Non-consent by race..

[Galloism]

Ok, let's start over. You said that this case shows the requirements for consent to sex as every other activities. Tell me what other activities that lying or failing to disclose your ethnicity results in a crime.

I just want to know.

You're not even capable of characterising the issue properly.

One more time, with oomph:

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.

What I argued was that fraud vitiates consent in any other situation, so there is no reason it should not vitiate consent to sex.

So when you say this:

Ok, let's start over. You said that this case shows the requirements for consent to sex as every other activities. Tell me what other activities that lying or failing to disclose your ethnicity results in a crime.

I just want to know.

It's called a strawman argument. Though I think you did it out of ignorance rather than malice.

Hope that clears things up.

Ok, let me be even clearer. In what type of activity is comitting fraud with regard to one's race sufficient grounds to vitiate the other individual's consent to the extent the a crime, criminal or civil, has been committed?

[Kiskaanak]

Ok, let me be even clearer. In what type of activity is comitting fraud with regard to one's race sufficient grounds to vitiate the other individual's consent to the extent the a crime, criminal or civil, has been committed?

Why would I care? I'm not particularly interested in the racial/religious issue here, I'm interested in the fraud as it vitiates consent issue.

I'm not here to do research for you.

[Tungookska]

Ok, let me be even clearer. In what type of activity is comitting fraud with regard to one's race sufficient grounds to vitiate the other individual's consent to the extent the a crime, criminal or civil, has been committed?

Why would I care? I'm not particularly interested in the racial/religious issue here, I'm interested in the fraud as it vitiates consent issue.

I'm not here to do research for you.

what hes trying to say is, its only a crime when an ebil arab rapes a jewish wimmin!

[Kiskaanak]

what hes trying to say is, its only a crime when an ebil arab rapes a jewish wimmin!

[The Alma Mater]

Ok, let me be even clearer. In what type of activity is comitting fraud with regard to one's race sufficient grounds to vitiate the other individual's consent to the extent the a crime, criminal or civil, has been committed?

Why would I care? I'm not particularly interested in the racial/religious issue here, I'm interested in the fraud as it vitiates consent issue.

Fraud does not vitiate consent. Fraud allows you to undo a purchase of a good or a business transaction.
Unless all women are prostitutes, it is irrelevant in this debate.

[Kiskaanak]

Fraud does not vitiate consent. Fraud allows you to undo a purchase of a good or a business transaction.
Unless all women are prostitutes, it is irrelevant in this debate.

Another legal expert, I see.

Who knew there were so many wannabe lawyers on NSG?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Fraud does not vitiate consent. Fraud allows you to undo a purchase of a good or a business transaction.
Unless all women are prostitutes, it is irrelevant in this debate.

Another legal expert, I see.

Who knew there were so many wannabe lawyers on NSG?

I'm a wannabe lawyer somewhat. But I listen to NSG's real lawyers...

[Galloism]

Ok, let me be even clearer. In what type of activity is comitting fraud with regard to one's race sufficient grounds to vitiate the other individual's consent to the extent the a crime, criminal or civil, has been committed?

Why would I care? I'm not particularly interested in the racial/religious issue here, I'm interested in the fraud as it vitiates consent issue.

I'm not here to do research for you.

My point is that you would have to prove that for your "all other activities" statement to be true, that a similar statement or lack of statement regarding one's race was sufficient grounds for "fraud" to be determined in a legal context. In order to do so, you should be able to cite another case besides this one where lack of stating one's race or stating one's race falsely was grounds enough for their consent to some act to be vitiated, as you say, causing the "victim" to be unable to consent to whatever action was performed with him/her.

Otherwise, you have not proven that purposely hiding or falsifying one's race is sufficient grounds for it being legally fraud.

[The Alma Mater]

Fraud does not vitiate consent. Fraud allows you to undo a purchase of a good or a business transaction.
Unless all women are prostitutes, it is irrelevant in this debate.

Another legal expert, I see.

Who knew there were so many wannabe lawyers on NSG?

So - shall we then leave out the legal terms since one is not allowed to assume other people have any knowledge of the law - and as such there is no reason to assume YOUR opinion is more valid than MINE ?

Issue:
Woman says "yes, YES, YES PLEASE ! " to sex.
Woman enjoys sex.
Woman finds out man lied. Had the man not lied the woman would not have had sex with him.

