Non-consent by race..

[Dyakovo]

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

Wrong. She consented to sex with "Dudu" a jewish businessman, not Sabbar Kashu an arab. Therefore the "consent" she gave was not informed consent, thus not legally consent, thus it was rape.

[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

Wrong. She consented to sex with "Dudu" a jewish businessman, not Sabbar Kashu an arab. Therefore the "consent" she gave was not informed consent, thus not legally consent, thus it was rape.

i consented to a rich female in her 20s, not my ugly wife? rape rape rape?

[Quelesh]

The problem with this debate is that the two sides of the argument have an intractable difference of opinion over the definition of the word "consent." I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed.

[The Alma Mater]

The problem with this debate is that the two sides of the argument have an intractable difference of opinion over the definition of the word "consent."

Actually - no. Most people understand the defintion of the courts perfectly well.
They just think it is silly. For instance because it pretends sex is some magical trancendent activity.

[Kiskaanak]

The problem with this debate is that the two sides of the argument have an intractable difference of opinion over the definition of the word "consent."

Actually - no. Most people understand the defintion of the courts perfectly well.
They just think it is silly. For instance because it pretends sex is some magical trancendent activity.

No, in fact, it doesn't. It holds consent to sexual activity to the same standard as consent to any OTHER activity. As in, when consent is obtained by fraud, the consent is vitiated.

The ones creating some different standard, are the ones arguing that in the cases of sexual activity, there should be some special new standard of consent.

[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.

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.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that was a defense anywhere.

In any case, though, I find it interesting that we could have a society where a man or woman could have consensual sex with a minor, and the minor be the one to go to kiddie jail for raping the adult. The precedent set in Israel would support such a case, if it could be proven that the minor knowingly lied about his/her age to the adult, and the adult would not have slept with them if he/she had known the child's true age (the latter would be more easily proven than the former, I think).

That's a very real possibility.

[Kiskaanak]

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.

I do so love arm-chair lawyering.

My restatement of fraud in relation to obtaining consent to sex was dumbed down for the intentionally ignorant masses. Your restatement however, in no way detracts from it. I caught your point in b) .

Once more, for full understanding, my restatement is a dumbed down version. Your addition is merely an expansion, not some amazing new detail that was left out.

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.

You see...this is why it's so eye-rollingly pointless when people try to pretend they have the training to argue the law. You think you've discovered something. Except the reasonable person standard is a mainstay of Western common and civil law legal systems. It isn't new. It isn't a substitution. In any situation of fraud (including where it has been used to obtain consent to sex) the reasonable person standard is applied. I won't bother going into how it can be modified, depending on a person's particular professional background (ie, reasonable medical practicioner versus regular non-medically trained person), or how things like social context are taken into account. I'm sure you'll come up with some other psuedo-legal 'discovery' if I take you down that path.

As for what precedent was actually set in this case...that is up for debate. Your arm-chair lawyering doesn't seem to extend to knowing how this sort of thing actually plays out in a legal system. I think that's a common mistake though. People believe that 'a judge said so and so, now it is written in stone!'.

Stare decisis doesn't actually work that way. No even when it's the highest court. Interpretation of precedent is what legal professionals do.

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.

That's beautiful I point out that your long rant about how being Jewish isn't "WHO" you are it's "WHAT" you are is completely irrelevant ...and you get confused and start talking about the definition of rape.

Please try keeping up.

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.

Actually, since most people can't even seem to wrap their heads around the idea that consent can be vitiated by fraud in ANY situation, it's a little disingenuous to characterise the discussion in this thread as being some sort of in depth look at Israeli case law. The question still remains (unfortunately for many) in this thread, whether or not you can obtain consent via fraud. Frankly, other than for a handful of people on this forum, the discussion you're proposing is entirely over the heads of NSGers, and not one that can be approached in an educated and knowledgeable manner.

As much as people believe that they can simply read a few articles and look up certain terms, it takes years to become a lawyer for a reason. All your discussion does is further confuse the issue, which is sadly, apparently confused enough for a great many people here.

[Kiskaanak]

i consented to a rich female in her 20s, not my ugly wife? rape rape rape?

