.

No, she consented to an Arab, who said he was a Jew.

Wrong.

But it should be right. Consenting and agreeing should not be miles apart.

its not about consenting, its about an evil arab man

If it were a Jew pretending to be an Arab most (not all) people here would still argue the same thing

I certainly would be.

[Kiskaanak]

No, I'm not. I'm considering her emotional torment for sleeping with someone of a 'lesser' or 'unworthy' ethnicity, and dismissing it as trivial.

That's not your right. You do not determine what damage she suffers as a result of her decision to not sleep with a person from a certain religion or ethnicity. All you get to do is support her choice over what she does with her body. That is your only part in any of this

Stop trying to draw comparisons to a vague mega-super-humongous-generalisation about ALL possible non violent rapes, that's just poor debating. It doesn't follow. I think this particular incident is not very significant, therefore I think ALL non violent rape is insignificant. Massively illogical.

I'm calling into question your criteria for labeling a rape 'not very significant'.

I am questioning what possible internal justification you can create for thinking you have any say in the matter at all.

Since many people also seem to feel they have the right to comment on which rapes are 'real' and which ones are 'not very significant', I suspect this is a wider problem, with the way that society views women, and views the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies. I see your 'objections' as an expression of that societal view, and it disgusts me.

Alright, assuming the reporting is accurate then.

The media reports of legal cases are never complete.

[Kiskaanak]

Also, I'm not saying it's not a crime at all. Or that it wasn't wrong. I am saying that a year long prison sentence is disproportionate.

I wish you'd made that point a little clearer at the outset.

Sentencing is an entirely different issue, yes. Though I'm not going to comment on the sentence in this issue, not having enough of the facts.

[Hydesland]

That's not your right. You do not determine what damage she suffers as a result of her decision to not sleep with a person from a certain religion or ethnicity. All you get to do is support her choice over what she does with her body. That is your only part in any of this

Too bad, I'm doing it anyway. And I'm not determining, I'm speculating. Part of the process of having this thing called an opinion.

I'm calling into question your criteria for labeling a rape 'not very significant'.

I am questioning what possible internal justification you can create for thinking you have any say in the matter at all.

Any say in that matter? When did I say such? I'm not part of the Israeli legal system.

Since many people also seem to feel they have the right to comment on which rapes are 'real' and which ones are 'not very significant', I suspect this is a wider problem, with the way that society views women, and views the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies. I see your 'objections' as an expression of that societal view, and it disgusts me.

This is really ridiculous. For one thing, it has nothing to do with women, if the genders were reversed in this scenario, I wouldn't be saying anything different. Furthermore, this has absolutely no affect on her rights to make decisions about her own body, at all.

[Hydesland]

not having enough of the facts.

What new facts could really change the situation drastically?

[Kiskaanak]

not having enough of the facts.

What new facts could really change the situation drastically?

If he knew she would face danger, economic/social/emotional problems for sleeping with her...in other words, if his deception wasn't merely self-serving but actually malicious. That should be a factor in sentencing, along with the his understanding social context (eg, the sanction a woman faces if she has pre-marital sex with 'one of her own' versus 'one of their kind'...is he aware of this, or is it completely new to him)

[Hydesland]

If he knew she would face danger, economic/social/emotional problems for sleeping with her...in other words, if his deception wasn't merely self-serving but actually malicious. That should be a factor in sentencing, along with the his understanding social context (eg, the sanction a woman faces if she has pre-marital sex with 'one of her own' versus 'one of their kind'...is he aware of this, or is it completely new to him)

Alright, I guess that makes sense. On the other hand, I highly doubt it was done for those reasons.

[Dempublicents1]

There's an argument here that basically boils down to, "I don't like this woman and her viewpoints, therefore she wasn't raped."

Is she likely a bigot? It would certainly seem that way. But sex without consent doesn't suddenly become sex with consent just because the victim is a jerk.

[Tungookska]

Is she likely a bigot? It would certainly seem that way. But sex without consent doesn't suddenly become sex with consent just because the victim is a jerk.

ok, but we are talking about someone who consented

[Dempublicents1]

Is she likely a bigot? It would certainly seem that way. But sex without consent doesn't suddenly become sex with consent just because the victim is a jerk.

ok, but we are talking about someone who consented

No, we aren't, as multiple people have explained.

