NationStates

Unhealthy2 wrote:

Dempublicents1 wrote:To you, perhaps. To her, it mattered. You don't get to decide whether or not her criteria for who she will and will not have sex with are acceptable.

What if she asks him what book he's reading and he says "Great Expectations" when it's really "Madame Bovary," but she only finds that out later and "to her, it matters"? Is this enough to nullify consent? If so, is it rape only if he knows that it matters to her enough to be the difference between yes and no? If it's rape regardless of his state of knowledge, does this not mean that there is a technical possibility that any case of consensual sex could be retroactively considered rape? If the taste in literature is not enough to retroactively render consent null and void, then I ask you where the lines are drawn. Race is enough. What about natural hair color? Blood type? The capacity to taste PTC?

In my view (note: my view, not necessarily the legal view), rape always requires intent. I see deception to get sex as an act of rape because the person is knowingly and intentionally interfering with the victim's ability to make an informed decision on whether or not to have sex. In my mind, it is similar to getting someone drunk in order to have sex with them. In that case, you are altering their ability to make decisions in order to favor your chances of having sex. Lying to get sex is another form of the same thing - you are intentionally giving them misinformation in order to alter their decision-making process.

This means that the liar must have reason to believe that the lie being told would factor into someone's decision to have sex. In the example you give, if the guy just doesn't want to admit to the fact that he's reading Madame Bovary, but he has no reason to believe that it will affect her decision to have sex with him, he's a liar, but he's not committing and act of rape when they have sex. However, if she gives him reason to suspect that it is important (ie. "Have you ever read Madame Bovary? I would never sleep with a man who would read that trash."), failure to correct the lie before having sex becomes an act of rape.

Some lies are rather obviously important. Most people would factor, for instance, the fact that someone was HIV+ into their decision on whether or not to have sex. The person who is HIV+ is fully aware of this fact. So lying about it is a clear attempt to prevent the other person from making an informed decision about having sex. Others aren't so clear. You would need to be given a reason to believe they are relevant.

Kiskaanak wrote:

North Suran wrote:

Kiskaanak wrote:

Neu Mitanni wrote: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.

I like it how you are agreeing with the statement of a man who would be absolutely condemning this woman if the man she had had sex with wasn't an Evil Arab Muslim.

My statement is hardly an agreement. It is my opinion on the undercurrents, offered in counterpoint to his opinion on the undercurrents.

I agree that there is a disturbing amount of apparent rape apologism in this thread, with a variety of bases.

As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.

Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.

It's like "goldy" or "bronzy", only it's made of iron.

Neu Mitanni wrote:I agree that there is a disturbing amount of apparent rape apologism in this thread, with a variety of bases.

As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.

You know, and admittedly I have no evidence for this, but I feel the only reason you're supporting this is because it's a 'filthy Arab infecting the chosen people', or something. I have a feeling that, had it been the woman who was an Arab and the man a Jew, you'd have the opposite opinion.

But of course, I have no evidence for this, and it's just a suspicion.

Hydesland wrote:

Neu Mitanni wrote:I agree that there is a disturbing amount of apparent rape apologism in this thread, with a variety of bases.

As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.

You know, and admittedly I have no evidence for this, but I feel the only reason you're supporting this is because it's a 'filthy Arab infecting the chosen people', or something. I have a feeling that, had it been the woman who was an Arab and the man a Jew, you'd have the opposite opinion.

But of course, I have no evidence for this, and it's just a suspicion.

You're right. You do have no evidence for this, and it is just a suspicion. A suspicion which is without merit. Enough said.

And I can repeat that the only reason a certain segment of NSG is opposing it is because it's an Arab who was the rapist. But that's just a suspicion too.

More responses from my friends (if anyone is still reading)...

the anthropologist:

The whole thing is bollocks. It can't be rape to verbally con someone into sleeping with you. Only way you can verbally rape someone would be to threatened them in a way that you really really thought they would hurt you unless you complied.

