Guilty of rape by deception

[Mise]

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 ...

So the entire legal status of your sexual encounter is dependent on whether the person becomes upset after later discovering something untruthful you said? I mean, one of my friends went out with a guy who lied about going to college - in fact he dropped out but didn't tell anyone, and explicitly lead her and everyone else to believe he went to college every day. She was very, very upset about this, and understandably broke up with him. Their relationship was sexual at the time. Is he a rapist? Could she have at least charged him with rape?

The reason pretending to be a gynaecologist in order to molest women, or pretending to be her husband in order to sleep with a her, causes tremendously more distress to the woman than pretending to be 6' instead of 5'10 is because we place a great deal more trust in people who say they are doctors or your husband. The law as practised in the UK (according to noncon, anyway) tends to convict when the alleged molester/rapist is pretending to be someone in a position of implicit trust or authority. Laws against impersonating a police officer run along the same lines. The law should distinguish between cases where the accused has pretended to be someone in a position of implicit trust and authority, and cases where the accused has simply pretended to be more attractive or sexually desirable.

It's obvious to me, and apparently to you, too, that lying about metrics of attractiveness, such as height, status, salary, etc is nowhere near "rape". The "lack of consent" in this case is along the lines of a woman who, 20 years after tying the knot, says, "he's just not the man I married" or "if I'd known he was going to be like this I'd never have agreed to marry him" as she files for divorce, or of a buyer of a Big Mac who expresses regret that it contained gherkins, despite explicitly asking for no gherkins. That type of consent, as I've tried to express in previous posts, is completely different from the type of consent that is lacking in true cases of rape. Equivocating on those two different meanings, and calling them both rape, is spurious. Equivocating on the two different meanings, and trying to argue that, since one is illegal, so too should be the other, is also spurious.

 

[nonconformist]

Following from Mise's points, though "sex through deception" is statutarily a crime, it is applied in the sense of someone in an implicit situation of trust and such, which abuses it.

There have been no cases (as far as I know, and tbh I probably would) about anyone being prosecuted for lying about such things.
And this is in a legal system where a man is assumed to have raped a woman unless he can prove otherwise (technically, under UK law, even if you'rer married to someone, you are assumed to have raped unless the woman specifically consented verbally via words that are unambiguously a consent; i.e the woman HAS to say "yes"), but it isn't really applied.

Under statutory law, this would make practically every Englishman a rapist, if not all.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Personally I go for the "if you touch it you consent" rule.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Mise, good post. I personally have long suspected that the next system of Apartheid will come under the cover of human rights, and this case raises my suspicions in that regard. This isn't specifically an Israeli thing, and it will be interesting to see which country tries it on next. I think this case is blatant and shameful racism.

 

[Truronian]

Under statutory law, this would make practically every Englishman a rapist, if not all.

Excepts for the one's that spend their time making a Klingon fan dub for Fawlty Towers.

 

[CaptainF]

Israel shows us once again that they are a shining beacon of democracy and human rights in the Middle East.

It's entirely the woman's fault. She's the one who ultimately spread her legs of her own free will.

 

[Earthling]

It's not like these interpretations decrease the criminal penalties for committing other types of rape.

They could very well decrease the number of other cases brought to court, or in effect, decrease the number of "actual rapists" brought to justice. This would occur through clogging up the legal system with too many non-violent/deception/whatever types of cases, creating pressure on victims to even report rapes and influencing how juries react.

 

[Japanrocks12]

How would it have turned out differently if the dude was Christian, Buddhist, or Cao Dai? That's the real question here.

 

[ugly.bulldog]

Correct in the former case.

In the latter case I think lying about your age in order to be able to get sex should be illegal in the first place. If he didn't ask and assumed she was under thirty, its his own fault.

I think someone has the right to lie about their age or their religion, no matter what the purpose of doing so is.

Lying about one's age or religion ensures that the other party cannot unreasonably discriminate on the basis of age or religion. If it's for sex, then the other party has no right to even complain, let alone call it "rape", because they would have had no right to discriminate on the basis of age or religion in the first place!

Lying to begin with ensures such unfair discrmination cannot take place, and it is therefore logical, rational, democratic and fair to lie in these cases.

Many "freedom-oriented" people would therefore consider it a basic human right to be able to lie about their age or religion without fear of police-state-style penalties.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

I think someone has the right to lie about their age or their religion, no matter what the purpose of doing so is.