Questions, to be answered without legal references:
1. Should the man be punished yes/ no ?
2. Should the woman have made a bigger effort to verify the mans claims ?
3. Should every sexual encounter be based on written contracts, detailing requirements of both partners ?

Gogogo

[Kiskaanak]

My point is that you would have to prove that for your "all other activities" statement to be true, that a similar statement or lack of statement regarding one's race was sufficient grounds for "fraud" to be determined in a legal context. In order to do so, you should be able to cite another case besides this one where lack of stating one's race or stating one's race falsely was grounds enough for their consent to some act to be vitiated, as you say, causing the "victim" to be unable to consent to whatever action was performed with him/her.

Otherwise, you have not proven that purposely hiding or falsifying one's race is sufficient grounds for it being legally fraud.

Hilarious.

It's not up to me to prove that lying about one's race/religion/whatever is fraud. I have made a number of statements about what evidentiary burden would exist, and how difficult it is to prove the elements of fraud in sexual consent issues. That's about as interested in the specifics I am. All along my focus has been on fraud as related to consent IN GENERAL because most people in this thread, including yourself, seem not to get even the general approach, much less the more complicated aspects of it.

Don't tell me what I 'have to prove' when you, despite numerous clarifications on my part, do not appear to understand what my argument is.

[Dempublicents1]

My point is that you would have to prove that for your "all other activities" statement to be true, that a similar statement or lack of statement regarding one's race was sufficient grounds for "fraud" to be determined in a legal context.

Not necessarily. As Kisha has already stated, the types of falsehood that constitute fraud change based on context.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Ok, let me be even clearer. In what type of activity is comitting fraud with regard to one's race sufficient grounds to vitiate the other individual's consent to the extent the a crime, criminal or civil, has been committed?

Why would I care? I'm not particularly interested in the racial/religious issue here, I'm interested in the fraud as it vitiates consent issue.

I'm not here to do research for you.

what hes trying to say is, its only a crime when an ebil arab rapes a jewish wimmin!

To quote the famous Sheriff Bart - "Where the white women at?"

[Penguton]

It seems to me that this debate is really simple. The woman gave consent for the act of sex on that one night occasion. Once you've given consent you can't decided, days later, that you don't anymore. If that was the case, divorces would be much uglier. "I know I was married to him for 10 years, but I no longer consent to the sex! He raped me for 10 years!!"

She wasn't hurt in any way mental or physical, so she is not a victim of fraud or rape or anything.

[Galloism]

My point is that you would have to prove that for your "all other activities" statement to be true, that a similar statement or lack of statement regarding one's race was sufficient grounds for "fraud" to be determined in a legal context. In order to do so, you should be able to cite another case besides this one where lack of stating one's race or stating one's race falsely was grounds enough for their consent to some act to be vitiated, as you say, causing the "victim" to be unable to consent to whatever action was performed with him/her.

Otherwise, you have not proven that purposely hiding or falsifying one's race is sufficient grounds for it being legally fraud.

Hilarious.

It's not up to me to prove that lying about one's race/religion/whatever is fraud. I have made a number of statements about what evidentiary burden would exist, and how difficult it is to prove the elements of fraud in sexual consent issues. That's about as interested in the specifics I am. All along my focus has been on fraud as related to consent IN GENERAL because most people in this thread, including yourself, seem not to get even the general approach, much less the more complicated aspects of it.

Don't tell me what I 'have to prove' when you, despite numerous clarifications on my part, do not appear to understand what my argument is.

Apparently we don't speak the same language.

You know, when I learned and got my flight instructor permit, one of the things that we were constantly cautioned against was using terms in such a way that we would be familiar with, but which brand new students would not, and until these terms are defined and understood, all communication was impossible.

If, on the first day, the instructor started throwing out words like "coefficient of lift", "camber", "ATC", "ILS", etc, the student would be lost instantly and would get nothing from the discussion. Another pilot could follow him, but the brand new student may misunderstand what the terms mean if they're not clearly defined. A flight instructor who does so has failed to achieve communication, and has failed as a flight instructor. The student has not failed, because he had no chance.

I'll just let you chew on that.

Suffice to say, I'm not sure I could ever believe that lying about or failing to declare one's race is tantamount to rape. I just can't see that at my current level of knowledge. It sounds very much like a plea for special exemption.

