Non-consent by race..

[Penguton]

This is such a stupid debate. Some jewish slut gets angry because an Arab guy claimed to be jewish? I mean seriously, what the hell people?

[Kiskaanak]

This is such a stupid debate. Some jewish slut gets angry because an Arab guy claimed to be jewish? I mean seriously, what the hell people?

Sluts can't be raped, amirite?

[Dempublicents1]

Only because you have arbitrarily decided that lack of freely given, informed consent in one context "counts" while lack of freely given, informed consent in another doesn't.

Firstly, you can take informed consent out of the equation, fully informed consent is incredibly rare for a one night stand, and it's very common that people say "if I had known he was such a jackass [or whatever here], I would not have had sex with him". Being fully informed about the character is completely irrelevant, the issue here is that the victim was deceived, not just that she didn't know everything about him.

There is a difference between "informed consent" and "knows everything." No one is claiming that the latter is necessary.

And yes, she was intentionally deceived. Hence, not informed.

Furthermore, the situations are very different. In all those situations, the act of sex itself was never consented to, regardless of the person who the victim was having sex with, this is a very significant difference.

In this situation, the act of sex itself was never consented to, because the "consent" that was obtained is invalidated by the method in which it was obtained.

One could drug a person to lower her inhibitions and then ask her to have sex. She may give "consent". But the fact that someone drugged her in order to obtain that consent invalidates it. This is similar. The fact that he intentionally deceived her for the purpose of obtaining consent invalidates it. He knowingly and intentionally acted in bad faith in a manner that invalidated any consent he could claim to have obtained.

[Dempublicents1]

This is such a stupid debate. Some jewish slut gets angry because an Arab guy claimed to be jewish? I mean seriously, what the hell people?

Sluts can't be raped, amirite?

Especially not Jewish sluts. It's physically impossible!

[Tokos]

An important question is whether the harm done justifies prison. The victim cannot in good faith say she suffered terribly because of it - except maybe in social opprobrium, which can't be a factor in these kinds of cases.

[The Norwegian Blue]

An important question is whether the harm done justifies prison. The victim cannot in good faith say she suffered terribly because of it - except maybe in social opprobrium, which can't be a factor in these kinds of cases.

How in the hell can you know what she did or didn't suffer?

[Kiskaanak]

How in the hell can you know what she did or didn't suffer?

Her vagina wasn't torn. Thus, no harm!

[Tungookska]

How in the hell can you know what she did or didn't suffer?

Her vagina wasn't torn. Thus, no harm!

your most valid argument yet

[Kiskaanak]

your most valid argument yet

You have contributed nothing to this discussion...you have even admitted you don't bother to read what others write.

So I shan't feel like I'm missing out when I ignore your flaccid attempts at...well whatever it is.

[Tungookska]

your most valid argument yet

You have contributed nothing to this discussion...you have even admitted you don't bother to read what others write.

So I shan't feel like I'm missing out when I ignore your flaccid attempts at...well whatever it is.

source

[Hydesland]

There is a difference between "informed consent" and "knows everything." No one is claiming that the latter is necessary.

And yes, she was intentionally deceived. Hence, not informed.

No, hence deceived. You can be not informed without being deceived.

In this situation, the act of sex itself was never consented to, because the "consent" that was obtained is invalidated by the method in which it was obtained.

The act was definitely consented to, it was just consented to someone else (according to your arguments), but even then this is extremely dubious because the extent that being an Arab instead of a Jew is any real difference or remotely changes your identity at all is highly questionable.

One could drug a person to lower her inhibitions and then ask her to have sex. She may give "consent". But the fact that someone drugged her in order to obtain that consent invalidates it. This is similar.

No it isn't.

I think a more apt comparison between your examples and this situation is someone buying something from someone else. In your examples, you either have someone who never agreed to buy the object, but the person managing to hack into your bank account and force you to buy it anyway, OR the seller is making the buyer so drunk that he buys the object without knowing what he was doing.

In the situation in the OP, what's happening is, just before the buyer buys, he asks the seller "hey, you're from down south right?", and the seller replies "hell yeah, partner!", then the buyer buys. Later on, it is found out that the seller is really from the north and he was lying to the buyer, and the buyer exclaims "had I known he was a lousy northerner, I would never have bought that product from him". But the fact that he was a northerner had no affect on the actual product, the buyer still WANTED the product and knew what the product was.