Someone who responds to answers with tl;dr, should stop pretending to be engaging in a discussion.

[Kiskaanak]

Interesting. I wasn't aware that was a defense anywhere.

I brought up how this is a defense in Canada as well, when I discussed how the burden of proof shifts in actual sexual assault cases, depending on what element is being examined. Of course, the defense must have an 'air of reality' and it must be an honest mistake. It's a high burden.

In any case, though, I find it interesting that we could have a society where a man or woman could have consensual sex with a minor, and the minor be the one to go to kiddie jail for raping the adult. The precedent set in Israel would support such a case, if it could be proven that the minor knowingly lied about his/her age to the adult, and the adult would not have slept with them if he/she had known the child's true age (the latter would be more easily proven than the former, I think).

That's a very real possibility.

Galloism...remember when we discussed how pretending you can 'take on a profession' is not only offensive, it's immensely frustrating? Imagine trying to explain how someone has massively fucked up their do-it-yourself repairs on their car. You can't just explain it like you would to someone who understands car repair...you have to break it down for the complete novice just how massively they fucked up the repairs. It takes more time to do that, because you're actually teaching them about car repair as you go, in order to show them how they made such a mess of it.

I was going to go into statutory rape, rarely successful defenses to it, sentencing when it comes to minors, issues of power imbalance and so on...but frankly, I don't want to have to delve that deep into it in order to correct your worries.

If the legal system actually worked the way so many people here seem terrified that it does, we'd all be in jail for rape by now.

But it doesn't. Not even close.

[Waterlow]

I think that if you take someone at their word, you suffer the consequences. Harsh, I guess, but there you go. Claiming this is rape is, I think, potentially demeaning to those who actually go through the agony of proper rape.

[Kiskaanak]

I think that if you take someone at their word, you suffer the consequences. Harsh, I guess, but there you go. Claiming this is rape is, I think, potentially demeaning to those who actually go through the agony of proper rape.

Once again we have someone telling women what they can, and cannot consider rape.

How nice.

[Waterlow]

I think that if you take someone at their word, you suffer the consequences. Harsh, I guess, but there you go. Claiming this is rape is, I think, potentially demeaning to those who actually go through the agony of proper rape.

Once again we have someone telling women what they can, and cannot consider rape.

How nice.

I could equally be telling men. And was.

[Kiskaanak]

I think that if you take someone at their word, you suffer the consequences. Harsh, I guess, but there you go. Claiming this is rape is, I think, potentially demeaning to those who actually go through the agony of proper rape.

Once again we have someone telling women what they can, and cannot consider rape.

How nice.

I could equally be telling men. And was.

Sure, if men were raped at anywhere near the rate as women (by men), and if society were in fact geared towards vicious debates on telling men what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Sure. If the situations were in any way comparable, they would be comparable.

[Tungookska]

i consented to a rich female in her 20s, not my ugly wife? rape rape rape?

Someone who responds to answers with tl;dr, should stop pretending to be engaging in a discussion.

now now, dont make me insult your "discussion"

[Cybach]

Fair. Next.

[Waterlow]

I think that if you take someone at their word, you suffer the consequences. Harsh, I guess, but there you go. Claiming this is rape is, I think, potentially demeaning to those who actually go through the agony of proper rape.

Once again we have someone telling women what they can, and cannot consider rape.

How nice.

I could equally be telling men. And was.

Sure, if men were raped at anywhere near the rate as women (by men), and if society were in fact geared towards vicious debates on telling me what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Sure. If the situations were in any way comparable, they would be comparable.

Why do you want to think I'm targetting women with my statements? This may be a vicious debate (I haven't read it in its entirety) but I hope you recognise my own contribution is not vicious in itself.

Yes, I agree that rape is overwhelmingly a crime committed by men on women. My statement, however, was deliberately gender-neutral because I intended it to apply to all, not just to women. I'd be grateful if you would not in future create a gender bias in my statements where there is not one.

