Guilty of rape by deception

[Bill3000]

Well, don't lie to a woman who'd feel molested after she found out the truth. "Buyer Beware" works both ways.

That's stupid. Simply regretting having sex with someone isn't the same thing as not consenting to said sex, and certainly isn't rape. Sexual consent being withdrawn means that later sexual encounters would be nonconsentual, it shouldn't be applied retroactively. It's not progress, it's trivializing actual rape and needlessly criminalizing sexual encounters. You can't even properly apply the contract analogy, because rape is a felony, not a civil suit.

 

[classical_hero]

Didn't know that. I like it.

It is found in 1 Corinthians 7, but it also does state that if they want to leave the relationship, then it is best to allow them to leave, but passage does say that it is not for the believing party to make that decision, but the unbelieving party to make it.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's stupid. Simply regretting having sex with someone isn't the same thing as not consenting to said sex, and certainly isn't rape.

Of course regretting a sexual encounter isn't rape. You need to squint really, really hard to get your summary out of my posts

Sexual consent being withdrawn means that later sexual encounters would be nonconsentual, it shouldn't be applied retroactively.

It's not withdrawn, Bill, it never existed. Just like saying "are you really a licensed surgeon?" is not consenting to being cut open by an unlicensed person if they lie.

It's not progress, it's trivializing actual rape and needlessly criminalizing sexual encounters.

Bullcrap. You know what trivialises rape? Blaming the victim. Endorsing the behaviour. That trivialises rape. This doesn't trivialise rape. It's not like rape becomes "more acceptable" over this. It's not like we're more likely to say "oh, she shouldn't have dressed that way" or "she shouldn't have gotten so drunk" after learning to think this way. We're not more likely to smugly shrug when someone complains about being tricked into a pregnancy. I didn't learn about this and then become more uncaring of the actual rape going on in the world.

Our bodies are important.

You can't even properly apply the contract analogy, because rape is a felony, not a civil suit.

"I" am not doing anything. I'm merely informing about the 'way things are'. This is an area of law that I'm deeply familiar with.

 

[Mise]

There is a clear difference between being cut open by butcher pretending to be a surgeon or being molested by a stranger pretending to be your husband, than agreeing to have sex with a roadsweeper pretending to be a footballer, a Muslim pretending to be a Jew, or a 5'10 man pretending to be a 6'0 man. Can you at least accept that?

 

[Grisu]

Of course regretting a sexual encounter isn't rape. You need to squint really, really hard to get your summary out of my posts

The problem, if your approach is implemented, it can very much lead to this.

What's stopping somebody who regrets a sexual encounter claim after the deed that had he known some arbitrary secret, he would not have had sex?

Same with the white lie I mentioned earlier. Sure, you say a true white lie wouldn't lead to withdrawn consent. But the teller of the lie cannot know that in advance and thus any white lie can be later used as accusations for rape.

It makes sex pretty much impossible without a written affidavit, since everybody of us has some secrets that he doesn't automatically tell his partner before sex (especially when we're talking about casual sex). Any of these can be construed as lieing by omission lateron. Or what about a faked orgasms? If she fakes an orgasm can I claim any further sex was rape? This rule of yours can only work if we have very clear rules what untruths/omissions are acceptable and which aren't.

Otherwise you really are trivalizing rape, whether you want to see it as such or not.

Bullcrap. You know what trivialises rape? Blaming the victim. Endorsing the behaviour. That trivialises rape. This doesn't trivialise rape.

that too, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[nonconformist]

So, hypothetically, if a guy claims to a girl he's realy g ood in bed, but comes after like 2 minutes, he's guilty of rape?

Or if a guy claims he's had laods of women, but the girl he screws finds out post facto he was actually a virgin, he's a rapist?

 

[nonconformist]

FWIW:

"Everything is deception...fromthe insect that mimics a leaf, to the popular enticements of procreation"-Vladimir Nabokov

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

This case just gives me more reason to be suspicious of the racist and foreboding nature of Israeli society, which, until recently, I supported. Regardless of whatever laws they have there, the verdict is unjust because this woman's testimony amounts to hearsay. By this precedent, anyone can claim that a partner lied to them about anything and then accuse of them of "rape" after the fact. The Israeli judge could've taken discretion and stated that claims are just hearsay without evidence to back them up but instead deliberately chose to rule against the man. To me, that indicates an obvious bias which is racially motivated. Strike two for Israeli reputation.

 

[Mark1031]

Well, this specific case is sensationalised and under-reported. As well, it deals with Israeli law and religious issues. I'm not going to comment on it specifically.

You can chose not to comment on this case but it is the whole point of why the laws are a bad idea; they are abused for motives unrelated to justice and fairness. See anti-miscegenation laws in the US or the use of rape charges against black men. You also fail to comment on this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dixon. Can you point out an actual case or prosecution where this type of law is applied in a just manner and in which other laws would not be in force ie. where the deception is the only basis for a charge.

People are pissed that they cannot deceive, seduce, and then leave a victim that feels molested when they learn the truth. Yeah, boo hoo. These interpretations are progress. They're as much progress as the idea that you can't drug someone to rape them, or that raping your wife is possible, or that threatening ruin or beatings to get sex is rape. We live in a world where people gang-rape as a right-of-passage. We live in a world where women are drugged and then filmed and then the porn is sold in the Western world. We need as much progress as possible in this field.