[Hydesland]

An important question is whether the harm done justifies prison. The victim cannot in good faith say she suffered terribly because of it - except maybe in social opprobrium, which can't be a factor in these kinds of cases.

How in the hell can you know what she did or didn't suffer?

By that logic, how the fuck can the courts know either?

[Tahar Joblis]

Your restatement however, in no way detracts from it. I caught your point in b) .

See prior comments by Sith Korriban. The distinction between what you said and what I said is not trivial to everyone.

Once more, for full understanding, my restatement is a dumbed down version.

"Dumbed down versions" are quite often incorrect.

There have been several distinct standards set forth as to what constitute sufficient criteria for a sexual act to be classed as rape in this thread. Yours just prior was not the best of its particular class, and it is the best set of standards of that class which I have intended to primarily address in my arguments. Thus the minor correction before I proceeded to examples that fall under the tightened version.

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.

No, I think I've pointed out something that had at that point not occupied a sufficiently central role in the discussion. Should an Israeli judge be saying that a reasonable woman looking to bang some cute guy she just met would not sleep with an Arab?

As for what precedent was actually set in this case...that is up for debate.

And I've pointed out what sort of precedent the experts on the ground in Israel are worried about it setting.

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.

You're still missing the point. The distinction between "WHO" and "WHAT" is relevant precisely because of the definition of rape.

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,

Full stop. This unproven assertion doesn't even match the first 14 pages of this thread, let alone the last 6. (Vitiation, for those of you in the peanut gallery, means to make faulty, defective, or debased, and in this case legally means "to make ineffective.") If you wish to claim it applies to the general population, I'm going to demand you produce opinion polls to back it up.

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.

Total bullshit. NSG is chock full of very highly educated people and bright young lads and lasses who fully intend to obtain higher levels of education (1,2) who are accustomed to discussing the details and distinctions of rival political philosophies.

Nor is this topic something particularly arcane. A high school student not only can understand what we're talking about, it's something they should be learning about.

[Tokos]

An important question is whether the harm done justifies prison. The victim cannot in good faith say she suffered terribly because of it - except maybe in social opprobrium, which can't be a factor in these kinds of cases.

How in the hell can you know what she did or didn't suffer?

The victim is in essence claiming a form of violation because she slept with an Arab. However, if you're happy to bed down with someone very shortly after meeting them, you can't just turn round and claim to be simultaneously all concerned about your chastity etc. It would be like a bouncer claiming agoraphobia: clearly in bad faith.

[The Norwegian Blue]

An important question is whether the harm done justifies prison. The victim cannot in good faith say she suffered terribly because of it - except maybe in social opprobrium, which can't be a factor in these kinds of cases.

How in the hell can you know what she did or didn't suffer?

The victim is in essence claiming a form of violation because she slept with an Arab. However, if you're happy to bed down with someone very shortly after meeting them, you can't just turn round and claim to be simultaneously all concerned about your chastity etc. It would be like a bouncer claiming agoraphobia: clearly in bad faith.

...so we're right back around to "you can't rape sluts." Sigh.

You know, there are women who work as prostitutes - women who literally approach strange men on street corners and offer to blow them in exchange for cash. These women are obviously not terribly picky about their sexual partners, not "concerned with their chastity." And yet, amazingly, they can still be raped. Not infrequently, they are raped by clients, men who paid their $50 and then decided to engage in an additional sex act that wasn't offered in that price. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that the woman in question is a slutty slutty ho-bag does not mean she suddenly loses control over her own body. The fact that she'll suck strangers' cocks for cash does not mean that she cannot feel profoundly violated when someone she didn't approach makes her suck HIS cock, or when someone she did approach decides he shouldn't have to stop there.

There are women, too, in committed relationships, who've had sex with the same man for 25 years, and who, one night, have a headache and tell him they're not in the mood. A woman like that is probably not concerned that her husband will destroy her "chastity" when he decides that he doesn't actually care that this time she said no. Physically, the act may be no different than it's been a thousand times before. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that neither the sex act in itself nor her partner in himself was offensive to her does not mean she cannot feel profoundly violated when her consent was not given.