[Tungookska]

Is she likely a bigot? It would certainly seem that way. But sex without consent doesn't suddenly become sex with consent just because the victim is a jerk.

ok, but we are talking about someone who consented

No, we aren't, as multiple people have explained.

yes, we are, as multiple people have explained

[Dempublicents1]

Is she likely a bigot? It would certainly seem that way. But sex without consent doesn't suddenly become sex with consent just because the victim is a jerk.

ok, but we are talking about someone who consented

No, we aren't, as multiple people have explained.

yes, we are, as multiple people have explained

Only because people can't seem to understand the fact that "consent" obtained through deception is not actually consent. If someone lied and told me that he was a doctor and I signed a consent form, no one would argue that said consent form was not invalidated by the circumstances under which it was obtained. But if it's sex, suddenly any semblance of "consent" given is considered to be 100% valid. Why is that?

[Tungookska]

Is she likely a bigot? It would certainly seem that way. But sex without consent doesn't suddenly become sex with consent just because the victim is a jerk.

ok, but we are talking about someone who consented

No, we aren't, as multiple people have explained.

yes, we are, as multiple people have explained

Only because people can't seem to understand the fact that "consent" obtained through deception is not actually consent. If someone lied and told me that he was a doctor and I signed a consent form, no one would argue that said consent form was not invalidated by the circumstances under which it was obtained. But if it's sex, suddenly any semblance of "consent" given is considered to be 100% valid. Why is that?

tl dr

anyway, i guess im going to sue anyone who has ever lied to me that ive had sex with

[Dempublicents1]

anyway, i guess im going to sue anyone who has ever lied to me that ive had sex with

That's a nice strawman you've got there. You going to burn it?

[Tungookska]

anyway, i guess im going to sue anyone who has ever lied to me that ive had sex with

That's a nice strawman you've got there. You going to burn it?

yep, and anyway, no logical phalluses are present in my post

[Tahar Joblis]

a) The person telling the lie knows it is a lie. (note, this doesn't cut it, this is simply one element that must exist)
b) The lie was told in order to get someone to have sex with the person telling the lie. (again, we're not all the way there. No rape, no fraud)
c) The deceived party actually has sex with the person telling the lie. (hmmm, well now we've got reliance on the fraudulent statement...is it rape? Not yet.)

Now pay attention everyone, here is the really important part:

d) The person lied to, had he or she known the truth NEVER WOULD HAVE CONSENTED TO SEX.

You missed, incidentally, a key component of the test under discussion in fullest measure. The agent of (a) must be believe (d), that is, that not only the lie was helpful in obtaining consent, but that it was necessary to obtaining consent.

You also missed a key component of the test as expressed by the Israeli high court, which is not the same as the test that, say, Neo Art has argued for. The high court has instead substituted "a reasonable woman" for "the deceived party." Thus, the case in question is setting the precedent for saying that a reasonable woman would not have sex with an Arab.

This dangerous precedent was discussed in the Haaretz article I linked to earlier, citing expert concern on the matter. Have you read it yet?

The reason Tahar Joblis' long analysis is completely pointless to the discussion, is that despite what he wants the laws on point to say, the quibble is NOT over whether being Jewish (or a Jehovah's Witness, or a man, or a fake blonde) is a who or what, but rather, are the elements of fraud met?

Incorrect. The definition of rape is sex without consent. It is not sex without fraud or sex without red peppers, but sex without consent.

You can argue whether or not IN THIS CASE the elements were met. That is certainly up for discussion. However, the particular facts of the situation do not change the law itself.

"The law is an ass." - Charles Dickens

That the Israeli law sets forth fraud of any kind as a sufficient condition for rape is not in question. Nor even is the fact that it is punishing immoral behavior. That laws in other jurisdictions do not do so either de facto or de jure is also a fact. What is in question is if the Israeli law is correct in its labeling, and whether or not the exercise thereof is appropriate (and proportionate), both in this case and in similar cases that may be identified via analogy, i.e., application of similar test criteria.

Again, there are evidentiary burdens to be met here. This is not just a situation of she said/he said. That is certainly a large reason that successful sexual assault/rape prosecutions are dismally low.

I hope this helps clarify, yet again, what the law actually is, and how the slippery slope argument that continues to be tossed around is only slippery because it's covered in bullshit.

There is no presumed further progression of the law as written or the test criteria claimed in order to reach readily apparent absurdities. There is merely complete and full revelation of what those sets of criteria entail. No slippery slope is required to reach absurdity or to clearly indicate the vast disparities between the examples of rape by fraud within, say, US law, and the case here.

