Non-consent by race..

[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.

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.

The physical person she consented to wasn't there in one case, and didn't exist in the other.

[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.

The physical person she consented to wasn't there in one case, and didn't exist in the other.

Umm, wrong. The physical person WAS there. Unless your saying both cases involve phantoms? You obviously didn't understand my last sentence.

Consent is given to the physical being in front of you, regardless of who that person is. Unless you say stop PRIOR to, or DURING the act, you aren't being forced to have sex against your will. (Which is the very definition of rape.)

[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.

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.

The physical person she consented to wasn't there in one case, and didn't exist in the other.

Umm, wrong. The physical person WAS there. Unless your saying both cases involve phantoms? You obviously didn't understand my last sentence.

Consent is given to the physical being in front of you, regardless of who that person is. Unless you say stop PRIOR to, or DURING the act, you aren't being forced to have sex against your will. (Which is the very definition of rape.)

Then your definition is faulty. Rape is sex without consent, at the very least in Britain. Consent is approval, if you approve one person to have sex with you that doesn't mean someone pretending to be them has your approval. Likewise in this case. Nowhere does it say you can only give consent to 'a physical being in fronts of you'.

[Galloism]

Rape law in Arkansas (sorry, I couldn't find Florida right off the bat)

Arkansas Code 5-14-103. Rape:
(A) A person commits rape if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another
person:
(1) By forcible compulsion; or
(2) Who is incapable of consent because he is physically helpless, mentally defective or
mentally incapacitated; or
(3) Who is less than fourteen (14) years of age; or
(4) Who is less than eighteen (18) years of age, and the actor:
(a) The victim’s guardian;
(b) Uncle, aunt, grandparent or step-grandparent, grandparent by adoption;
(c) Brother, sister or the whole or half-blood or by adoption;
(d) Nephew, niece or first cousin.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this subdivision (D) that the actor
was not more than three (3) years older than the victim.
(B) It is not a defense to prosecution under (3) or (4) of this section that the victim consented to the
conduct.
(C) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under (3) of this section that the actor was not more than
three (3) years older than the victim.
(D) Rape is a Class Y felony.
(1) A court may issue a permanent no contact order when:
(a) A defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere; or
(b) All the defendant’s appeals have been exhausted and the defendant remains
convicted.
(2) If a judicial officer has reason to believe that mental disease or defect of the defendant will or
has become an issue in the case, the judicial officer shall enter such orders as are consistent with
Arkansas Code 5-2-305.

Now, what I've bolded are defined in the statute:

(1) "Deviate sexual activity" means any act of sexual gratification involving:
(A) The penetration, however slight, of the anus or mouth of one person by the penis of another
person; or
(B) The penetration, however slight, of the labia majora or anus of one person by any body
member or foreign instrument manipulated by another person;
(2) "Forcible compulsion" means physical force or a threat, express or implied, of death or physical injury
to or kidnapping of any person;
(3) "Mentally defective" means that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders the
person incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of sexual acts or unaware the sexual
act is occurring. A determination that a person is mentally defective shall not be based solely on his
intelligence quotient;
(4) "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is temporarily incapable of appreciating or controlling
the person's conduct as a result of the influence of a controlled or intoxicating substance:
(A) Administered to the person without the person's consent; or
(B) Which renders the person unaware the sexual act is occurring;
(5) "Physically helpless" means that a person is:
(A) Unconscious or is physically unable to communicate lack of consent; or
(B) Is rendered unaware the sexual act is occurring;

It seems to me that "rape by deception" is impossible by Arkansas statute, at least.

Oh, here's the link:

http://www.accardv.uams.edu/Sexual%20as ... evised.pdf

I'll admit, it comes from a Google search. However, it appears "rape by deception" is not a universally applicable charge.

[Kiskaanak]

It's all very nice that you folks have opinions and all...but your understanding of the law in your own countries is abysmal. You should really look into this before you get yourselves into legal trouble, believing certain activities are 'legal' and such.

For example, in the UK, if you do not inform your partner that you have HIV, you can be charged with grievous bodily harm. You don't get to raise consent at all as a defense when you fail to disclose that you have HIV. It doesn't matter how much s/he says 'oh yes yes!' at the time.

Many areas in the US also make it a criminal offense to transmit an STD (consent is not allowed as a defence either when no disclosure was given).

Here's a quote in respect of the civil law in the US:

In some cases, a person infected with a serious sexually transmitted disease may have the legal right to seek monetary damages. In these cases, the injured person may file an STD lawsuit on the grounds of battery, fraud, negligence, and/or the infliction of psychological and emotional distress.

Again, you don't consent to being infected, or even possibly exposed to an STD, just because you fuck someone. (in Canada, you don't have to actually get the STD in order for it to be an aggravated sexual assault).

This is an example of how, in the law, consent is not just agreement that people attempt to 'take back later'. Consent is very much about understanding WHAT you are consenting to, in the law. If you don't know what you are consenting to, or who you are consenting to, then your consent may not actually exist at all from the get go.