Likewise, even if this woman's only reason for being upset is that she's a racist bitch, it does not fucking matter. Even if she's a dirty icky slut who likes casual sex with strange Jews, she has the right to only engage in casual sex with strange Jews if that's her thing, just like the hooker has a right only to blow the strangers she chooses to blow, just like the wife has a right to say to her husband, "Even though we've engaged in this act a thousand times and I quite enjoy it, tonight I'm saying no." How in the hell you can claim to read her mind and know that she did not feel legitimately violated is beyond me, and it's frankly disgusting. Honestly, how dare you people tell someone what sexual acts they are "allowed" not to consent to? How dare you tell someone that you know what she felt better than she did? How dare you insist that you, as a complete stranger, are the arbiter of what things cause her harm, and her own opinions on the subject are irrelevant?

[Kiskaanak]

See prior comments by Sith Korriban. The distinction between what you said and what I said is not trivial to everyone.

I have outlined it in further detail in other posts. You simply chose that one, and then said 'oh oh you missed this scintillating detail!'.

It's okay. I don't expect you to read the whole thread, just what you cherry pick.

"Dumbed down versions" are quite often incorrect.

No, those would be incorrect versions. Dumbed down means simplified. Like what I just did for you here.

There have been several distinct standards set forth

Actually, no, there haven't. The only 'distinct standards' set forth have been by people who don't actually understand the law. The correct standard has been put forth by a number of people who do know the law. That standard has been put forth in simplified forms, and in more complex forms. I am sorry that you are confused as to the fact that this is still, nonetheless, a unified standard.

No, I think I've pointed out something that had at that point not occupied a sufficiently central role in the discussion. Should an Israeli judge be saying that a reasonable woman looking to bang some cute guy she just met would not sleep with an Arab?

I love revisionism! Let's see what you actually said again, shall we?

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 did in fact, get it wrong. You claimed that the standard as put forth by Neo Art...the same standard I have put forth...the legal standard... somehow just didn't include the reasonable person standard until this case, wow! This is unequivocally false, and demonstrates a gross ignorance of the law.

Did Neo Art explain the reasonable person standard in detail? No. I touched on it earlier in the thread. However, here's the thing.

We're not here to teach you law.

You seem to believe you have the ability to discuss law, despite not having the training or background to do so. You are an intelligent person...that you do not have legal training, as evinced by your constant misunderstandings of legal standards, is not some black mark on that intelligence. However, when you completely fuck up the law, and then wonder why we don't bother addressing your points, you are missing something fundamental. We can't address your 'points' because YOU GOT IT WRONG. You get it wrong on a consistent basis. It would take a lot of explaining to show you how you got it wrong, and get you on track so you can discuss it with any level of accuracy. But again.

We're not here to teach you.

Total bullshit. NSG is chock full of very highly educated people and bright young lads and lasses who fully intend to obtain higher levels of education (1,2) who are accustomed to discussing the details and distinctions of rival political philosophies.

Nor is this topic something particularly arcane. A high school student not only can understand what we're talking about, it's something they should be learning about.

I have no problem discussing the social aspects of this case...from a non-legal perspective. A legally intricate conversation cannot happen here, because only two or three people on NSG are capable of that discussion.

[Kiskaanak]

...so we're right back around to "you can't rape sluts." Sigh.

You know, there are women who work as prostitutes - women who literally approach strange men on street corners and offer to blow them in exchange for cash. These women are obviously not terribly picky about their sexual partners, not "concerned with their chastity." And yet, amazingly, they can still be raped. Not infrequently, they are raped by clients, men who paid their $50 and then decided to engage in an additional sex act that wasn't offered in that price. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that the woman in question is a slutty slutty ho-bag does not mean she suddenly loses control over her own body. The fact that she'll suck strangers' cocks for cash does not mean that she cannot feel profoundly violated when someone she didn't approach makes her suck HIS cock, or when someone she did approach decides he shouldn't have to stop there.

There are women, too, in committed relationships, who've had sex with the same man for 25 years, and who, one night, have a headache and tell him they're not in the mood. A woman like that is probably not concerned that her husband will destroy her "chastity" when he decides that he doesn't actually care that this time she said no. Physically, the act may be no different than it's been a thousand times before. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that neither the sex act in itself nor her partner in himself was offensive to her does not mean she cannot feel profoundly violated when her consent was not given.

