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.

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.

This can't be right... You agreed with me... One of us is going to have to change our position or risk starting the apocalypse.
*nods*

[Dempublicents1]

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" ?

Why is it that, if someone lies and tells me he is a doctor, any consent form I sign under that impression is invalidated and any procedures the "doctor" has performed can be viewed as assault?

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 ?

We aren't talking about a mistake here. We aren't talking about, "Well, I just sort of assumed...." In the case under discussion, if she had just assumed he was Jewish because he looked Jewish and spoke Hebrew or something like that, there would be no rape. We are talking about an instance in which one person intentionally deceives another in an attempt to obtain "consent" they would not otherwise get. To pretend that their willful actions are somehow a "mistake" on the part of the victim is ridiculous.

[Kiskaanak]

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.

I just pointed out to you how the people creating 'special rules for sex' are those who argue that the standard of consent as it relates to fraud shouldn't be applied.

How you can continue to get it bass ackwards is beyond me.

[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.

I just pointed out to you how the people creating 'special rules for sex' are those who argue that the standard of consent as it relates to fraud shouldn't be applied.

Because the standard does not apply to fraud that way. Duh.

[Kiskaanak]

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.

No. I am saying this. Our society is still very much a patriarchal one. Whatever bullshit you believe about gender equity to the contrary. I'm not going to argue whether or not that is true. Thus rape is defined within that patriarchal system, and the people making decisions about what women can and cannot do with their bodies are profoundly shaped by gendered inequality. Thus, definitions of rape are markedly self-serving to those who wish to maintain gendered inequality.

Has that improved? Yes! People now recognise you do not have an absolute right to sex with your wife regardless of whether she's willing or not. The concept of 'date rape' while not fully understood, has at least entered the public consciousness.

Are we past it? NO. People still work at finding ways to blame the victim, or to deny a woman the right to fully informed consent. The sexual needs/wishes of men are still given more paramountcy than women's right to physical autonomy.

What is incoherent is that this continues to go unrecognised by the majority of people both here on this forum, and in the wider society.

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.

Men rape women, children and other men at a rate so incredibly much higher than women perpetrate rape against anyone, that it is frankly ludicrous to argue that we should discuss this issue from a gender neutral viewpoint.

This does not mean that men or male children are not raped by women.

If the nuance escapes you, I'm not sure how to help you better understand it.

[Kiskaanak]

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 ?

They can't. You are deliberately misrepresenting the issue again.

FULLY. INFORMED.

If you don't have that, you don't have consent.

[Kiskaanak]

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.

If anyone is taken aback at my tone, the arguments as summarised by Dem here, is the reason for it.

Those of you making these arguments need to back up, and examine what you really think about sex, consent, and the right of women to make decisions about who they fuck, how, and when.

[Kiskaanak]

Because the standard does not apply to fraud that way. Duh.

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

[Hydesland]

Thus rape is defined within that patriarchal system

And? Why does that make it wrong to try and accurately define rape?

, and the people making decisions about what women can and cannot do with their bodies are profoundly shaped by gendered inequality. Thus, definitions of rape are markedly self-serving to those who wish to maintain gendered inequality.

That doesn't in the least justify an automatic assumption that anyone who is trying to define rape is only doing so for some self serving end, to maintain some patriarchal system. This thread is pretty much entirely about whether it's really rape or not, you're pretty much saying that anyone who engages in a discussion about this really has this ulterior motive (and as I've pointed out endlessly, I much despise the propensity for many on NSG to, in a post-modern fashion, assume that almost EVERYTHING has some evil ulterior motive to it), without any proof.

deny a woman the right to fully informed consent.

This is an incoherent sentence.

Men rape women, children and other men at a rate so incredibly much higher than women perpetrate rape against anyone, that it is frankly ludicrous to argue that we should discuss this issue from a gender neutral viewpoint.

In the context, we're not discussing the perpetrator, we're discussing the victim. It's not unusual for a man to be a victim of rape, so saying this all has to do with exclusively trying to control female victims is nonsensical. Furthermore, I don't see why this sort of 'rape' in particular, where someone was lied to before they had sex, is overwhelmingly more common for male to female than female to male, compared to other rapes.

[Kiskaanak]

The sad thing is, most of you have never even thought about your 'agenda'.

Perhaps some of you could enlighten me as to what you want out of arguing that you or anyone else should be able to commit fraud in order to get someone to sleep with you...and get away with it?

