Consensual sex? Or rape by deception.. A disturbing case..

[visceral_instinct]

I addressed the question of fraud here.

Good point.

I sincerely hope we don't start making legal requirements for consensual sex...

'You said you were 6'2 and had neon blue eyes'...Dude goes to jail.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Good point.

I sincerely hope we don't start making legal requirements for consensual sex...

'You said you were 6'2 and had neon blue eyes'...Dude goes to jail.

We wouldn't have been far off if one law had gone through, I think.
Here, in the bloody UK!!!, they were seriously considering making it law that a woman could not be held responsible for decisions about sex if she'd been drinking.
In other words after having a night in the pub she could take a guy home and then, at any time later (no statute of limitation AFAIK), decide he was a bastard and have him charged with rape because she was incapable of making an informed decision...
Yet a man could not use drink as an excuse under any circumstances.
Not only highly impacting on "courtship" but, IMO, an extremely sexist law if it had gone through.

That would have caused lots of "Are you sure? Sign this first" scenes...

 

[Bells]

This sums up this case and the verdict and why it is bad..

In sentencing Kashur, the Israeli court said: “If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated,” and added “the court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price — the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims — actual and potential — to protect their wellbeing. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price.”

This is bad judging from so many angles. First, “innocent victim” is not the phrase I would use to describe a woman who freely has sex with a man in a public building some moments after meeting him. Second, “the sanctity of their bodies and souls”? What standard of sanctity applies here? Where is genuine sanctity evident at all in any of this disturbing saga?

Third, “when the very basis of trust between human beings drops… the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims”? What does that even mean? And when is the judiciary in the business of intervening in human affairs because “the very basis of trust between human beings drops”? The “basis of trust” between human beings drops multiple hundreds of thousands of times a day. The judiciary is certainly not obliged to intervene in these common drops in human trust.

Fourth, the court justifies its power on the basis of its obligation to “protect the public interest,” which perfectly illustrates why a judiciary that rules on the basis of “protecting the public interest,” and can supply whatever content it wishes to the definition of “public interest,” is a judiciary without adequate mooring or modesty.

Fifth, the court effectively makes lying that yields sex the crime of rape — and that is indeed a dangerous precedent. Let’s agree that lying for sex is bad. It’s not rape. The damage to the concept of rape, the forcible sexual assault of another person, a person who says no or who has no capacity to say yes, is not what any serious person sensitive to the horror of rape, would wish. If “rape” becomes commonly understood to include consensual sex, fraudulently obtained, then rape becomes, in common understanding, a lesser evil than it is.

(source)

 

[visceral_instinct]

We wouldn't have been far off if one law had gone through, I think.
Here, in the bloody UK!!!, they were seriously considering making it law that a woman could not be held responsible for decisions about sex if she'd been drinking.
In other words after having a night in the pub she could take a guy home and then, at any time later (no statute of limitation AFAIK), decide he was a bastard and have him charged with rape because she was incapable of making an informed decision...
Yet a man could not use drink as an excuse under any circumstances.
Not only highly impacting on "courtship" but, IMO, an extremely sexist law if it had gone through.

That would have caused lots of "Are you sure? Sign this first" scenes...

I heard about that.

Apparently if you're a man, you're an adult, to be held responsible for your own decisions, if you're a woman, you're a minor to be babied and mollycoddled, even if you chose to drink yourself dyspraxic and incoherent, even if you were enthusiastically pulling his clothes off.

Sickening.

 

[GeoffP]

Okay.

Find me 3 other cases in the last 20 years where a court has found that a man and a woman having had sex voluntarily and consensually, was classified as rape because one party was not the same religion or race of the other. Where one party finds out that the other was not of a particular race or religion and stated it was rape and the court upheld this and found that individual guilty of having raped the other because they were of another race or religion - even though the sex was purely consensual by both parties.

I'll give you a hint: you have rephrased my point out of its original meaning. But the motivation of my comment and the above is the same.

I also added corrective text to your above post.

 

[Bells]

I'll give you a hint: you have rephrased my point out of its original meaning. But the motivation of my comment and the above is the same.

I also added corrective text to your above post.

Okay.

So are you able to provide 3 from the last 20 years?