This may confuse you, but that's a problem with the way you're looking at it, not a problem with the law.

[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.

The physical person she consented to wasn't there in one case, and didn't exist in the other.

Umm, wrong. The physical person WAS there. Unless your saying both cases involve phantoms? You obviously didn't understand my last sentence.

Consent is given to the physical being in front of you, regardless of who that person is. Unless you say stop PRIOR to, or DURING the act, you aren't being forced to have sex against your will. (Which is the very definition of rape.)

Then your definition is faulty. Rape is sex without consent, at the very least in Britain. Consent is approval, if you approve one person to have sex with you that doesn't mean someone pretending to be them has your approval. Likewise in this case. Nowhere does it say you can only give consent to 'a physical being in fronts of you'.

Rape
noun
The crime of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them.

That is the definition of rape. Now, if you willingly, as in not against your will, have sex with someone that IS consent. Unless you specifically say no or in anyway make it clear that you do not want to have sex, you are consenting. (This does not apply if said person in unconscious, obviously.)

Now, if you are not giving consent to a physical being, to whom are you giving consent? A ghost? A phantom? An idea?

[Kiskaanak]

I'll admit, it comes from a Google search. However, it appears "rape by deception" is not a universally applicable charge.

I provided a link earlier to a resource which lays out which states have laws regarding various kinds of fraud in relation to sex. The second last page. It's very informative...for example, it lists in which states spousal impersonation (as a fraud) is considered rape. Etc.

The article itself is about rape by fraud AS A DEFENCE in situations where someone has obtained sex by adult impersonation (ie, claiming to not be a minor). So it's dealing with the issue of statutory rape. The article is quite interesting...note, it points out this issue has never actually come up, but I think you brought this issue up earlier, so it should be a good read, on top of giving you some concrete state-by-state treatment of various kinds of fraud as it relates to consent to sex.

[Galloism]

I'll admit, it comes from a Google search. However, it appears "rape by deception" is not a universally applicable charge.

I provided a link earlier to a resource which lays out which states have laws regarding various kinds of fraud in relation to sex. The second last page. It's very informative...for example, it lists in which states spousal impersonation (as a fraud) is considered rape. Etc.

The article itself is about rape by fraud AS A DEFENCE in situations where someone has obtained sex by adult impersonation (ie, claiming to not be a minor). So it's dealing with the issue of statutory rape. The article is quite interesting...note, it points out this issue has never actually come up, but I think you brought this issue up earlier, so it should be a good read, on top of giving you some concrete state-by-state treatment of various kinds of fraud as it relates to consent to sex.

Okie dokie. Well, give me about a DAY to read all this, and I'll get back to you.

[Kiskaanak]

Okie dokie. Well, give me about a DAY to read all this, and I'll get back to you.

It's not that long...just skip to the second last page for the info on state-by-state treatment of rape by fraud. It's a nice chart. The rest can wait...or you can just skip to pertinent sections. (besides, half of each page is just legal citations, so it's only half as long as it appears to be)

Interesting thing is the global consent statutes mention on pages 102-103. Twelve states have them, and deception renders consent invalid. The requisite deception (really it's fraud) is without specific limitation.

[Penguton]

It's all very nice that you folks have opinions and all...but your understanding of the law in your own countries is abysmal. You should really look into this before you get yourselves into legal trouble, believing certain activities are 'legal' and such.

For example, in the UK, if you do not inform your partner that you have HIV, you can be charged with grievous bodily harm. You don't get to raise consent at all as a defense when you fail to disclose that you have HIV. It doesn't matter how much s/he says 'oh yes yes!' at the time.

Many areas in the US also make it a criminal offense to transmit an STD (consent is not allowed as a defence either when no disclosure was given).

Here's a quote in respect of the civil law in the US:

In some cases, a person infected with a serious sexually transmitted disease may have the legal right to seek monetary damages. In these cases, the injured person may file an STD lawsuit on the grounds of battery, fraud, negligence, and/or the infliction of psychological and emotional distress.

Again, you don't consent to being infected, or even possibly exposed to an STD, just because you fuck someone. (in Canada, you don't have to actually get the STD in order for it to be an aggravated sexual assault).

This is an example of how, in the law, consent is not just agreement that people attempt to 'take back later'. Consent is very much about understanding WHAT you are consenting to, in the law. If you don't know what you are consenting to, or who you are consenting to, then your consent may not actually exist at all from the get go.

This may confuse you, but that's a problem with the way you're looking at it, not a problem with the law.

The problem is that you misunderstand the situation, or are simply ignoring it. I fully understand the law as it pertains to withholding information that could potentially lead to someone contracting an STD. As the case in question as nothing to do with diseases, the UK's laws on the non-disclosure of STDs has no place here. Lying about your ethnicity is, in-and-of itself, no way potentially harmful to anyone.

[Kiskaanak]

You were looking for Florida, right?