Might be interesting to think about HIV positive people who don't tell their sleeping partners about their status. My (rusty) knowledge of that issue is that it is increasingly being criminalised - so it is a prisonable offence in many places to not tell your partner, infect other people etc. But most people who actually work in this area think this isn't a good thing at all and that safe sex (or likewise consensual sex) is a two way responsibility.

the barrister, in response to the question "what if he'd explicitly lied about being Jewish?"

It’s a very fact specific question, and would take an extreme scenario to be justifiable – if he knew she was a devout Jew who could not have a sexual relationship outside of her faith, and they had been in a relationship for a period of time before the sex (how you would find someone of this category who would also be able to have sex before marriage I don’t know), during which he actively made her believe he was Jewish, then yes, it would be sufficient in my view. But that is a very narrow set of circumstances in which faith would be the determinative feature. The same argument could not be made for race – he could be of Palestinian nationality, but also Jewish for example.

solicitor, responding to the above question:

Hmm. I'd say it was rape where I was not able to give consent (unconscious, too drunk to speak, comatosed etc) or where I had specifically said or indicated "no" (ie where force is used). I wouldn't consider it rape if a boy was to "trick" me into bed, by for instance, saying that he loved me. I think that's just the risks we girls run if we want to have sex with someone. Isn't it something that we're all a little bit guilty of at one point or another?

Not much support for 'rape by deception' here. I feel much more comfortable shrugging off accusations of being a rape apologist. Which is a relief, to say the least.

Neu Mitanni wrote:

Hydesland wrote:

Neu Mitanni wrote:I agree that there is a disturbing amount of apparent rape apologism in this thread, with a variety of bases.

As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.

You know, and admittedly I have no evidence for this, but I feel the only reason you're supporting this is because it's a 'filthy Arab infecting the chosen people', or something. I have a feeling that, had it been the woman who was an Arab and the man a Jew, you'd have the opposite opinion.

But of course, I have no evidence for this, and it's just a suspicion.

You're right. You do have no evidence for this, and it is just a suspicion. A suspicion which is without merit. Enough said.

Aside from your long, well-founded history of Islamophobia.

North Suran wrote:

Neu Mitanni wrote:

Hydesland wrote:

Neu Mitanni wrote:I agree that there is a disturbing amount of apparent rape apologism in this thread, with a variety of bases.

As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.

You know, and admittedly I have no evidence for this, but I feel the only reason you're supporting this is because it's a 'filthy Arab infecting the chosen people', or something. I have a feeling that, had it been the woman who was an Arab and the man a Jew, you'd have the opposite opinion.

But of course, I have no evidence for this, and it's just a suspicion.

You're right. You do have no evidence for this, and it is just a suspicion. A suspicion which is without merit. Enough said.

Aside from your long, well-founded history of Islamophobia.

All of you: yawn. Snarky presumptions are getting pretty damn boring.

Waterlow wrote:More responses from my friends (if anyone is still reading)...

Here's what my friends had to say about it:

Supreme Lord High Chief Justice of All the World wrote:This guy's friends sound like they've been drinking. I think that last one was a woman. Make sure she has a couple more before I go tell her I'm love with her, so I can shag her, then laugh about it later.

Random Lawyer, whilst showering wrote:Why the fuck do you keep asking me questions in the shower!?

Waterlow wrote:
All of you: yawn. Snarky presumptions are getting pretty damn boring.

That last comment was based on a very long history here, though I agree it's rather pointless. I just don't think it's fair to call it a presumption.

Kiskaanak wrote:

Waterlow wrote:
All of you: yawn. Snarky presumptions are getting pretty damn boring.

That last comment was based on a very long history here, though I agree it's rather pointless. I just don't think it's fair to call it a presumption.

OK, fine.

EDIT: apologies, unnecessary emotional reaction.

