Guilty of rape by deception

[bhsup]

I really, really don't have any patience for this crap argument. Rape is a violent terrible assault on a person, not some "oh, he said he was a producer, waaahhhh waaaahhh" crap.

To all the boys and girls out there: If you don't want to be deceived by the person you're gonna have sex with, then don't have sex until marriage, and don't get married until you know your significant other pretty damned well! It's on you if you wanna spread your legs for someone whispering lies in your ear. Personal responsibility, that's what it's all about!

 

[Evie]

But would the vast majority of men have sex with those women WITHOUT plastic surgery, makeup and push up bras? If not, then you are actually arguing that those women rape the men by having sex with them?!

No I'm not.

Seriously, this argument is getting pathetic. First, because plastic surgery is not "lying" about her look anymore than medical surgery is "lying" about not being sick. You go in with appendicitis, get surgery, then you can say "I don't have appendicitis", and it's not a lie. You really don't have it anymore. Similarly with plastic surgery. It's not "lying about your look", it's changing your look. You looked one way, then you went in for surgery and came out with your default look being something else instead.

Now you're free to be bothered by it, and even refuse to have sex over it, but that goes into the "Tell her" stage of thing. If, AFTER you tell her, she lies to you about it (or does not admit to lying previously, or otherwise leave you to believe she never had surgery)? Then yes, she is lying to you in such a way that it is rape. But that's only ONCE YOU TELL HER.

Second, "Improving your look" - and that covers the whole gamut from wearing your most fashionable and stylishly combing your hair to make-up and push-up bras is not a lie (it's presenting yourself at your best, because the person under the combing, shirt, etc is still you, and this is still something you have the ability to look like when you chose to do so, even if it's not what you CHOSE to look like in normal circumstances.

Third, EVEN assuming it's a lie, remember the "It must be a lie a reasonable person would believe?" If you honestly believe that someone who's playing the seduction game on you isn't using all the means available to them in order to look their best, then you're the one not being reasonable.

VRWC - Yeah, well, given we're dealing with human nature here, and not perfect not-until-marriage-and-lets-wait-a-while-before-we-get-married people who have always been a quite rare sight, I think we'll make the laws to protect everyone against a-holes, not just those few rare gems.

 

[bhsup]

VRWC - Yeah, well, given we're dealing with human nature here, and not perfect not-until-marriage-and-lets-wait-a-while-before-we-get-married people who have always been a quite rare sight, I think we'll make the laws to protect everyone against a-holes, not just those few rare gems.

I am not actually suggesting (at least this time) that people abstain before marriage. I am simply saying that if you want to frak around before marriage, don't be expecting me to vote 'rape' because you willingly spread your legs for some sweet talk. You choose to spread 'em, you choose to have sex. Therefore, not rape, no way no how.

 

[Cheetah]

Now you're free to be bothered by it, and even refuse to have sex over it, but that goes into the "Tell her" stage of thing. If, AFTER you tell her, she lies to you about it (or does not admit to lying previously, or otherwise leave you to believe she never had surgery)? Then yes, she is lying to you in such a way that it is rape. But that's only ONCE YOU TELL HER.

No, it's not! That is NOT rape!!!

Even if I tell her, and make it clear that I don't like plastic surgery, it will not be rape if she doesn't tell me and we have sex!

I may feel deceived by it, I may be angry and hurt and feel like an idiot. But it is NOT rape!

To say that such a thing is rape is insane!

Rape is forced sex! Deceived sex may be criminal if the lie causes physical, economical or social damages. But it is not rape!

 

[Evie]

I am not actually suggesting (at least this time) that people abstain before marriage. I am simply saying that if you want to frak around before marriage, don't be expecting me to vote 'rape' because you willingly spread your legs for some sweet talk. You choose to spread 'em, you choose to have sex. Therefore, not rape, no way no how.

"For some sweet talk", no, and proving that sweet talk = rape would be one helluva job that no prosecutor worth his salt would bother to take.

For outright lies or deceptions on significant factors that you would never have spread your legs without? Sorry, but "you chose to spread 'em" does not qualify when the only reason the choice as made was because of the deception in the first place. (And we're not necessarily talking one-night-stand deceptions here!)

Rape is forced sex! Deceived sex may be criminal if the lie causes physical, economical or social damages. But it is not rape!

I'm sorry that your definition of rape is divorced from the one employed by most legal systems.

Rape = sex without consent. Not forced sex, no matter how badly some of you may want to equate the two.
Consent obtained under false pretenses, or under the threat of force, or in any other dishonest way = doesn't count. As much in contract law as in anything else.