Page 103. Florida is a 'knowing and voluntary consent' standard jurisdiction. Page 104 goes into the details of how that standard is applied.

Please note, when reading this, that the discussion of the statues is supported by legislation and case law...but the total argument is the author's own which is that adult impersonation is rape by fraud. It's a decent argument, but that argument is NOT supported by legislation or case law. It's just a theory. So don't go thinking that the commentary on adult impersonation as rape by fraud is actually legally true.

[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.

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.

The physical person she consented to wasn't there in one case, and didn't exist in the other.

Umm, wrong. The physical person WAS there. Unless your saying both cases involve phantoms? You obviously didn't understand my last sentence.

Consent is given to the physical being in front of you, regardless of who that person is. Unless you say stop PRIOR to, or DURING the act, you aren't being forced to have sex against your will. (Which is the very definition of rape.)

Then your definition is faulty. Rape is sex without consent, at the very least in Britain. Consent is approval, if you approve one person to have sex with you that doesn't mean someone pretending to be them has your approval. Likewise in this case. Nowhere does it say you can only give consent to 'a physical being in fronts of you'.

Rape
noun
The crime of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them.

Source fails.

In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person's consent.

1
Rape
(1)
A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)
he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)
B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)
A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)
Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)
Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Source

That is the definition of rape. Now, if you willingly, as in not against your will, have sex with someone that IS consent. Unless you specifically say no or in anyway make it clear that you do not want to have sex you are consenting.

Consent is approval after considered thought. Which is also shown in Wikipedia and the Sexual Offense Act 2003. If your information is wrong, you can't possibly give consent as you lack the capability of knowing what you're getting into.

Now, if you are not giving consent to a physical being, to whom are you giving consent? A ghost? A phantom? An idea?

In the cases we're debating, we haven't actually given consent.

[Kiskaanak]

The problem is that you misunderstand the situation, or are simply ignoring it. I fully understand the law as it pertains to withholding information that could potentially lead to someone contracting an STD. As the case in question as nothing to do with diseases, the UK's laws on the non-disclosure of STDs has no place here. Lying about your ethnicity is, in-and-of itself, no way potentially harmful to anyone.

Oh, it's very nice to claim 'but that isn't what we're talking about!', but when you have for the past few posts been talking about consent IN GENERAL, and have been making claims about consent IN GENERAL, then I am going to point out to you how your ideas about consent are wrong. And I am going to use clear cut examples to make sure that the message gets through.

You cannot say this:

Consent is given to the physical being in front of you, regardless of who that person is. Unless you say stop PRIOR to, or DURING the act, you aren't being forced to have sex against your will. (Which is the very definition of rape.)

and expect it to go unchallenged. If someone has an STI and knows it, but doesn't tell you, then it doesn't matter that you didn't say stop prior to or during the act. You have just been sexually assaulted.

Now go on and argue whether 'being non-Jewish' counts...but don't making fucking stupid general statements when the situation is ALWAYS case specific.

[Penguton]

The problem is that you misunderstand the situation, or are simply ignoring it. I fully understand the law as it pertains to withholding information that could potentially lead to someone contracting an STD. As the case in question as nothing to do with diseases, the UK's laws on the non-disclosure of STDs has no place here. Lying about your ethnicity is, in-and-of itself, no way potentially harmful to anyone.

Oh, it's very nice to claim 'but that isn't what we're talking about!', but when you have for the past few posts been talking about consent IN GENERAL, and have been making claims about consent IN GENERAL, then I am going to point out to you how your ideas about consent are wrong. And I am going to use clear cut examples to make sure that the message gets through.

You cannot say this:

Consent is given to the physical being in front of you, regardless of who that person is. Unless you say stop PRIOR to, or DURING the act, you aren't being forced to have sex against your will. (Which is the very definition of rape.)

and expect it to go unchallenged. If someone has an STI and knows it, but doesn't tell you, then it doesn't matter that you didn't say stop prior to or during the act. You have just been sexually assaulted.

Now go on and argue whether 'being non-Jewish' counts...but don't making fucking stupid general statements when the situation is ALWAYS case specific.

I'm sorry, that was my mistake, I didn't make it clear. All of my statements were towards the situations we were discussing. I was not trying to generalize as I understand that the non-disclosure of STDs is a very different circumstance as are other cases such as the person being unconscious or in anyway unable to make an intellectual decision.

[Dempublicents1]

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.

The two are not really related. In the case of Person A being drunk and Person B getting "consent" from them, person B is the one causing harm, by taking advantage of the inebriation of another.

In the case of getting drunk and killing someone, the person who is drunk and who is committing an action against another is the same person.

[Galloism]

You were looking for Florida, right?

Page 103. Florida is a 'knowing and voluntary consent' standard jurisdiction. Page 104 goes into the details of how that standard is applied.

Please note, when reading this, that the discussion of the statues is supported by legislation and case law...but the total argument is the author's own which is that adult impersonation is rape by fraud. It's a decent argument, but that argument is NOT supported by legislation or case law. It's just a theory. So don't go thinking that the commentary on adult impersonation as rape by fraud is actually legally true.