Likewise, even if this woman's only reason for being upset is that she's a racist bitch, it does not fucking matter. Even if she's a dirty icky slut who likes casual sex with strange Jews, she has the right to only engage in casual sex with strange Jews if that's her thing, just like the hooker has a right only to blow the strangers she chooses to blow, just like the wife has a right to say to her husband, "Even though we've engaged in this act a thousand times and I quite enjoy it, tonight I'm saying no." How in the hell you can claim to read her mind and know that she did not feel legitimately violated is beyond me, and it's frankly disgusting. Honestly, how dare you people tell someone what sexual acts they are "allowed" not to consent to? How dare you tell someone that you know what she felt better than she did? How dare you insist that you, as a complete stranger, are the arbiter of what things cause her harm, and her own opinions on the subject are irrelevant?

Quoted for the motherfucking truth.

[Tungookska]

So he lied to get in her pants. If every man guilty of doing the same was convicted of rape then the worlds prison population would grow by a lot.

not only did he lie, but he is an ebil arab raping jewish wimmen!!!!

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

Which is what saying "THIS IS WHAT TEH LAW SEZ" is a cruddy argument when it comes to morality.

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.

"Senator, why have you been beating your wife?"

I'll be direct. Your question was "why is that?" and relied on a combination of statements to describe a false situation. You claimed it was universally the case that if you signed a consent form handed to you by someone falsely claiming to be a doctor, it would invalidate the consent. My discussion of the variance of law regarding consent addressed this prior claim upon which your question relied.

If someone told you they were a doctor and asked you to sign a consent form, it would not necessarily invalid your consent if they turned out to not be a doctor. There are all kinds of other tests that come into play. It might be considered relevant if their claim was believable; if it was relevant; and any number of other curlicues. Behind each legal tradition are arrayed a number of supporters.

Thus, your claim to having found a universal case regarding consent outside of the realm of sexual consent was patently false. Your question was "Why?" but the answer is "No."

[Dempublicents1]

There is a difference between "informed consent" and "knows everything." No one is claiming that the latter is necessary.

And yes, she was intentionally deceived. Hence, not informed.

No, hence deceived. You can be not informed without being deceived.

But you cannot be informed while being deceived, which is the point here.

In this situation, the act of sex itself was never consented to, because the "consent" that was obtained is invalidated by the method in which it was obtained.

The act was definitely consented to, it was just consented to someone else (according to your arguments), but even then this is extremely dubious because the extent that being an Arab instead of a Jew is any real difference or remotely changes your identity at all is highly questionable.

No, it wasn't consented to. The appearance of consent was obtained, but actual consent was not.

One could drug a person to lower her inhibitions and then ask her to have sex. She may give "consent". But the fact that someone drugged her in order to obtain that consent invalidates it. This is similar.

No it isn't.

I think a more apt comparison between your examples and this situation is someone buying something from someone else. In your examples, you either have someone who never agreed to buy the object, but the person managing to hack into your bank account and force you to buy it anyway, OR the seller is making the buyer so drunk that he buys the object without knowing what he was doing.

In the situation in the OP, what's happening is, just before the buyer buys, he asks the seller "hey, you're from down south right?", and the seller replies "hell yeah, partner!", then the buyer buys. Later on, it is found out that the seller is really from the north and he was lying to the buyer, and the buyer exclaims "had I known he was a lousy northerner, I would never have bought that product from him". But the fact that he was a northerner had no affect on the actual product, the buyer still WANTED the product and knew what the product was.

A more apt comparison is to pretend that we aren't talking about sex? I think not.

Of course, what your comparison really boils down to is the idea that, if one wants sex, they must be willing to have sex with anyone. It's actually rather akin to the argument that, if a woman goes out looking for a one-night stand, she can't be raped, because she was clearly looking for sex. Nice.

[Tokos]

...so we're right back around to "you can't rape sluts." Sigh.

If you say so.

You know, there are women who work as prostitutes - women who literally approach strange men on street corners and offer to blow them in exchange for cash. These women are obviously not terribly picky about their sexual partners, not "concerned with their chastity." And yet, amazingly, they can still be raped. Not infrequently, they are raped by clients, men who paid their $50 and then decided to engage in an additional sex act that wasn't offered in that price. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that the woman in question is a slutty slutty ho-bag does not mean she suddenly loses control over her own body. The fact that she'll suck strangers' cocks for cash does not mean that she cannot feel profoundly violated when someone she didn't approach makes her suck HIS cock, or when someone she did approach decides he shouldn't have to stop there.