[Hydesland]

Perhaps some of you could enlighten me as to what you want out of arguing that you or anyone else should be able to commit fraud in order to get someone to sleep with you...and get away with it?

Just to reiterate, as you already know, I don't think it's right for someone to do that, of course. But that doesn't mean I think the word rape is an appropriate label for it either.

[Kiskaanak]

Perhaps some of you could enlighten me as to what you want out of arguing that you or anyone else should be able to commit fraud in order to get someone to sleep with you...and get away with it?

Just to reiterate, as you already know, I don't think it's right for someone to do that, of course. But that doesn't mean I think the word rape is an appropriate label for it either.

Yes, I do know.

I'm loathe to get into a conversation about what it should be 'instead' though, considering the way this thread has gone. I have maintained that the term 'sexual assault' is inclusive enough to describe many 'levels' of inappropriate, illegal sexual conduct. I think I'm going to leave it at that.

[Hydesland]

I'm loathe to get into a conversation about what it should be 'instead' though, considering the way this thread has gone. I have maintained that the term 'sexual assault' is inclusive enough to describe many 'levels' of inappropriate, illegal sexual conduct. I think I'm going to leave it at that.

That's fair. But then, it would help that you stop labelling anyone who doesn't think it's rape or a crime as 'rape apologists' or 'defenders of rapists', not unless you want to get into the conversation you so loathe.

[Kiskaanak]

That's fair. But then, it would help that you stop labelling anyone who doesn't think it's rape or a crime as 'rape apologists' or 'defenders of rapists', not unless you want to get into the conversation you so loathe.

I'm not willing to back down from that. Frankly anyone who argues that committing fraud to obtain consent to sex is 'okay' is defending rape. Most of the people here are not in fact arguing the specifics of the case (which is difficult to do absent complete facts)...they are arguing the generalities of fraud as it relates to rape.

At some point you need to stop compromising.

[Hydesland]

I'm not willing to back down from that. Frankly anyone who argues that committing fraud to obtain consent to sex is 'okay' is defending rape. Most of the people here are not in fact arguing the specifics of the case (which is difficult to do absent complete facts)...they are arguing the generalities of fraud as it relates to rape.

At some point you need to stop compromising.

I don't think anyone is really arguing that it's okay. However, things can be wrong or assholish, but not be a crime, or at least, not one worthy of over a year in prison.

[North Suran]

That's fair. But then, it would help that you stop labelling anyone who doesn't think it's rape or a crime as 'rape apologists' or 'defenders of rapists', not unless you want to get into the conversation you so loathe.

I'm not willing to back down from that. Frankly anyone who argues that committing fraud to obtain consent to sex is 'okay' is defending rape.

Or they are claiming that obtaining sex through deceit is not tantamount to rape. Your definition of rape is not necessarily the definition of others. And you will forgive me if I am not shedding tears of blood for a racist.

[Kiskaanak]

I don't think anyone is really arguing that it's okay.

Are we reading the same thread?

However, things can be wrong or assholish, but not be a crime, or at least, not one worthy of over a year in prison.

This is more than just 'wrong'. The sentence aside, downplaying it so that it's not a 'crime' does what exactly? Oh right. It lets people get away with it.

[Dempublicents1]

Or they are claiming that obtaining sex through deceit is not tantamount to rape. Your definition of rape is not necessarily the definition of others.

Just like claiming that having sex with an unconscious person in not rape. Or having sex with a person who obviously cannot think straight is not rape. Or having sex with a woman who wore a short skirt is not rape. Or having non-consensual sex with your spouse is not rape. And so on.

Yes, some people have other definitions for rape. They pretty much universally involve getting rid of the requirement for freely given informed consent and I therefore reject them.

And you will forgive me if I am not shedding tears of blood for a racist.

Ah, so now we're back to the, "I don't like her, so she wasn't raped," argument.

I don't think anyone is really arguing that it's okay.

Are we reading the same thread?

Silly Kisha, of course trying to get around getting actual consent by lying through your teeth is a bad thing. It's just not that bad. Also, "everyone" does it. So you shouldn't go to jail for it. And no one should feel violated if someone does it to them. If they do, they're hurting "real" rape victims.

Also, if you're a scumbag, you definitely can't be a victim of rape. It's a rule.

[North Suran]

However, things can be wrong or assholish, but not be a crime, or at least, not one worthy of over a year in prison.