Ok Kisk, I think I read the entire thing (not in order, which is why I say "I think"), and I have several comments/questions regarding this paper in relation to the situation of this thread. I'm going to make a small paragraph for each one. I don't necessarily disagree with their conclusions regarding the topic they're addressing (although I find them somewhat... unconvincing on certain points), I'm going to attempt to apply their arguments to this particular case.

Unlimited fraud liability: For the states that have unlimited fraud liability (Alabama, Hawaii, Tennessee, Virginia, and, by case law, Nevada), there is no question that this would be rape by deception. There is no question at all.

Nature of the Act: I'm not sure about this one. The "nature of the act" sounds very much like a legal term that should be defined by statute somewhere. However, from my (layman's) way of interpreting the term, it would seem to indicate that if one did not know that what he or she was doing was "sex", that it would be failing to understand the nature of the act. Having sex with someone whom is of the wrong race doesn't change the "nature of the act", but simply the race of the actor. For instance, a robbery is a robbery and has a certain "nature", regardless of the actor's race, height, weight, or what-have-you. Unless, of course, he's really fat and sits on you. Then it's robbery AND assault. However, that's neither here nor there.

Essential Characteristics of the Act: I would see this much the same as the Nature of the Act, but, again, I'm sure it must have a statutory definition.

Materiality: Their argument for how rape-by-fraud applies with a minor impersonating an adult seems legally solid. They used the reasoning that while the adult was consenting to lawful intercourse, what they got was unlawful intercourse, which is a completely dissimilar act. However, it does not apply well to the case of this thread, as as far as I know, there is no law against interracial sex in Israel. So in either case, it would be legal intercourse (or illegal).

Identity Fraud of Impersonation: This one, I'd like to quote an excerpt from, as follows:

The rationale is that the identity of the victim’s sexual partner is part of
the act to which the victim consents. In upholding the defendant’s rape
conviction for obtaining intercourse by impersonating the victim’s lover in
United States v. Booker, the United States Court of Military Appeals considered
whether impersonation constitutes fraud in the factum or in the inducement.
148 Identity fraud constitutes fraud in the factum, according to the
court, because consent to the act is based on “both the nature of the act and
some knowledge of the identity of the participant.”149 The court concluded
that impersonation, as fraud in the factum, constitutes rape by fraud because
it vitiates the victim’s actual consent to the intercourse.150
While recognition of identity fraud properly broadens rape by fraud
beyond spousal impersonation cases,151 there may be limits. Booker declares that neither obtaining intercourse by the “use of a false name”152 nor
posing as unmarried suffices as rape by fraud.153 In suggesting the exclusion
of celebrity impersonation from rape-by-fraud liability, Joel Feinberg
offers the following hypothetical. Suppose a defendant fraudulently poses
as “rock star Johnny Limbo” to obtain intercourse with an ardent fan.154
Feinberg argues that celebrity impersonation, as opposed to spousal impersonation,
is fraud in the inducement and thus not rape by fraud for a number
of reasons.155 First, unlike the victim of spousal impersonation, the victim
of celebrity impersonation is not tricked into an unlawful act, like adultery.
156 Second, the victim of spousal impersonation will “suffer a greater
harm, or at least more severe psychological trauma” as opposed to the mere
“disappointment” of the celebrity impersonation victim.157 Third, Feinberg
concludes, while the spousal impersonation victim suffers an “evil,” the celebrity
impersonation victim receives a “mere nonbenefit,” or foregoes “a
good.”158

Now, in the case of a minor fraudulently claiming to be an adult, their case holds water. It seems that, in this case, it's a "significant harm" standard. In fact, the case itself refers to celebrity impersonation as "a mere nonbenefit" or forgoing "a good" as opposed to suffering "a greater harm". You can correct me if you like.

Spousal impersonation (I liked this one): In many jurisdictions, adultery is still illegal (although not really enforced). Here is the quote I would like to reference:

The primary rationale for spousal impersonation constituting rape by
fraud is that the victim consents to lawful, marital intercourse, but instead
receives unlawful, adulterous intercourse.166 That is, the victim consents to
one act, but receives something entirely different167:
The act of marital intercourse and the act of adultery are as far apart as day and
night and it is atrocious to suggest that willing submission by a wife to what is
supposed by her in good faith, and on good grounds, to be lawful intercourse
with her husband, is consent to an act of adultery with another.168
The unlawful quality of the intercourse is such a fundamental feature of the
act that it is an integral part of the act or nature of the act.169 Since the victim
is unaware of the unlawful nature of the intercourse—an integral part of
the act—the victim is unaware of the very act or nature of the act.

Again, it uses the standard that while one sex is legal, the other is illegal. In this case, again, either the sex of the case in Israel was legal or illegal, but not affected by the race of the convicted.

So, that's what I got. What did you get?