Kiskaanak wrote:

Waterlow wrote:More responses from my friends (if anyone is still reading)...

Here's what my friends had to say about it:

Supreme Lord High Chief Justice of All the World wrote:This guy's friends sound like they've been drinking. I think that last one was a woman. Make sure she has a couple more before I go tell her I'm love with her, so I can shag her, then laugh about it later.

Random Lawyer, whilst showering wrote:Why the fuck do you keep asking me questions in the shower!?

I initially interpreted this as an unnecessary insult on my friends. Then I though it was perhaps a suggestion that I'm making up people's comments to suit my own argument.

Then I thought: fuck it. Kiskaanak, please explain what the hell you mean by this. I don't want to second guess you. It only seems to make me angry.

Lighten up, life's too short to get mad.

Dempublicents1 wrote:In my view (note: my view, not necessarily the legal view), rape always requires intent. I see deception to get sex as an act of rape because the person is knowingly and intentionally interfering with the victim's ability to make an informed decision on whether or not to have sex. In my mind, it is similar to getting someone drunk in order to have sex with them. In that case, you are altering their ability to make decisions in order to favor your chances of having sex. Lying to get sex is another form of the same thing - you are intentionally giving them misinformation in order to alter their decision-making process.

This means that the liar must have reason to believe that the lie being told would factor into someone's decision to have sex. In the example you give, if the guy just doesn't want to admit to the fact that he's reading Madame Bovary, but he has no reason to believe that it will affect her decision to have sex with him, he's a liar, but he's not committing and act of rape when they have sex. However, if she gives him reason to suspect that it is important (ie. "Have you ever read Madame Bovary? I would never sleep with a man who would read that trash."), failure to correct the lie before having sex becomes an act of rape.

Some lies are rather obviously important. Most people would factor, for instance, the fact that someone was HIV+ into their decision on whether or not to have sex. The person who is HIV+ is fully aware of this fact. So lying about it is a clear attempt to prevent the other person from making an informed decision about having sex. Others aren't so clear. You would need to be given a reason to believe they are relevant.

Does this not mean that the only way to be sure you're not doing something "wrong" is to never lie at all to anyone you've ever had sex with? Even then though, not disclosing information even when it isn't requested can also be a problem if it's certain information, apparently. Wow, this shit makes AdS₅xS⁵/N=4 SYM Yang Mills CFT correspondence look simple. I'm so glad I've decided to never have sex.

So, ponderance of mine.

If I convince a guy whom I know hates Greeks that I'm actually Italian, when I'm really a Greek, and then subsequently I invite him to go fishing on my boat, can he later say I kidnapped him and forced him to fish with me, since my fraud made his consent to go on my boat invalid, and his consent to fish invalid?

I'm just curious, because I'm pretty sure that I can charge my mother with slavery for all the guilt trips that get me to do things.

Kiskaanak wrote:Lighten up, life's too short to get mad.

True, true. Still don't understand your last post but, shit, sometimes you just got to accept it, I guess.

Also helps to sober up a little.

Also, is it strange that I think every woman that I don't know personally is just waiting for me to piss them off so they can file a sexual harassment lawsuit against me and that every man I don't know is a potential mugger? Because seriously, that shit makes me afraid to leave the house sometimes, and stories like this make my paranoia even worse.

Unhealthy2 wrote:Also, is it strange that I think every woman that I don't know personally is just waiting for me to piss them off so they can file a sexual harassment lawsuit against me and that every man I don't know is a potential mugger? Because seriously, that shit makes me afraid to leave the house sometimes, and stories like this make my paranoia even worse.

We're watching you.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Neu Mitanni wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:

Neu Mitanni wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:

Tungookska wrote:

Dempublicents1 wrote: 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*

"Was there ever a man more misunderstood." -- James Bond, Thunderball.

Seriously, it's worse than that. Not only are we both on the same side, we're both on the same side as Kiskaanak. Surely another milestone on the way to 2012.