So, apparently I'm 'telling' people how they should define rape. It's my view that an adult's reasons for giving consent are, ultimately, their business. The consent is given. I maintain that, no matter how shitty the motives for misinforming an individual for the purpose of gaining sexual consent, the outcome of the act in any reasonable legal system (i.e. not the system in this case) is not rape. This is not to say that there aren't other legal implications, of course - in many such circumstances a crime of deception will have taken place.

[Neu Mitanni]

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

Wrong. She consented to sex with "Dudu" a jewish businessman, not Sabbar Kashu an arab. Therefore the "consent" she gave was not informed consent, thus not legally consent, thus it was rape.

What he said.

As has been pointed out repeatedly: fraud vitiates consent. Deniers, repeat that statement until you reach enlightenment.

I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.

[Kiskaanak]

What he said.

As has been pointed out repeatedly: fraud vitiates consent. Deniers, repeat that statement until you reach enlightenment.

I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.

In my view, what is going on here is a whole lot of rape apologism.

[The Alma Mater]

As has been pointed out repeatedly: fraud vitiates consent. Deniers, repeat that statement until you reach enlightenment.

And the deniers ask "why" ? Why is two adults of sound mental health agreeing to have sex not enough, but is there a whole list of requirements before one can say there is this thing called "consent" ?

[Kiskaanak]

Why do you want to think I'm targetting women with my statements? This may be a vicious debate (I haven't read it in its entirety) but I hope you recognise my own contribution is not vicious in itself.

The wider debate, the debate on how women (not men, the debate rarely if ever discusses men) may make decisions over their own bodies is the vicious debate I am speaking of. We are not discussing this incident in a social vacuum.

Your comments assume some sort of 'equal ground' that simply does not exist. Your focus on 'personal responsibility' for consent fails to recognise the inherent power imbalances that both absolves sexual assault against women, and encourages its continuance. When you place the onus on the victim of a crime, you let the perpetrator off the hook. This is done again, and again, and again in the wider debate and in this very thread. In fact, the conversation becomes so twisted that the 'victim' becomes the various 'poor men' who were 'accused of rape' by evil, lying women.

Downplaying rape...telling women what is rape and what isn't (this counts, but not that, so shut up, bitches) is all part of a culture which does not think that women actually have full physical autonomy. This is reflected in popular attitudes about how women dress, how women can engage in sexual activity, how women can make decisions about reproduction and so on.

Yes, I agree that rape is overwhelmingly a crime committed by men on women. My statement, however, was deliberately gender-neutral because I intended it to apply to all, not just to women. I'd be grateful if you would not in future create a gender bias in my statements where there is not one.

Your gender neutrality is bullshit, because the issue is not gender neutral. Pretending it is, shifts attention away from those who, in the main, are engaging in sexual assaults. It once again 'spreads out the blame' in an unrealistic, disproportionate manner, downplaying the very real gendered aspect of sexual assault.

There are times when 'neutrality' actually creates complicity in violence...like claiming that racism affects whites just as much as anyone else.

This rant, by the way, is not all directed at you. You're just a convenient spring-board in an attempt to address a wider problem with this discussion, and the discussion at large. My apologies if you're feeling put-upon, it's nothing personal.

So, apparently I'm 'telling' people how they should define rape.

Yes, you are. You do it here:

It's my view that an adult's reasons for giving consent are, ultimately, their business. The consent is given. I maintain that, no matter how shitty the motives for misinforming an individual for the purpose of gaining sexual consent, the outcome of the act in any reasonable legal system (i.e. not the system in this case) is not rape. This is not to say that there aren't other legal implications, of course - in many such circumstances a crime of deception will have taken place.

Motives matter in almost every other situation...what makes this different?

Fraud vitiates consent in every other situation...what makes this different?

Why is sex exempt from 'the rules'? Why are people who break those rules given a pass when it's sex?

Who benefits from this exemption? Who suffers?

Again, a very gendered answer to a very gendered question.

That alone should be raising alarms.

[Kiskaanak]

As has been pointed out repeatedly: fraud vitiates consent. Deniers, repeat that statement until you reach enlightenment.