[Tahar Joblis]

It's all very nice that you folks have opinions and all...but your understanding of the law in your own countries is abysmal.

Which is why I've corrected you several times on your inaccurate portrayal of what the law is?

For example, in the UK, if you do not inform your partner that you have HIV, you can be charged with grievous bodily harm. You don't get to raise consent at all as a defense when you fail to disclose that you have HIV. It doesn't matter how much s/he says 'oh yes yes!' at the time.

Let's see...

Is "grievous bodily harm" rape? No, it is not. How strange... you mean UK law doesn't agree with your claim of what rape law is either?

Many areas in the US also make it a criminal offense to transmit an STD (consent is not allowed as a defence either when no disclosure was given).

Here's a quote in respect of the civil law in the US:

In some cases, a person infected with a serious sexually transmitted disease may have the legal right to seek monetary damages. In these cases, the injured person may file an STD lawsuit on the grounds of battery, fraud, negligence, and/or the infliction of psychological and emotional distress.

If US law agreed with you, criminal charges of rape would be prominent in that list. Comprise, perhaps, the entirety of it. How strange... you mean US law doesn't collectively agree with your claim of rape law is either? The fact that a sexual act is involved in the commission of a crime does not mean the act in question is rape. This is a distinction I have been using since my entry into the thread a dozen pages ago.

And I agree that transmitting to someone HIV might be legitimately a criminal act of grievous bodily harm deserving prosecution. However, it is the risk of transmission of disease which has not been consented to (and thereby the infection, and thereby the grievous bodily harm), rather than the sexual act itself. If the disease is not, in fact, transmitted, there is only damage to reputation and the emotional distress of undergoing multiple blood tests to make sure to consider - not, in other words, rape, though there may remain damage to be concerned with. Failure to disclose infection with an STD menaces public health and specifically menaces the health of the individual with whom you have sex, but does not constitute rape. The fact of whether it is willful or not does not alter the nature of the menace, either; however, ignorance may serve to remove individual culpability.

Your continued appeals to "the law makes it so!" are:
(a) Morally bankrupt, particularly easily demonstrated as rape law has made some extremely fishy calls before.
(b) Not even correct, as rape law in most jurisdictions doesn't seem to even agree with your definition of what constitutes rape.

As an example of (a) quite fresh in this thread, I might cite this definition:

Rape
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Note here that rape is defined in terms of penetrating someone with a penis. This is a particularly poor choice of definition and does not match very well with the benchmark of sex without consent; we could hardly charge a woman with penetrating an orifice with "his penis," but a woman may indeed have sex with another person without their consent and thus commit rape.

The law, here, can be seen to be an ass de jure; although other laws may enable the prosecution of female rapists, the definition offered the law for rape is a terrible one. As an example of (b) I point again to what I pointed out here to Kiskaanak, which Kiskaanak has chosen to ignore:

Perhaps you didn't actually read it, since it wasn't doing anything remotely like paraphrasing you.

So I'll quote very slowly. On p83 (9 of 50):

The traditional organizing principle for classifying what types of fraud
vitiate consent, and thus constitute rape, and what types of fraud do not, is
the distinction between fraud in the factum and fraud in the inducement.

Traditional organizing principle here refers to past legal standards, where there's *gasp* a differentiation made between different types of fraud and whether or not they vitiate consent. This contradicts your claim to knowing "the" law. (There is no "the" law as a universal constant.) The paper then goes on to explain precisely what the distinction is according to various experts.

Then, on p89 (15 of 50), the author finally gets off of the "traditional" abstract principles of law and how these have changed over the years to describe case law.

Although the scope of rape-by-fraud liability has broadened somewhat,
the criminal law persists in refusing to recognize some types of fraud used
to obtain intercourse—paradigmatic instances of fraud in the inducement—
as rape.

Pointing out that we still see in the modern age the remains of this "traditional" distinction. The author then proceeds through a laundry list of forms of "fraud in the inducement" that have been rejected by the courts in vitiating consent. Briefly, since you seem to dislike reading, I'll quote you two key summarizing sentences:

Fraud as to the degree of the perpetrator’s affection for, or roman-
tic commitment to, the victim is commonly not treated as rape.

Similarly, fraud as to one’s societal status, wealth, or physical ap-
peal is generally not treated as rape.

"Societal status" would, of course, in the US, be taken to include being a member of a privileged vs non-privileged class. Rich or poor, Jew or Palestinian.

Kiskaanak has claimed repeatedly that "fraud vitiates consent" universally, rather than conditionally as indicated by the expert being quoted, and under highly variable standards from state to state, nation to nation, and decade to decade, and thus (b), has incorrectly incorrectly captured what "the law" actually is in appealing to said laws to judge the facts of morality and reality.

I'll admit, it comes from a Google search. However, it appears "rape by deception" is not a universally applicable charge.

I provided a link earlier to a resource which lays out which states have laws regarding various kinds of fraud in relation to sex. The second last page. It's very informative...for example, it lists in which states spousal impersonation (as a fraud) is considered rape. Etc.