Both of them are fundamental definitions of any legal system. Taking the two of them together, there is but one conclusion one can reach.

 

[bhsup]

"For some sweet talk", no. For outright lies or deception about critical factors? (Like HIV/Aids, infertility, contraception? Etc.

Well, lies about STDs ARE covered under the law, but it still isn't rape. If you knowingly have sex with someone while you have AIDS, IIRC in some jurisdictions you can be charged with attempted murder. Still not rape, though.

 

[Evie]

That's because you're using a definition of rape that is more restrictive than the legal one. We could change the legal one, of course, but that would only create a whole new category of sexual offenses to fill in the gap vacated by restricting the definition of rape (or "Sexual assault" as many legal system now call it)

Legally, rape = sex without consent. Not "Forced sex".
Legally, consent = an informed and free choice. Not just saying yes.
Thus.
Legally, Sex without an informed and free choice = rape.

This isn't restricted only to rape/sexual assault. ALL forms of physical assault and violence have the same caveat - it's only assault in the absence of consent, and consent only exists if there is an informed and free choice.

Now of course there are safeguards as I've already noted - if your partner's lack of information is their own fault and in no way yours (ie, if you legitimately believed they were making a free and informed choice), then the law won't hold you to blame. But if you deliberately deceived them, then consent is not there, therefore it is rape.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, lies about STDs ARE covered under the law, but it still isn't rape. If you knowingly have sex with someone while you have AIDS, IIRC in some jurisdictions you can be charged with attempted murder. Still not rape, though.

I agree with you. Technically rape is forced sex. However, the punishment (If any) should fit just what you lied about. For instance, lying about STDs should be considered attempted murder (Which IMO should be treated the same as murder) whereas something like this should really only get a fine if that.

As for this current situation, I don't claim to have an all-encompassing answer, however, its not as simple as "She chose to do it..." She chose to do it under false pretences. However, what the false pretenses are makes a different. Consider 4 women, 4 of whom were lied to in this way. One of the women was lied to by her lover telling her his hair was naturally blond and he didn't dye it, one of them did exactly what the man in the OP did, one of them pretended to be the woman's husband, and one of them lied about not having STDs. The penalty for the first one should be nothing, the second one arguably nothing, but if anything the penalty should be small, the third one should have a pretty hefty penalty, and the fourth one should get you hanged. Not all deception is created equal.

Personally, even though she was exercising her religion in a strange, non-Biblical way, it is still against the Jewish religion to lie with non-Jews, which was the reason the Palestinian most likely lied, to get laid and to deceive the woman. There was no good reason to do what he did. Ultimately I do think the man should be punished, however, I think the Israeli government overdid it in this case.

EDIT: @Oda- I think that as someone said the worst way you can cheapen rape is blaming the innocent party, however, calling the OP action "Rape" is pushing it and cheapens rape. If that is what the law calls it the law is stupid and should be changed. I do agree they should fine the guy but calling it "Rape" is ridiculous, especially since both parties were pretty dumb in this case, when a man rapes a woman the woman is totally innocent and the man totally guilty, and the only just punishment for rape is death due to the trauma caused which can be worse than death. This is not rape, its deception, a totally different issue.

 

[Hehehe]

Legally, consent = an informed and free choice. Not just saying yes.
Thus.
Legally, Sex without an informed and free choice = rape.

Does the Canadian law (I'm assuming you're referring to Canadian law) actually say this? I mean the "informed"-part? The way I see it, the Israeli woman gave her consent at the time but then changed her mind when she learnt he isn't jew.

 

[Cheetah]

Rape = sex without consent. Not forced sex, no matter how badly some of you may want to equate the two.
Consent obtained under false pretenses, or under the threat of force, or in any other dishonest way = doesn't count. As much in contract law as in anything else.

Right. I had meant to say 'rape = sex without consent', though it came out as 'forced sex'. Sorry for cluttering the debate.

However...

Now you're free to be bothered by it, and even refuse to have sex over it, but that goes into the "Tell her" stage of thing. If, AFTER you tell her, she lies to you about it (or does not admit to lying previously, or otherwise leave you to believe she never had surgery)? Then yes, she is lying to you in such a way that it is rape. But that's only ONCE YOU TELL HER.

This still isn't sex without consent! I did consent to have sex with her, so it is not rape!

And unless her lie(s) were of such a nature as to cause me physical, economical or social harm, they can not be criminal.

