Guilty of rape by deception

[GhostWriter16]

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.

In all seriousness, alcohol can be refused. You aren't being forced to drink.

However, if someone tells a lie what can be done about that if they've got a straight story?

Again it depends on the lie. Lying to a blind person that you have brown hair instead of blond would not be worthy of arrest. Lying saying you don't have STDs would be. Its the areas in the middle where it gets tough, and this is probably one of those. Fine the guy, don't arrest him.

 

[Silurian]

Did this person actually lie.

He used a nick name that was jewish

 

[Arakhor]

My middle name is Scottish. It doesn't make me Scottish.

 

[NovaKart]

If someone is very drunk then that person isn't conscious so she can't really consent to sex. The problem with this is that there could be a situation in which both individuals were drunk or the man didn't realize the woman was as drunk as she was or the woman was tipsy and had lowered inhibitions but was still conscious of her actions. It's a really gray area.

In other situations such as driving then even if the person is not conscious of his actions he's still liable for what he did. If a man is really drunk and forces a sober woman to have sex then he's still guilty of rape. The law isn't exactly consistent about intoxication.

 

[Silurian]

My middle name is Scottish. It doesn't make me Scottish.

Then be carefull if you go to Israel

Someone may want some one from Scotland and get upset

 

[Bill3000]

If someone is very drunk then that person isn't conscious so she can't really consent to sex./QUOTE]

Er, if you're drunk enough to not be conscious, then you've passed out.

 

[Arakhor]

I think someone might get more upset because I don't want to have casual sex with a stranger purely based on my middle name.

 

[NovaKart]

Not really, someone can be drunk enough that he/she has blacked-out and is not conscious of his/her actions but still awake.

 

[Silurian]

I think someone might get more upset because I don't want to have casual sex with a stranger purely based on my middle name.

The person was only interested in the nick name after having casual sex

 

[Arakhor]

It's still a ridiculous situation.

 

[Elrohir]

Hi everyone!

This is not ridiculous, or, not as ridiculous as you'd think. In most of the countries that have decent sexual assault laws, misrepresenting yourself can be considered sexual assault if the victim complains.

Sex requires consent. It really does. I know that you guys know about "make sure she says yes", because it's gotta be decently advertised. And the law is not kidding when it says that sex requires consent. Consent implies fair knowledge of what's going on.

The girl thought she was sleeping with a Jew. She'd consented to sleep with a Jew. She'd not consented to sleeping with a non-Jew. Ergo, a non-Jew violated her consent.

Now, this case seems to be outrageous, but it is built upon principles that the sexual-assault-community recognises quite easily. This is the same law that prevents people from refusing to pay a hooker after services. This is the same law that prevents people from waiting until a girl is too drunk to know better. This is the same law the prevents people from lying about whether they're infertile.

Sex requires consent. It's true. It's really true. You might as well understand, and even accept, such an idea.

I see what you're saying, and I do see the logic behind it. But where do you draw the line? If a man lies about loving a woman, and has sex with her, has he sexually assaulted her? If a woman lies about the number of sexual partners she's had, and has sex with a man, has she sexually assaulted him? There are probably more people who care about their partner's feelings towards them, or their partner's sexual histories than about whether or not they're Jewish. Almost everyone lies at some point, so it seems absurd to me to effectively say there's no consent if it follows a deception in general -- He may not be Jewish/an astronaut/rich/in love with you, but if you agree to have sex with them, then I think that's that.

On the other hand, I think there clearly cases where deception before sex does equal rape -- the hypothetical "Deceiving a blind woman into thinking that you're her husband" scenario, for instance. I think few people would defend that as truly consensual.

So it seems to me, intuitively, that the dividing line is between deception about a person, or a person's characteristics or life, and the fundamental identity of the person. Perhaps also the fundamental nature or dangers of the act -- so having sex with someone after lying about having aids would probably qualify, as well as being assault and battery. And I agree that lying about infertility -- say, in hopes that you'll get pregnant/impregnate the girl -- is sexual assault, as that's a potential financial and health danger that you are deceiving the other party about.)

Now, is it wrong to lie to people in order to get them to have sex with you? Sure, I think so. I've never done so, and I never intend to. But I also think lying in general is morally wrong. (As is homosexuality, use of pornography, gluttony, laziness, etc. But I don't think any of these things should be illegal.) But we don't send people to prison just for doing something that's morally wrong; there has to be a clear violation of someone else's civil rights. And I don't think this woman's civil rights were violated, even if her story was true.

I understand that you're big on emphasizing consent and bodily autonomy, but I really think you're going too far here. It's quite possible to outlaw the worst offenses without going overboard. Lying about your ethnicity (And it sounds like he didn't even do that! The woman in this case seems like quite a liar) does not remove consent.

 

[NovaKart]

I'm a lazy homosexual who sometimes over-eats and has looked at porn at least a few times. I guess i'm pretty immoral by your standards.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm a lazy homosexual who sometimes over-eats and has looked at porn at least a few times. I guess i'm pretty immoral by your standards.

I don't typically think of them as "my" standards. I prefer to think of them as universally applicable.

Sure, you do immoral things. Everyone does. (Even me! Really!) I think you missed the point of my post: it wasn't to call down condemnation on you, or people like you, it was to argue that just because something may be morally wrong, it doesn't mean it should be illegal. It sounds like you do some bad things, but I don't think those things should be illegal. (If I did, then that standard would certainly come back and throw me in jail too! And it'd be rather troublesome finding guards for such a large prison, seeing as how eventually everyone would be locked up)

 

[Quillur]

As with everything, the line is drawn wherever those who have most power in that society want it drawn.