The article itself is about rape by fraud AS A DEFENCE in situations where someone has obtained sex by adult impersonation (ie, claiming to not be a minor). So it's dealing with the issue of statutory rape. The article is quite interesting...note, it points out this issue has never actually come up, but I think you brought this issue up earlier, so it should be a good read, on top of giving you some concrete state-by-state treatment of various kinds of fraud as it relates to consent to sex.

Note this is in fact the same article which I have linked to several times and quoted from several times, including above. It is a very nice article, and I would recommend reading it in full. It's also a nice demonstration of the sort of issues that ought to be addressed by someone making a broad and expansive legal argument, including particularly the conundrum of mutual rape.

[Kiskaanak]

Feinberg argues that celebrity impersonation, as opposed to spousal impersonation,
is fraud in the inducement and thus not rape by fraud for a number
of reasons.155 First, unlike the victim of spousal impersonation, the victim
of celebrity impersonation is not tricked into an unlawful act, like adultery.
156 Second, the victim of spousal impersonation will “suffer a greater
harm, or at least more severe psychological trauma” as opposed to the mere
“disappointment” of the celebrity impersonation victim.157 Third, Feinberg
concludes, while the spousal impersonation victim suffers an “evil,” the celebrity
impersonation victim receives a “mere nonbenefit,” or foregoes “a
good.”158

I cut the above because I agreed with all of it until this part. I mean, for one thing, the idea of 'adultery as an unlawful act' sticks in my craw a bit. It's definitely one of the most common ways in which a divorce can be sought, and sure in some places it might actually be unlawful. However I'm not so into the sanctity of marriage...and if someone impersonates a boyfriend rather than a spouse, I think that should be held to the same standard of 'oh my fucking god NO'.

Celebrity impersonation? You just know there's case law on this, yikes. Anyway. Pretending to be Clive Owen to get into someone's pants doesn't quite seem on the up and up and the 'unlawful' act distinction here is not what I'd base the argument on anyway.

Again, it uses the standard that while one sex is legal, the other is illegal. In this case, again, either the sex of the case in Israel was legal or illegal, but not affected by the race of the convicted.

So, that's what I got. What did you get?

I don't buy the 'illegal act' versus legal act distinction as a sustainable foundation anyway.

In my opinion, I think certain standards make sense...like having to tell your partner that you have an STI, or not pretending to be their lover. Those are probably not super controversial.

However, I also believe that in certain, fact specific situations, if someone goes out of their way to take advantage of a person in the form of getting them into the sack, then there should be a way to deal with that. The situation would have to be fairly extreme. The person doing the lying would have to know the seriousness of their deception, and do it anyway to get the other person to have sex.

I would never, ever, EVER have sex with someone who likes the band Rush. Ever. I declare this constantly and loudly. I wear shirts proclaiming my hatred for Rush fans. I am the president of the Rush hate-club.

If someone knew that, and went out of his/her way to convince me s/he wasn't a fan when in fact, s/he had every Rush album ever made...well I don't consent to that. I simply don't. Even if, being fooled at the time, I agree to have sex.

Malicious deception? Perhaps that could be one standard applied in these situations. Or we could stick with a very high standard of the elements of fraud. As to this case, I don't know enough of the actual facts to comment all that much.

[Kiskaanak]

Which is why I've corrected you several times on your inaccurate portrayal of what the law is?

lol, half the time you don't even know what words you're using, so pardon me for not feeling 'corrected'.

Fraud vitiates consent. Sorry that concept is apparently so difficult for you.

For example, in the UK, if you do not inform your partner that you have HIV, you can be charged with grievous bodily harm. You don't get to raise consent at all as a defense when you fail to disclose that you have HIV. It doesn't matter how much s/he says 'oh yes yes!' at the time.

Let's see...

Is "grievous bodily harm" rape? No, it is not. How strange... you mean UK law doesn't agree with your claim of what rape law is either?

This is precisely why you are unable to 'correct' me in any way. You can't grasp the issues. Here is the context of my quote. Again:

That is the definition of rape. Now, if you willingly, as in not against your will, have sex with someone that IS consent. Unless you specifically say no or in anyway make it clear that you do not want to have sex, you are consenting. (This does not apply if said person in unconscious, obviously.)

Consent does not have to be signaled before or during, or hold your peace. I gave a clear example of how consent can be vitiated ab initio when you don't have the proper facts.

Again, you get confused and think I'm talking about rape. Tsk.

If US law agreed with you, criminal charges of rape would be prominent in that list. Comprise, perhaps, the entirety of it. How strange... you mean US law doesn't collectively agree with your claim of rape law is either? The fact that a sexual act is involved in the commission of a crime does not mean the act in question is rape. This is a distinction I have been using since my entry into the thread a dozen pages ago.

You do try so hard...