[Aegair]

It seems to me that this debate is really simple. The woman gave consent for the act of sex on that one night occasion. Once you've given consent you can't decided, days later, that you don't anymore. If that was the case, divorces would be much uglier. "I know I was married to him for 10 years, but I no longer consent to the sex! He raped me for 10 years!!"

She wasn't hurt in any way mental or physical, so she is not a victim of fraud or rape or anything.

So if you pretended to be someone's boyfriend, had sex with her in a back alley and legged it you didn't rape her? Even though she only did it because she thought you was someone else?

[Galloism]

My point is that you would have to prove that for your "all other activities" statement to be true, that a similar statement or lack of statement regarding one's race was sufficient grounds for "fraud" to be determined in a legal context.

Not necessarily. As Kisha has already stated, the types of falsehood that constitute fraud change based on context.

See, I'm just not sure I follow, because there are a NUMBER of things about a person which, in the vast majority of cases, would prevent him or her from having a one night stand with a person if he/she knew about them, and these individuals who are in this category KNOW that the vast majority of men/women may not sleep with them due to these things. However, as far as I've heard, I've never heard of any ruling stating that these things must be declared before sex is to be engaged in. Some things I've considered in the last ten seconds are:

1) Being an ex-con (of most any serious crime - murder and rape especially spring to mind).
2) Living with your mother at an advanced age.
3) Driving a 1970 Geo.
4) Having a 1-inch penis (although that may become apparent before sex is engaged in)
5) Being a post-op transsexual (for pre-ops, see #4)
6) Having ever been investigated for stalking a boyfriend/girlfriend (charged or not)
7) Living in an RV

Now, if the standard was, as previously stated, something along the lines of (you can correct me if I've misunderstood):

1) Lying about or omitting data.
2) Knowing (or should have known) that if the other person knew it, they would not consent to sex.
3) Having sex with that person, knowingly withholding that information that would cause them to not consent.

[Kahanistan]

I just don't think it's right to send him to prison. If he deliberately claimed to this woman that he was a Jew to get laid, he's a low and dishonest character, but there are a lot of low and dishonest characters that are freely wandering the streets wherever you go. If he never claimed to be a Jew and she just assumed he was one because he was in a Jewish area of Israel and spoke Hebrew, then it was simply a communication breakdown. Either way, I don't think he needs to go to prison over this incident.

[Penguton]

It seems to me that this debate is really simple. The woman gave consent for the act of sex on that one night occasion. Once you've given consent you can't decided, days later, that you don't anymore. If that was the case, divorces would be much uglier. "I know I was married to him for 10 years, but I no longer consent to the sex! He raped me for 10 years!!"

She wasn't hurt in any way mental or physical, so she is not a victim of fraud or rape or anything.

So if you pretended to be someone's boyfriend, had sex with her in a back alley and legged it you didn't rape her? Even though she only did it because she thought you was someone else?

Such a highly infeasible situation, but yeah she wouldn't have been raped. She was incredibly stupid, but not raped.

[Aegair]

It seems to me that this debate is really simple. The woman gave consent for the act of sex on that one night occasion. Once you've given consent you can't decided, days later, that you don't anymore. If that was the case, divorces would be much uglier. "I know I was married to him for 10 years, but I no longer consent to the sex! He raped me for 10 years!!"

She wasn't hurt in any way mental or physical, so she is not a victim of fraud or rape or anything.

So if you pretended to be someone's boyfriend, had sex with her in a back alley and legged it you didn't rape her? Even though she only did it because she thought you was someone else?

Such a highly infeasible situation, but yeah she wouldn't have been raped. She was incredibly stupid, but not raped.

But she didn't give consent, to you, to have sex with her, and wouldn't have if she knew it was you, and not her boyfriend. Point is: Consent wasn't given to you. Likewise in the case of this thread, consent wasn't given to the Man in question, consent was given to the Man the Man pretended to be.

[Penguton]

It seems to me that this debate is really simple. The woman gave consent for the act of sex on that one night occasion. Once you've given consent you can't decided, days later, that you don't anymore. If that was the case, divorces would be much uglier. "I know I was married to him for 10 years, but I no longer consent to the sex! He raped me for 10 years!!"

She wasn't hurt in any way mental or physical, so she is not a victim of fraud or rape or anything.

So if you pretended to be someone's boyfriend, had sex with her in a back alley and legged it you didn't rape her? Even though she only did it because she thought you was someone else?