There is, of course, a slippery slope which I have indicated such criteria are dangerously close to - more like a sheer cliff, which is taking consent as being in fact post facto, and it is only a slippery slope in the sense that I have seen, in this thread, relatively few people jump off of it as if they were diving for pearls, but I have only occasionally voiced my cautions about it, and my detailed examples and arguments have nothing to do with it.

Detailed examples and arguments which, I will add, nobody has chosen to attempt to address. By the standard of fraud necessary for sexual activity serving as a sufficient criterion for the determination of rape, we have in many disintegrated relationships mutual serial rapists with hundreds or even thousands of mutual rapes to their name, who hardly a judge in the world would attempt to prosecute. We have a proffered legal standard which is both in practice unenforceable due to the large gap between the truths of reality and what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in principle applies most severely (i.e., with numerous counts) to cases that we are inclined to dismiss entirely as not meriting criminal prosecution.

As the rather lengthy article I linked to here indicated, the fact that a given standard allows for mutual rape is, in fact, a sticky issue that needs to be addressed by any good argument on the topic.

]1. Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right.—One might argue that the
adult being the victim of rape by fraud as perpetrated by the juvenile should
not (and does not) relieve the adult of criminal liability for statutory rape.
An adult’s reasonable reliance on a juvenile’s material misrepresentation of
being of age does not supply a defense under a strict liability approach.
And it should not even if the juvenile making the material misrepresentation
thereby perpetrates rape by fraud against the adult. Two wrongs do not
make a right.

To assess this objection consider the following hypothetical. Suppose
a juvenile commits rape by fraud against an adult wife by impersonating her
husband.256 By simply being the victim of this rape by fraud the adult wife
perpetrates statutory rape.257 But as the victim of rape by fraud, should the
adult be liable for statutory rape? Did the adult affirmatively do anything
that should subject her to statutory rape liability other than become a rape-
by-fraud victim? The answer to both questions is, presumably, no. Since
the adult victim of rape by fraud (via spousal impersonation) deserves a de-
fense to statutory rape, then the adult victim of rape by fraud (via adult im-
personation) likewise deserves a defense to statutory rape.

Or, perhaps more to the point, we should see you making an argument talking about this kind of thing:

No Accomplice Liability for Statutory Rape Victims.—A general
principle of criminal law is that one cannot be both accomplice to and vic-
tim of the same criminal offense.206 This principle applies to statutory rape
victims:207 “statutory rape law was enacted to protect young females from
immature decisions to have sexual intercourse; the legislature considers her
to be the victim of the offense. It would conflict with legislative intent,
therefore, if she could be prosecuted as a secondary party to her own statu-
tory rape.”208 One might argue that this principle bars a juvenile from rape-
by-fraud liability arising from the same intercourse by which s/he is a vic-
tim of statutory rape.
But claiming that a victim should not be criminally liable as a perpe-
trator of a different crime misapplies the principle. The principle is that a
victim of a crime should not be criminally liable as an accomplice to that
crime. Thus, the principle that bars a statutory rape victim from criminal
liability as an accomplice to the very same statutory rape does not extend to
barring criminal liability as a perpetrator for a crime distinct from statutory
rape—rape by fraud.]

We have in the criteria set forth above by such as Neo Art (who since seems to have quit the field) several serious problems. I have pointed out a number of them. A number more are discussed in the sources I have linked to and in some cases quoted directly.

not having enough of the facts.

What new facts could really change the situation drastically?

If he knew she would face danger,

Do we, or do we not, have standards both legal and moral assigning culpability for willful endangerment?

economic/social/emotional problems for sleeping with her...in other words, if his deception wasn't merely self-serving but actually malicious.

Do we, or do we not, have standards both legal and moral for prosecuting malicious fraud?

That should be a factor in sentencing, along with the his understanding social context (eg, the sanction a woman faces if she has pre-marital sex with 'one of her own' versus 'one of their kind'...is he aware of this, or is it completely new to him)

Do we, or do we not, have moral standards that address the questions of racism and bigotry?

No, we aren't, as multiple people have explained. claimed without addressing any of the complications thereof.

Fixed.

Only because people can't seem to understand the fact that "consent" obtained through deception is not actually consent. If someone lied and told me that he was a doctor and I signed a consent form, no one would argue that said consent form was not invalidated by the circumstances under which it was obtained. But if it's sex, suddenly any semblance of "consent" given is considered to be 100% valid. Why is that?

As noted at quite some length in the article I linked to, which you apparently have not read, there are quite a few different legal standards for what constitutes consent. You might like reading about them and their history.