I've made it clear many times that the crime of 'rape' or 'sexual assault' varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Again, because you seem incapable of getting it, my focus has been on the fact that fraud vitiates consent. Whether the ensuing charge (assuming criminal law) is rape, sexual assault, assault, or squiddledy do is irrelevant.

My focus continues to be one fraud as it relates to consent, because people continue to express profound misunderstanding as to how consent can be effectively cancelled out. Not just 'turned over' later. It's an important distinction. I'm quite aware of how fraud is interpreted by statute and case law. Most people here don't even get the fundamental maxim itself. If they want to know what fraud means in their jurisdiction, they are free to find out themselves. But first, they have to grasp the fact that 'consent' isn't some magical blanket that prevents you from getting charged with a crime if you do something wrong.

I've pointed out to you why your attempted conversation with me is pointless...for one, you can't decide what arena you want to argue in, despite your repeated legal fuck-ups.

Whatever else you're on about is really not my problem.

[Galloism]

Celebrity impersonation? You just know there's case law on this, yikes. Anyway. Pretending to be Clive Owen to get into someone's pants doesn't quite seem on the up and up and the 'unlawful' act distinction here is not what I'd base the argument on anyway.

There's caselaw on lots of things there shouldn't be caselaw on.

I don't buy the 'illegal act' versus legal act distinction as a sustainable foundation anyway.

In my opinion, I think certain standards make sense...like having to tell your partner that you have an STI, or not pretending to be their lover. Those are probably not super controversial.

However, I also believe that in certain, fact specific situations, if someone goes out of their way to take advantage of a person in the form of getting them into the sack, then there should be a way to deal with that. The situation would have to be fairly extreme. The person doing the lying would have to know the seriousness of their deception, and do it anyway to get the other person to have sex.

I would never, ever, EVER have sex with someone who likes the band Rush. Ever. I declare this constantly and loudly. I wear shirts proclaiming my hatred for Rush fans. I am the president of the Rush hate-club.

I have it on good authority that GoG secretly likes Rush.

If someone knew that, and went out of his/her way to convince me s/he wasn't a fan when in fact, s/he had every Rush album ever made...well I don't consent to that. I simply don't. Even if, being fooled at the time, I agree to have sex.

Malicious deception? Perhaps that could be one standard applied in these situations. Or we could stick with a very high standard of the elements of fraud. As to this case, I don't know enough of the actual facts to comment all that much.

Fraud actually isn't a bad standard, since the definition I read also seems to require that harm be done to the individual. However, I still wouldn't call it rape. It might be battery, depending on the level of harm, but I wouldn't call it rape.

At least, it would never be rape by Arkansas standards, and other states... well, hit or miss.

[Kiskaanak]

I have it on good authority that GoG secretly likes Rush.

*Crying Game shower scene*

Fraud actually isn't a bad standard, since the definition I read also seems to require that harm be done to the individual. However, I still wouldn't call it rape. It might be battery, depending on the level of harm, but I wouldn't call it rape.

At least, it would never be rape by Arkansas standards, and other states... well, hit or miss.

[/quote]

It's SEX. Why wouldn't it be a sexual assault? (which again is a better all-encompassing term than rape)

I think that the term sexual assault as we use it in Canada for example, works really well. It can include improper touching to full on gang-rape. Sentencing depends on the severity of the particular offense, but what unifies it is the sexual nature of the act.

Calling it something else doesn't seem to really do much, other than what...make people feel better about not having 'raped' someone?

I don't know. I think perhaps you come from a particular background on the 'what should we call it' issue considering the troubling way sexual offenders are dealt with in certain areas of the states.

[Tahar Joblis]

half the time you don't even know what words you're using

This and all your other greasy attempts at trolling me by claiming I just don't know what we're saying are total and complete bullshit. Get off it. If you want to present actual argument, do so. I challenged you earlier, in fact, to come up with a single specific case that could demonstrate ignorance. You decided not to pick up that glove.

Between the two of us, the one who is failing to understand is clearly yourself.

Fraud vitiates consent.

We again have from you this claim. With no qualifiers, it is clearly a universal statement. Per your claims to be talking about law, it is therefore a universal statement about law. As a universal statement about law, it is clearly incorrect, as demonstrated earlier in such cases as Boro.

Here is the context of my quote.

No, that's not the context of your quote.

Your statement was:

It's all very nice that you folks have opinions and all...but your understanding of the law in your own countries is abysmal. You should really look into this before you get yourselves into legal trouble, believing certain activities are 'legal' and such.

For example, in the UK, if you do not inform your partner that you have HIV, you can be charged with grievous bodily harm. You don't get to raise consent at all as a defense when you fail to disclose that you have HIV. It doesn't matter how much s/he says 'oh yes yes!' at the time.

Many areas in the US also make it a criminal offense to transmit an STD (consent is not allowed as a defence either when no disclosure was given).

It was not preceded with a quote. It took place within a thread about rape. If a reply to Penguton, Penguton was only talking about sexual consent and rape.