Lying about one's age or religion ensures that the other party cannot unreasonably discriminate on the basis of age or religion. If it's for sex, then the other party has no right to even complain, let alone call it "rape", because they would have had no right to discriminate on the basis of age or religion in the first place!

Not really true--minors can't lie about their age in order to obtain goods that have a minimum age. It's fraud to lie about your age in order to obtain a senior discount. In the case of sex, the other person has every right to discriminate if you're below the age of consent. (In the case of sex, people should have the right to choose or exclude an adult partner on any grounds they wish no matter how absurd the reason.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not really true--minors can't lie about their age in order to obtain goods that have a minimum age. It's fraud to lie about your age in order to obtain a senior discount. In the case of sex, the other person has every right to discriminate if you're below the age of consent. (In the case of sex, people should have the right to choose or exclude an adult partner on any grounds they wish no matter how absurd the reason.)

Agreed.

And personally, not wanting to choose a marriage partner because they have a different religion is quite reasonable for many reasons.

Of course, this woman was not caring about religion, possibly just wanted to get him in trouble, but still...

I hold my statement. Jail is ridiculous. A fine would be fine.

 

[ugly.bulldog]

Agreed.

And personally, not wanting to choose a marriage partner because they have a different religion is quite reasonable for many reasons.

Of course, this woman was not caring about religion, possibly just wanted to get him in trouble, but still...

I hold my statement. Jail is ridiculous. A fine would be fine.

It seems these days, women will try to call anything "Rape" at the same time being backed by feminists throughout Western Europe and North America. Feminists in Sweden and Norway even regard men paying for sex as a kind of rape. Utterly ridiculous. And now this "Rape by Deception" business in another country with a powerful feminist movement: Israel.

It is obvious to many that women in countries like the UK, USA, Sweden, Norway and Israel are moving towards matriarchies. Women in these countries demand more rights, more influence, and more sympathy in the general society than men. Feminist politicians and the wives of weak male politicians are helping the feminists achieve this.

I find it rather unlikely, if not impossible, that a "woman" would be prosecuted for "Rape by Deception" in Israel, the UK or the USA. I also think it almost impossible that a woman in Norway or Sweden would be prosecuted for renting a gigolo!

We don't need extreme feminist societies like Israel, UK, Sweden and Norway. At the other extreme, we don't need societies like Iran and Saudi Arabia either, where women get stoned to death or hanged for something as trivial as adultery.

These countries would do well to look at the examples set by Russia and China, where gender equality has a achieved a better overall balance.

 

[warpus]

Indeed, we are often too sensitive as a society to admit that in some respects women do have it better than men.. There is still plenty of inequality to battle, but in some cases it is the men who have it worse.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Agreed.

And personally, not wanting to choose a marriage partner because they have a different religion is quite reasonable for many reasons.

Of course, this woman was not caring about religion, possibly just wanted to get him in trouble, but still...

I hold my statement. Jail is ridiculous. A fine would be fine.

I agree...in this case he did something sleazy but not illegal. If she cared that much she would have waited to hop into bed and would have made sure she knew him well enough. I wouldn't even go for a fine in this case.

 

[NovaKart]

I don't understand how this would affect prostitution. In countries like the USA where prostitution is illegal how can a prostitute then take a man to court over not paying her? The transaction was illegal in the first place. Can a drug dealer take someone to court for not paying him?

In countries where prostitution is legal can't it just be treated the same as refusing payment for any type of service? Like not paying the housekeeper.

I'm also against a rape by deception law except in certain cases like pretending to be someone's husband. I consider sex to be a personal thing, not a transaction. In day to day life people lie about certain things and you shouldn't take someone to court over that unless it's caused you a significant loss. If a woman feels bad after having sex with someone who claimed to be a doctor, a Jew, whatever it amounts to hurt feelings. She should take more time to get to know someone or deal with the consequences.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This is an outrage! Execute them both! That will make a point that stupidity will not be tolerated!

 

[sophie]

This is an outrage! Execute them both! That will make a point that stupidity will not be tolerated!

It's what Darwin would want.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's what Darwin would want.

Remember, religion is evil now. Darwin rock on!

 

[Patroklos]

Hmmmm...

I do think this is stupid, but using well crafted lies in order to overcome inhibitions is really no different than using alcohol. Both are strategies to get sex you otherwise would not.

 

[Airstrike92]

Shocking: Guy lies to chick to have sex.
Court: 18 months.

lol win!