This is more than just 'wrong'. The sentence aside, downplaying it so that it's not a 'crime' does what exactly? Oh right. It lets people get away with it.

You mean we could be living in a world where people lie to each other to obtain sex?

Imagine that!

[Hydesland]

Just like claiming that having sex with an unconscious person in not rape. Or having sex with a person who obviously cannot think straight is not rape. Or having sex with a woman who wore a short skirt is not rape. Or having non-consensual sex with your spouse is not rape. And so on.

No, not like at all, because they are very different.

[Tungookska]

You mean we could be living in a world where people lie to each other to obtain sex?

Imagine that!

[North Suran]

Or they are claiming that obtaining sex through deceit is not tantamount to rape. Your definition of rape is not necessarily the definition of others.

Just like claiming that having sex with an unconscious person in not rape. Or having sex with a person who obviously cannot think straight is not rape. Or having sex with a woman who wore a short skirt is not rape. Or having non-consensual sex with your spouse is not rape. And so on.

That's a might fine Terracotta-esque army of straw men you erected there.

Yes, some people have other definitions for rape. They pretty much universally involve getting rid of the requirement for freely given informed consent and I therefore reject them.

And that's your opinion. As aforementioned, you definition of rape is not universal - nor is it superior to the opinions of others.

And you will forgive me if I am not shedding tears of blood for a racist.

Ah, so now we're back to the, "I don't like her, so she wasn't raped," argument.

No, we're back to, "I don't have any sympathy for the victim." I don't see many people crying over the murder of Benito Mussolini - who was the victim of a far more insidious crime than obtaining sex through deceit.

[Dempublicents1]

Just like claiming that having sex with an unconscious person in not rape. Or having sex with a person who obviously cannot think straight is not rape. Or having sex with a woman who wore a short skirt is not rape. Or having non-consensual sex with your spouse is not rape. And so on.

No, not like at all, because they are very different.

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.

Or they are claiming that obtaining sex through deceit is not tantamount to rape. Your definition of rape is not necessarily the definition of others.

Just like claiming that having sex with an unconscious person in not rape. Or having sex with a person who obviously cannot think straight is not rape. Or having sex with a woman who wore a short skirt is not rape. Or having non-consensual sex with your spouse is not rape. And so on.

That's a might fine Terracotta-esque army of straw men you erected there.

Are you going to pretend that people don't make those arguments? There have been entire threads here at NSG dedicated to those exact questions.

Yes, some people have other definitions for rape. They pretty much universally involve getting rid of the requirement for freely given informed consent and I therefore reject them.

And that's your opinion. As aforementioned, you definition of rape is not universal - nor is it superior to the opinions of others.

And someone making any of the above arguments could (and would) say the same thing.

My definition, however, is more consistent than any of them.
By my definition, anyone who tries to have sex with someone without freely given, informed consent is committing a crime against that person. The others make arbitrary distinctions about how one type of non-consensual sex "counts", while another doesn't.
By my definition, knowingly and intentionally obtaining the semblance of "consent" in bad faith and then acting as if one has actual consent is always criminal. The others make arbitrary distinctions between which intentional acts of bad faith "count" and which don't.

My definition places responsibility where it belongs - in the hands of someone wishing to engage in sexual activity. That person must, by my definition, make a good-faith effort to ensure that they have freely given, informed consent from the partner they have chosen. The other definitions come up with all sorts of reasons that acting in bad faith should still mean that one has obtained consent.

A would-be rapist knows where he stands with my definition. With the others, it's all about just how close to the line he can get without going over. It's all about just how much non-consent is ok. If she consented under false pretenses, safe from prosecution (except for some things which some people see as worse than others). If she might possibly maybe have consented, possibly safe from prosecution.

And you will forgive me if I am not shedding tears of blood for a racist.

Ah, so now we're back to the, "I don't like her, so she wasn't raped," argument.

No, we're back to, "I don't have any sympathy for the victim." I don't see many people crying over the murder of Benito Mussolini - who was the victim of a far more insidious crime than obtaining sex through deceit.

Of course, no one is claiming he wasn't murdered. There's a difference between saying, "I don't really care about this victim" and "This person actually isn't a victim, because I don't like something about them." A great deal of the argument in this thread has been the latter. Most people will concede that some lies invalidate consent. The only thing that seems to set this one apart is that people think she's a bad person for caring about it.

[Hydesland]

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.

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.

[Peppersmak]

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.