Easy.

 

[NovaKart]

I think it's kind of sad that you think homosexuality is universally immoral but that's not the point of this thread so I'll drop it.

 

[Evie]

Frankly, I'm just a little disturbed at all the people who think they have a right to lie in order to get some.

No, you don't, anymore than you have a right to lie to get into any other form of contracts, verbal or otherwise. If you knowingly or deliberately mislead or allow your partner to misled about what they consider the important facts of the contract, in ANY form of agreement (including consent to sex), then yes, the consent is and should be void. There's no "but" or "if" about it - consent requires information, and deliberately depriving someone of information that would have affected their judgment nullify that consent. This is the case in just about any form of law governing agreements between people.

Now, there are caveats to that. In many forms of contract law, for example, the victim of the lie has an obligation to reasonability - if the lie was so obvious no one in their right mind would take it seriously ("I'm the president of the US!"), or you were mistaken about an easily verifiable fact (I thought he was a green man from Mars!), the fault is yours, not mine. Similarly, the lie has to be about something that would actually have affected consent - the alleged victim has to give sufficient proof that the lie (or missing information) actually had an effect on their consent. Sometime this proof is easily made (the HIV/AIDS line, probably also infertility/birth control), other times, not so much ("He told me the picture with his neighbor's dog was actually of his dog!")

Finally, there has to be an actual deception - either someone knowingly failing to inform a partner of something the partner had a reasonable expectation of being informed of ("I'm married", "I have AIDS"), or through deliberately lying.

Now, in the SPECIFIC case here, it's hard to say anything definite without the full body of evidence, and just some media notes and the testimony of the accused man (a biased source if ever there was one), but what we have does raise significant concerns about how the law was applied to this particular case, or possibly about lack of important safeguards in the wording of the Israeli law.

But the basic principles underlying the law - that vitiated consent is not consent, that therefore sex with vitiated consent is sex without consent - are necessary to life in a civilized society.

 

[NovaKart]

I think many of us on this forum just don't really consider sex to be something you need a contract for. It's not like selling a house or employing someone. Unless someone is unable to consent, such as underage or due to a mental state, then a simple lie isn't enough to void consent.

 

[Disgustipated]

Frankly, I'm just a little disturbed at all the people who think they have a right to lie in order to get some.

No, you don't, anymore than you have a right to lie to get into any other form of contracts, verbal or otherwise. If you knowingly or deliberately mislead or allow your partner to misled about what they consider the important facts of the contract, in ANY form of agreement (including consent to sex), then yes, the consent is and should be void. There's no "but" or "if" about it - consent requires information, and deliberately depriving someone of information that would have affected their judgment nullify that consent. This is the case in just about any form of law governing agreements between people.

Now, there are caveats to that. In many forms of contract law, for example, the victim of the lie has an obligation to reasonability - if the lie was so obvious no one in their right mind would take it seriously ("I'm the president of the US!"), or you were mistaken about an easily verifiable fact (I thought he was a green man from Mars!), the fault is yours, not mine. Similarly, the lie has to be about something that would actually have affected consent - the alleged victim has to give sufficient proof that the lie (or missing information) actually had an effect on their consent. Sometime this proof is easily made (the HIV/AIDS line, probably also infertility/birth control), other times, not so much ("He told me the picture with his neighbor's dog was actually of his dog!")

Finally, there has to be an actual deception - either someone knowingly failing to inform a partner of something the partner had a reasonable expectation of being informed of ("I'm married", "I have AIDS"), or through deliberately lying.

Now, in the SPECIFIC case here, it's hard to say anything definite without the full body of evidence, and just some media notes and the testimony of the accused man (a biased source if ever there was one), but what we have does raise significant concerns about how the law was applied to this particular case, or possibly about lack of important safeguards in the wording of the Israeli law.

But the basic principles underlying the law - that vitiated consent is not consent, that therefore sex with vitiated consent is sex without consent - are necessary to life in a civilized society.

So you can't say a woman is pretty when they actually aren't? I would never tell huge lies, but of course I'm going to compliment them (I don't do the Neg thing)

 

[warpus]

Frankly, I'm just a little disturbed at all the people who think they have a right to lie in order to get some.

In some cases lying to the opposite sex during the flirting stage is a douchebag move (i.e. "Hi, I'm the Baron of Munchhausen and own 16 castles", "I invented caramel and every time someone buys caramel I get a royalty cheque", "The King of Sweden once teamed up with me in a basketball tournament, along with the spice girls, and we beat Shaq and all of his sisters").. Wait a second, all of those are just obviously false.. how about.. "Yeah, I own my own business and a porshe.." or "I don't have a boyfriend" or "I co-authored an article once which lead to somebody else winning the Nobel prize".. Sure, those lies are douchebaggy, but should they be *illegal* ?

 

[Silurian]

,
Now, in the SPECIFIC case here, it's hard to say anything definite without the full body of evidence, and just some media notes and the testimony of the accused man (a biased source if ever there was one), but what we have does raise significant concerns about how the law was applied to this particular case, or possibly about lack of important safeguards in the wording of the Israeli law.

It’s strange that there are no statements in the media that he said he was Jewish just that he used a Jewish nick name. I would have thought that the right wing Israeli press would have printed it.

Oda Nobunaga I assume that you are Canadian and not related to Oda Nobunaga
You use it as a nick name.
A women comes up to you in the street and you say your name is Oda Nobunaga
You have sex with the women 10 minutes later and leave before she gets dressed.
She goes to the police and you are accused of rape by deception because she believes in Shinto and thought you were descended from Japanese nobility when in fact you are of French descent.