Such a highly infeasible situation, but yeah she wouldn't have been raped. She was incredibly stupid, but not raped.

But she didn't give consent, to you, to have sex with her, and wouldn't have if she knew it was you, and not her boyfriend. Point is: Consent wasn't given to you. Likewise in the case of this thread, consent wasn't given to the Man in question, consent was given to the Man the Man pretended to be.

You give consent to a person, not the thought, or idea, of a person. The woman in the alley gave consent to the man the alley, whether or not he was who he said he was. Same deal with the actual situation, the woman gave consent to the arab man she slept with.

Put another way, she gave consent to a physical person, not her "thought" or "idea" of the person.

[Living Freedom Land]

But she didn't give consent, to you, to have sex with her, and wouldn't have if she knew it was you, and not her boyfriend. Point is: Consent wasn't given to you. Likewise in the case of this thread, consent wasn't given to the Man in question, consent was given to the Man the Man pretended to be.

I don't see it. If you get drunk and have sex, you still gave consent. It's like people who DUI and wreck, they get in even more trouble than before and it is their fault. Moral of these stories: Don't get drunk.

It's the same here where if you have it willingly you have it willingly, no ifs ands or buts. It's not like fraud where you are deprived of anything, as virginity is just a societal construct.

If a person doesn't want to accidentally have sex with the "wrong race" on accident, then don't have sex in the first place.

[Galloism]

But she didn't give consent, to you, to have sex with her, and wouldn't have if she knew it was you, and not her boyfriend. Point is: Consent wasn't given to you. Likewise in the case of this thread, consent wasn't given to the Man in question, consent was given to the Man the Man pretended to be.

I don't see it. If you get drunk and have sex, you still gave consent.

Uh, actually, this is entirely false.

I believe it's called "diminished capacity" (correct me if wrong). If one person is falling on their ass drunk, and the other isn't, and the one would never have sex with the other sober, it can (and often is) ruled as rape.

[Living Freedom Land]

But she didn't give consent, to you, to have sex with her, and wouldn't have if she knew it was you, and not her boyfriend. Point is: Consent wasn't given to you. Likewise in the case of this thread, consent wasn't given to the Man in question, consent was given to the Man the Man pretended to be.

I don't see it. If you get drunk and have sex, you still gave consent.

Uh, actually, this is entirely false.

I believe it's called "diminished capacity" (correct me if wrong). If one person is falling on their ass drunk, and the other isn't, and the one would never have sex with the other sober, it can (and often is) ruled as rape.

Then I suppose someone who is drunk, but kills someone, is not a murderer. Rather, they had a "diminished capacity" and are not to blame.

But I digress, this is about a woman who had consensual sex without being drunk, and I don't think it was rape.

EDIT: I'm not saying date rape drugs are right. That's still rape, when a person slips something into another's drink to take advantage of them. When a person gets drunk on their own and does it? I don't think it's rape.

[Galloism]

But she didn't give consent, to you, to have sex with her, and wouldn't have if she knew it was you, and not her boyfriend. Point is: Consent wasn't given to you. Likewise in the case of this thread, consent wasn't given to the Man in question, consent was given to the Man the Man pretended to be.

I don't see it. If you get drunk and have sex, you still gave consent.

Uh, actually, this is entirely false.

I believe it's called "diminished capacity" (correct me if wrong). If one person is falling on their ass drunk, and the other isn't, and the one would never have sex with the other sober, it can (and often is) ruled as rape.

Then I suppose someone who is drunk, but kills someone, is not a murderer. Rather, they had a "diminished capacity" and are not to blame.

But I digress, this is about a woman who had sex without being drunk, and I don't think it was rape.

Depending on their level of drunkenness, it might be manslaughter instead.

Again, you'd have to ask someone more qualified than I, though. I know that when you drive while drunk and kill somebody, it's vehicular manslaughter. That much I do know.

[Living Freedom Land]

Depending on their level of drunkenness, it might be manslaughter instead.

Again, you'd have to ask someone more qualified than I, though. I know that when you drive while drunk and kill somebody, it's vehicular manslaughter. That much I do know.

Damn, we're too soft on these criminals. Causing the death of someone like that is murder. It might be different if it happens as a real accident, but when a person willingly puts a substance into their body they should accept the consequences.