And the deniers ask "why" ? Why is two adults of sound mental health agreeing to have sex not enough, but is there a whole list of requirements before one can say there is this thing called "consent" ?

Because you don't get to do things to another person's body without them being fully informed. Period.

[The Alma Mater]

Fraud vitiates consent in every other situation...what makes this different?


Why is sex exempt from 'the rules'? Why are people who break those rules given a pass when it's sex?

Complete and utter nonsense. The reverse is in fact true: there are special rules for sex without any reason for that to be so.

[Hydesland]

Downplaying rape...telling women what is rape and what isn't (this counts, but not that, so shut up, bitches) is all part of a culture which does not think that women actually have full physical autonomy. This is reflected in popular attitudes about how women dress, how women can engage in sexual activity, how women can make decisions about reproduction and so on.

This is utterly incoherent, and sounds like some strange post-modern sophistry. You're saying that it's wrong to try and define the word rape, or to try and assess what the word means to most people? There is nothing remotely logical or compelling in your argument connecting an attempt to define a word to attempting to control what women can do with their bodies.

Your gender neutrality is bullshit, because the issue is not gender neutral. Pretending it is, shifts attention away from those who, in the main, are engaging in sexual assaults. It once again 'spreads out the blame' in an unrealistic, disproportionate manner, downplaying the very real gendered aspect of sexual assault.

You're acting as if males getting raped is incredibly rare. It is not, it's extremely common in prison, and is a frequent occurrence to male children. There is also evidence to suggest that female to male sexual assault is not as rare as claimed, because males have a lower propensity to report such actions.

[The Alma Mater]

As has been pointed out repeatedly: fraud vitiates consent. Deniers, repeat that statement until you reach enlightenment.

And the deniers ask "why" ? Why is two adults of sound mental health agreeing to have sex not enough, but is there a whole list of requirements before one can say there is this thing called "consent" ?

Because you don't get to do things to another person's body without them being fully informed. Period.

And the people in question can decide *when* that stage of being informed is reached. Fair enough sofar.
But why can they undo that decision later if it turns out they made a mistake ?

[Dempublicents1]

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.

Yes, there are, and many of them are pretty ridiculous. In some standards, it is impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband. In others, it is impossible for men to be raped at all.

I don't really think "There are lots of different standards!" is a good argument against requiring actual, informed and freely given consent.

Meanwhile, you didn't really address my question.

The problem with this debate is that the two sides of the argument have an intractable difference of opinion over the definition of the word "consent." I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed.

That "difference of opinion", quite frankly, scares the hell out of me. It's the same sort of "difference of opinion" that lead many on this forum to argue that someone who drunkenly consents to oral sex also clearly consents to having their unconscious body fucked after they pass out. It's the same argument that leads many to argue that consent given in one context automatically applies to another. At its extreme, it's the same argument that leads many to argue that someone who consents to one sex act must consent to all others, and therefore can't be raped.

As far as I can tell, people around here spend an awful lot of time trying to figure out how to obtain "consent" without obtaining it freely and with their partner fully informed. They spend an awful lot of time trying to determine why some rape isn't "real rape" and why sometimes, lack of consent somehow "counts" as consent. I think it's all a load of bullshit.

In any case, though, I find it interesting that we could have a society where a man or woman could have consensual sex with a minor, and the minor be the one to go to kiddie jail for raping the adult. The precedent set in Israel would support such a case, if it could be proven that the minor knowingly lied about his/her age to the adult, and the adult would not have slept with them if he/she had known the child's true age (the latter would be more easily proven than the former, I think).

That's a very real possibility.

To be honest, I think it's rather silly that someone can go to jail for something they did with no intent and even with all the due diligence that could be asked of them. If the adult has no particular reason to believe that the person they are having sex with is or might be a minor, I don't think they should be prosecuted for a crime.

In my mind, the crime of rape should always require one to be aware of one's actions. Having sex with an obviously sleeping body without prior consent would be rape. Having sex with a partner who is acting awake, but is actually asleep would not be. The difference in this case is that, unless the latter is aware that her partner has sleep-sex, she has no reason to believe that he is not awake and knowingly participating in (or even initiating) the act.