You make no sense here. Everything you list involves violence or threat thereof and is covered by other laws. It in no way provides the justification for going the further step of criminalizing verbal deceptions.

I don't think that this devalues rape any more than gay marriage devalues marriage. It's not like this interpretation creates greater acceptance of using force to get sex. In fact, it decreases it.

This is a bad analogy. Gay marriage involves exactly the same principles and conventions as straight marriage whereas this is applying the word rape to an entirely new class of behaviors that are part of normal human interaction. The proper analogy would be what devalues marriage is the granting of temporary marriages for 45 min followed by divorce so you can visit a prostitute. THAT devalues marriage in the same way as these laws devalue rape, by applying a completely new and trivial rule set.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm only pointing out that our rape laws are progressing. The reason why those rape laws were passed was based off an understanding of consent. We moved from 'being allowed to rape' to 'being allowed to threaten violence if denied sex' (Deuteronomy 25) to 'only allowed to rape your wife' (Koran) to 'not allowed to rape your wife' (the 1970s) because of progress in the concept of rape.

Since then, we've had marvelous breakthroughs like "you cannot molest a drunk chick" and "you cannot rip off prostitutes". And now, things like "you cannot pretend to promise a job" and "lie about being fertile".

And yeah, I can see why you think that calling this "rape" devalues rape. Thanks for explaining that, because I totally agree. To me, 'rape' connotes violence. I cannot unthink that. My point, of course, is that my thinking does not devalue the horror of violent rape.

There is a clear difference between being cut open by butcher pretending to be a surgeon or being molested by a stranger pretending to be your husband, than agreeing to have sex with a roadsweeper pretending to be a footballer, a Muslim pretending to be a Jew, or a 5'10 man pretending to be a 6'0 man. Can you at least accept that?

Why wouldn't I accept that? I've never met anyone who was upset about the height of their partner, or who was sickened by the fact that their attempt to bag a footballer backfired, etc. The question about 'muslims and jews' is one that I cannot comment on, cause I don't understand the implications ...

The closest I can come to is asking if tricking some jews and muslims into eating pork at my house is a violation of their consent to partake.

 

[warpus]

I hate to do a weird logic-spin, but it's a true one. If it was a white lie, then you won't be charged. You'll only be charged if there's a victim who feels like they're a victim. If the person is victimised, it wasn't a white lie.

That's such a bad way to do this.. based on how the victim feels? No way would I ever agree that something like this could ever be just.

If you consent to sexual intercourse, that's consent. You can't go back on your consent after the fact.

Obviously if there was a big lie involved, such as the other person having AIDS, you would turn to the authorities, but that's sexual assault, not lack of consent. Just cause you slept with someone who you thought was an architect doesn't mean you can charge them with rape - if you gave consent.

 

[nonconformist]

To me, 'rape' connotes violence. I cannot unthink that.

To you, maybe, but that is, with all due respect, irrelevant. Rape is a legal term, and as such, the only arbiter is statutory instruments, and legal interpretations therof.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're right, it's also a legal term. But that doesn't change my point. It's not like these interpretations decrease the criminal penalties for committing other types of rape. If the relative penalties changes, I guess you could call that 'devaluing other rape offenses', but what else would you want? A scaling of penalties, if new types of rapes are defined?

Obviously if there was a big lie involved, such as the other person having AIDS, you would turn to the authorities, but that's sexual assault, not lack of consent. Just cause you slept with someone who you thought was an architect doesn't mean you can charge them with rape - if you gave consent.

Well, again, in the old days, having sex with someone while HIV+ wasn't sexual assault. Lying about being HIV+ wasn't really, either. You can consent to an assault (else hockey would be impossible). So, it wasn't assault unless you became HIV+ yourself.

The law needed to change, obviously, this change followed the principles I'm talking about. The law changed so that lying about being HIV+ abrogated consent itself.


You guys are reading too much into what I'm saying and assuming a black-and-white scale of slippery slope, and then saying that the black-and-white case is stupid. Yeah, sure.

And Mark, I fail to see how the Markus case relates to what I'm pointing out. If you're saying that the OP case reeks of racism, yeah, I can see that.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Lying about HIV is reckless endangerment.

 

[cardgame]

since there is no cure, it's also negligent homicide. Yes?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

If you pass it on and they die, I suppose so yes.

 

[warpus]

Well, again, in the old days, having sex with someone while HIV+ wasn't sexual assault. Lying about being HIV+ wasn't really, either. You can consent to an assault (else hockey would be impossible). So, it wasn't assault unless you became HIV+ yourself.

The law needed to change, obviously, this change followed the principles I'm talking about. The law changed so that lying about being HIV+ abrogated consent itself.

Yes, sure, but obviously lying about your height, career, ethnic background, or penis size should not fall under the same law.

 

[El_Machinae]

Lying about HIV is reckless endangerment.

Sure, but is it sexual assault too?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Sure, but is it sexual assault too?

Yes, because no consent would have been given if there was knowledge.

 

[Grisu]

Lying about HIV is reckless endangerment.

yup, there's the case of a german popstar who had unproteced sex with several males despite knowing about being HIV+. IIRC, she's now being prosecuted for 'gefährliche Köperverletzung' (grievious bodily harm?), not for rape.