If she had HIV and didn't tell me, then she did not rape me! She would have deceived me and put my life in danger, and she should be charged with attempted murder! Not rape! For in that situation she would not have raped me!

And please don't come with "but the laws says differently." I am not debating what any law says, I am debating what is true. If the law is wrong, it should be changed.

 

[bhsup]

Cheetah, have I ever told you that you are the wind beneath my wings?

 

[Cheetah]

No, but thanks for reminding me of this song...


Link to video.


Or that could possibly be because I'm suffering a small incident of insomnia now, and my mind seems to wander freely...

Well, it's 05:21 here now, the sun is up and the birds are singing. Guess I should just "wake up"...

 

[Adrogans]

I must say Cheetah thanks for putting how I feel so well down here in this thread.

 

[Evie]

Does the Canadian law (I'm assuming you're referring to Camadian law) actually say this? I mean the "informed"-part? The way I see it, the Israeli woman gave her consent at the time but then changed her mind when she learnt he isn't jew.

One has to distinguish between this case and the general law. This case, given the available evidence and the later reaction of the supreme court, seems to be a lapse of judgement somewhere.

But otherwise, yes, informed is in general very much part of the definition of consent - the way it's worded is that if a person "submit" to sexual assault as a result of fraud (obtaining something from someone by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent mean, legally speaking), then this does not constitute consent.

In less sexual matters, the Quebec civil code is even more explicit at article 1399:

"Consent may be given only in a free and enlightened manner.

It may be vitiated by error, fear or lesion."

Cheetah,

You'd be hard-pressed to find a legal definition of consent that recognize consent obtained by a criminal mean to actually have any legal value whatsoever. Fraud (obtaining something from someone by deception and lies) is very much a criminal mean.

So why should consent obtained by a criminal mean actually count for sex?

I mean, yes, in a lot of cases you probably wouldn't chose to go to the police, because you feel it isn't worth it.And the police would probably put that on the backlog and not treat it as a priority case the way they would someone who got raped at gunpoint. And yes, you're much more likely to see your case be turned down by the prosecutor because making a good enough case to prove all the relevant points beyond reasonable doubt is ridiculously challenging.

But that doesn't mean it's not criminal, just that it usually won't be prosecuted. These are not the same things.

 

[Mise]

So if I tell her, "you know, I'm only sleeping with you cos you're Spanish," right before she agrees to go home with me, it's rape?

Oda - can you answer this for me please? FWIW, I've come round to the idea that "reasonable doubt" excludes the vast majority of frivolous "rape by deception" cases, and leaves only those cases that I would consider serious. However, this example, where a guy decides he only wants to sleep with Spanish women and declares that beforehand to a girl, who then lies about her nationality in order to sleep with him, is clearly frivolous, but is not excluded by "reasonable doubt". Is there something I've missed? Surely it would be better to just list the cases where rape by deception occurs (e.g. pretending to be an authority figure)?

 

[Evie]

Problem is that then some asshat would find a loophole in the list - a blindingly obvious exception no one thought of until then - and use that.

The "I'm spanish" thing...it would likely be a borderline issue, and depend on a great deal of variables. Like how serious the judge believe you were about not sleeping with non-spanish people, how serious your partner believed you were when you told her so (if she thought the whole thing was a joke exchange, f.e., then she's not deliberately deceiving you into sex).

I think in most cases "I'm spanish" is unlikely to get you very far trial-wise, because it would be very difficult to prove that you were adamant about no sex with non-spanish; that she knew that; that a reasonable person would have taken your no-sex-with-non-spanish seriously; and that thus she deceived you in order to get in your pants against your will.

But circumstances come in play. I'd take a guess that it's likely much easier to prove "Won't have sex with Arab" in Israel than to prove "Won't have sex with Spanish" in Europe or America, because there is a widespread ethnic conflict that comes in play. Similarly it's much easier to prove that a "reasonable" person would take those prejudices seriously, for much the same reasons.

 

[Angst]

This is not rape.

Of course it isn't.

Here's what I wholly agree with:

Gideon Levy, a liberal Israeli commentator, was quoted as saying: "I would like to raise only one question with the judge. What if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman?

"Would he have been convicted of rape? The answer is: of course not."

I've really begun to not support Israel. They're violent, racist butchers with the support of the west. This whole deal with Israel-Palestine has begun to touch my sense of reason; I actually don't like an Israeli person in a prejudical sense. At least not now.

... Am I an antisemite right now? I'm not racist against Jews. What I feel when I write this is that I'm racist against the ones in Israel. Can you be that? How can I cure myself? I want to attain reason again.