Not only is this so, but in this thread STD infection has been specifically raised as an example of rape by fraud under the standard that you have endorsed. Follow the logic, Kiskaanak: If consent is always vitiated by fraud, then fraud that leads to sex is always rape. Disclosure of STD infection constitutes something that would be expected to influence a decision to have or not have sex, and thus dishonest nondisclosure constitutes fraud. Thus, by the definition you have endorsed, willfully deceiving someone and causing them to be infected by HIV via sex necessarily involves one or more acts of rape.

UK law, however, does not classify this act as rape, allowing instead for prosecution as grievous bodily harm. Ergo, UK law does not agree with your classification of rape.

I gave a clear example of how consent can be vitiated ab initio when you don't have the proper facts.

Implicitly, by context, sexual consent. See above. There is, in fact, no other form of consent that you could refer to, because no other form of consent is described as having been given.

You were [i]not taken out of context in the slightest.

I've made it clear many times that the crime of 'rape' or 'sexual assault' varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Again, because you seem incapable of getting it, my focus has been on the fact that fraud vitiates consent.

And in what grounding lies this "fact"?

Whether the ensuing charge (assuming criminal law) is rape, sexual assault, assault, or squiddledy do is irrelevant.

... presumption of universal treatment of fraud within criminal law.

Boro was considered by the presiding judge to involve fraudulent behavior, which clearly led to sex. It was not, however, considered rape, per a non-trivial legal tradition that only some types of fraud serve to vitiate consent. I.e., that what you have claimed as a universal fact of law is not, in fact, a universal fact of law.

You, my illogical debating partner, are attempting to delve into moral philosophy and trying to hide behind the shield of an imagined universal state of law. It is not a legal fact that fraud always vitiates consent. If you wish to make an argument for fraud always vitiating consent, you need to make a philosophical argument as to why fraud in truth vitiates consent rather than the bankrupt and incorrect argument that fraud in law vitiates consent.

[Kiskaanak]

It was not preceded with a quote. It took place within a thread about rape. If a reply to Penguton, Penguton was only talking about sexual consent and rape.

The issue was whether or not lack of consent had to be signaled before or during an act...when the fact is, consent can be canceled out at the time it is given. I gave a clear example of a situation where consent is canceled out in that fashion. This helps people understand that what is happening is not consent being 'taken away after' (as you posited in your 'post facto' quote) but that it doesn't exist at all in certain cases.

That the ensuing charge is not 'rape' has nothing to do with the way consent was vitiated ab initio.

You asked for your faulty reasoning...I've already pointed a number of examples of it out to you. The most amusing part of it is...you don't know enough to know what you don't know, even when it's brought to your attention.

It's okay, I'm sure I'll have to explain it to you again.

[Tahar Joblis]

The issue was whether or not lack of consent had to be signaled before or during an act...when the fact is, consent can be canceled out at the time it is given.

Which is a wholly incorrect interpretation of the word "consent," as mentioned earlier.

I gave a clear example of a situation where consent is canceled out in that fashion.

No, you did not. The example was that someone consented to sex, and was infected with HIV, which could then be prosecuted as grievous bodily harm. Your example was, as an example of the exercise of law, even less relevant than prior examples about spousal impersonation, because it wasn't even about rape law.

They did not at any point consent to infection with HIV. Nor was the sexual act performed without consent, and thus it was not rape in fact; nor, indeed, was your example about rape in law.

Your mistake in constructing this example was assuming that consent has a very broad scope. It in fact does not have a broad consent. At no point was explicit or implicit consent to infection given; thus, there was no consent to be infected to negate.

[Galloism]

I have it on good authority that GoG secretly likes Rush.

*Crying Game shower scene*

I don't know why I did that. I actually *like* GoG. I'm just a mean-hearted bastard.

It's SEX. Why wouldn't it be a sexual assault? (which again is a better all-encompassing term than rape)

I think that the term sexual assault as we use it in Canada for example, works really well. It can include improper touching to full on gang-rape. Sentencing depends on the severity of the particular offense, but what unifies it is the sexual nature of the act.

Calling it something else doesn't seem to really do much, other than what...make people feel better about not having 'raped' someone?

I don't know. I think perhaps you come from a particular background on the 'what should we call it' issue considering the troubling way sexual offenders are dealt with in certain areas of the states.

Well, like all words, "rape" has a connotation. It's very similar how you object to the use of the term "baby" with reference to the unborn. Although technically accurate by a layman's dictionary definition, it carries a connotation that is very... dissimilar to reality. When you use the word "rape", the first thing a person is going to think of is the back-alley gun-in-your-face type of rape, or perhaps the pushed down, hands-bound, overwhelming power kind of rape. In using that term indiscriminately, it does two things: one, it carries a connotation that does not accurately fit the situation, and two, it weakens the term.

We could begin calling pneumonia cancer, for instance, to get people to take it more seriously, but that would weaken the term "cancer" in its seriousness. Of course, that's not the best analogy, but I think you get my idea.