Shit... We've got to figure out is there is a third position on this issue so we can go back to the normal of disagreeing with each other and Kiska...

Unhealthy2 wrote:
Does this not mean that the only way to be sure you're not doing something "wrong" is to never lie at all to anyone you've ever had sex with? Even then though, not disclosing information even when it isn't requested can also be a problem if it's certain information, apparently. Wow, this shit makes AdS₅xS⁵/N=4 SYM Yang Mills CFT correspondence look simple. I'm so glad I've decided to never have sex.

What part of "YOU HAVE TO KNOW" and "YOU DO IT ANYWAY" don't you people understand?

Stop asking stupid fucking questions that have been answered at least a half dozen times already.

Galloism wrote:So, ponderance of mine.

If I convince a guy whom I know hates Greeks that I'm actually Italian, when I'm really a Greek, and then subsequently I invite him to go fishing on my boat, can he later say I kidnapped him and forced him to fish with me, since my fraud made his consent to go on my boat invalid, and his consent to fish invalid?

I'm just curious, because I'm pretty sure that I can charge my mother with slavery for all the guilt trips that get me to do things.

Did this really need to be reposted in another thread?

Galloism wrote:So, ponderance of mine.

If I convince a guy whom I know hates Greeks that I'm actually Italian, when I'm really a Greek, and then subsequently I invite him to go fishing on my boat, can he later say I kidnapped him and forced him to fish with me, since my fraud made his consent to go on my boat invalid, and his consent to fish invalid?

I'm just curious, because I'm pretty sure that I can charge my mother with slavery for all the guilt trips that get me to do things.

no no, only if youre arab!

Kiskaanak wrote:

Galloism wrote:So, ponderance of mine.

If I convince a guy whom I know hates Greeks that I'm actually Italian, when I'm really a Greek, and then subsequently I invite him to go fishing on my boat, can he later say I kidnapped him and forced him to fish with me, since my fraud made his consent to go on my boat invalid, and his consent to fish invalid?

I'm just curious, because I'm pretty sure that I can charge my mother with slavery for all the guilt trips that get me to do things.

Did this really need to be reposted in another thread?

Yes, because you failed to adequately address it in the other.

You said the level of consent is the same in sex as "any other activity". You clearly don't mean fishing is an activity, or boating, or lending someone your car. So, what did you mean by "any other activity" then?

Because I largely suspect your position is a plea for special exemption, and that your statement about any other activity is largely bullshit, and will continue to do so until you supply your reasoning.

Galloism wrote:Yes, because you failed to adequately address it in the other.

You said the level of consent is the same in sex as "any other activity". You clearly don't mean fishing is an activity, or boating, or lending someone your car. So, what did you mean by "any other activity" then?

Because I largely suspect your position is a plea for special exemption, and that your statement about any other activity is largely bullshit, and will continue to do so until you supply your reasoning.

Perhaps you failed to notice where I clarified this in the other thread?

You aren't qualified to discuss these issues legally, Galloism. You simply aren't. Nor is it my duty to explain to you how absolutely fucked up your reasoning is in legal terms. I don't have the time or the inclination to run you through contracts, laws, gifts, bailments or torts (all of which are civil law, btw, NOT criminal law which is what is being discussed here) in order to explain to you how they work.

So here's a very general run down of what you've done wrong.

Where consent is an issue, fraud vitiates it. The general problem with your reasoning is that you do not understand what legal consent is, and where or when it applies. You don't know when legislation or case law creates specific rules about how you express consent.

But regardless of HOW you express consent, fraud vitiates it.

Coming from such confusion, you then try to delve into issues of 'what happens when consent is vitiated?' and then attempt to apply some bizarre criminal standard to civil law issues.

No. You've twisted the issue up so far that you're mixing up civil law, criminal law, expressing consent, defining fraud, and consequences. There's my reasoning. You've muddied the waters too much, but you seem to believe they are clear.