Logically that would be theft of services.

There are women, too, in committed relationships, who've had sex with the same man for 25 years, and who, one night, have a headache and tell him they're not in the mood. A woman like that is probably not concerned that her husband will destroy her "chastity" when he decides that he doesn't actually care that this time she said no. Physically, the act may be no different than it's been a thousand times before. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that neither the sex act in itself nor her partner in himself was offensive to her does not mean she cannot feel profoundly violated when her consent was not given.

I never said it was a moral or honourable thing to do. That doesn't mean it is worth sending a man to prison for. I wouldn't disagree that some sort of punishment is in order but prison is very serious.

Likewise, even if this woman's only reason for being upset is that she's a racist bitch, it does not fucking matter. Even if she's a dirty icky slut who likes casual sex with strange Jews, she has the right to only engage in casual sex with strange Jews if that's her thing, just like the hooker has a right only to blow the strangers she chooses to blow, just like the wife has a right to say to her husband, "Even though we've engaged in this act a thousand times and I quite enjoy it, tonight I'm saying no." How in the hell you can claim to read her mind and know that she did not feel legitimately violated is beyond me, and it's frankly disgusting. Honestly, how dare you people tell someone what sexual acts they are "allowed" not to consent to? How dare you tell someone that you know what she felt better than she did? How dare you insist that you, as a complete stranger, are the arbiter of what things cause her harm, and her own opinions on the subject are irrelevant?

It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.

It'd be like a strong-arm or boxer claiming in court that "violence appalls him". It's patently dishonest.

[Tahar Joblis]

I have outlined it in further detail in other posts.

I'll repeat what I told to Neo Art: Each time you make a claim detailing the sufficient conditions to define rape, it should be complete enough to be correct.

To do otherwise is to err. These distinctions are not trivial distinctions.

No, those would be incorrect versions. Dumbed down means simplified.

And "simplified" is not always correct. As in the case above.

Actually, no, there haven't.

Yes, there have. If there wasn't, there would be nothing for us to talk about. Everybody would have agreed and gone home.

You did in fact, get it wrong. You claimed that the standard as put forth by Neo Art...the same standard I have put forth...the legal standard... somehow just didn't include the reasonable person standard until this case, wow!

That's because the standard you actually described was not, in fact, the actual legal standard proposed for that law by the Israeli high court. Your description was, in other words, inadequate; partially accurate, but incomplete.

Nor is there one universal "legal standard" in this matter. To even use the phrase "the legal standard" with reference to anything but this specific case and the [fairly fresh, very specific, and certainly not ancient and unchanging] Israeli law that applied to it is to be so horrifically implicitly wrong as to require calling out. To say such a phrase is to imply that there is only one possible legal standard of consent.

There is not even a unified standard across the US, let alone between the US, Israel, the UK, and everywhere else.

However, when you completely fuck up the law

Find a case where I have claimed that the law is what it is not, then make your case and back it up. Thus far you have failed, in spite of all your claims of my ignorance, to do so.

If you were paying attention, I have been primarily concerned not with the question of what the law is, which varies considerably across nations and time, but what the law ought to be, and what the moral case of reality is. When I tell you that consent has a scope specific to person and instance, this is plain English and plain moral reality, not legal hair-splitting. I doubt you will often see the word "scope" used regarding rape in a legal document.

When I say that rape is sex without consent, I happen to be agreeing with many jurisdictions' laws, but I say so not because of what the law may say in Syria or Russia or South Africa or West Virginia or Hawaii, but because that's what rape is. If tomorrow every legislature defined rape in legal terms as sex without red peppers I would still be saying so.

Law does not define reality. It sets forth standards for crime and punishment. We are gathered here today to address whether or not the law is an ass. Whether it is an ass de facto or ass de jure is also a matter for debate, and to do that we have to talk about what the law actually is.

[Dempublicents1]

It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.

Because a woman who is "okay with sleeping around" can't still have criteria by which she chooses her partners? She must be willing to sleep with any and all partners?

[United Dependencies]

So did the guy actively say that he was a jewish bachelor?

[Tungookska]

It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.

Because a woman who is "okay with sleeping around" can't still have criteria by which she chooses her partners? She must be willing to sleep with any and all partners?

she needs to make up her mind what kind of partner she wants before she gets in bed with them, not after