 

[GeoffP]

Three what?

 

[Bells]

Three what?

This:

Find me 3 other cases in the last 20 years where a court has found that a man and a woman having had sex voluntarily and consensually, was classified as rape because one party was not the same religion or race of the other.

Since you said it was so common.

 

[GeoffP]

Sam, I didn't say I agreed to your narrow definitions about my argument about racial/religious sexual purity being societally enforced. I even did say ex officio! Look at the post above:

Why is this one so special? There's been lots of cases of insults to "religious sexual purity" being prosecuted; largely ex officio, but often fatal.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2588787&postcount=52

Simply put, there are lots of examples of social pressure (which seems backed up by a kind of tacit understanding) - including death. The case you outline above is reprehensible, but not terribly novel in its implications or motivations.

 

[GeoffP]

Here: you might have also missed this post.

 

[GeoffP]

Thinking about this again, you might have an argument that the 'aggrieved party' herself is making the claim is new. Or is she, actually? I seem to recall someone's post above implicating the 'system' somehow. It still wouldn't be new as a general phenomenon, however.

 

[Anti-Flag]

I agree. But let's say he lied, outright. Imagine the men who could be prosecuted for saying 'I love you' when they don't. Since this would be misrepresenting himself. Or for saying 'I stopped sleeping with Sue a month ago.' When this is not the case. And so on. Women, of course, could suddenly be prosecuted in great numbers for rape for the first time. Only racism or, I suppose, religionism, really a mix of the two, could have made the court think this case came under their purview. It's not a legal matter.

He should have immediately charged her for rape and claimed she said she loved him or was an Arab, etc.

I think I pretty much agree, I don't think I know many people who haven't lied at some point and gone on to sleep with that same person(regardless of if that was the original intended accomplishment of the lie, as that doesn't seem to even be the issue in this case).
I've love him to file a counter claim though.

 

[Bells]

Sam, I didn't say I agreed to your narrow definitions about my argument about racial/religious sexual purity being societally enforced. I even did say ex officio! Look at the post above:



http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2588787&postcount=52

Simply put, there are lots of examples of social pressure (which seems backed up by a kind of tacit understanding) - including death. The case you outline above is reprehensible, but not terribly novel in its implications or motivations.

??

I asked you to provide 3 examples in the last 20 years where someone was charged and convicted of rape for not disclosing their race and religion to the victim, who had consented and cooperated to the sex, but changed their minds when they later found out that the accused was not of the religion and race she/he assumed they were.

You said it was fairly common. So I asked you to provide 3 similar examples from the last 20 years, from any legal system.

What makes this case uncommon is that we have abject racism and a supposedly advanced and fair legal system, in a fairly Western country, uphoding racism and making a bad decision all round.

I want you to find me 3 other cases where the court basically said 'it would not have been rape if the accused was of this particular race and/or religion'. You said this was common. So back up your claim that it was fairly common.

Oh and Geoff, I am not Sam.

 

[Bells]

Thinking about this again, you might have an argument that the 'aggrieved party' herself is making the claim is new. Or is she, actually? I seem to recall someone's post above implicating the 'system' somehow. It still wouldn't be new as a general phenomenon, however.

Again, you seem to have failed to grasp what happened here.

Did you read any of the articles linked?

I'll explain it to you again.

She approached him on a street and after a few minutes 'chatting' (where he introduced himself by his nickname of Dudu and said he was single), they both agreed to go to an abandoned building to have sex. After said sex, they both went their own way.

About one and a half months later, she somehow finds out that he is not a Jew and goes to the police and claims that she was raped. He is then arrested and charged with rape and indecent and aggravated assault. After they then investigate the case (because apparently, they arrest first and investigate later), they find that she had consensually had sex with him in that there was no force involved and she agreed and cooperated all the way, so they dropped the charges of aggravated and indencent assault and rape and decided to charge him with 'rape by deception' because they found that he did not disclose that he was not Jewish and married.

After 2 years of house arrest (and all tha entails), the court finds him guilty and in their decision, state:

In the court's ruling the judge, Zvi Segal, wrote: "If she had not thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious relationship, she would not have co-operated."

Now, do you understand how the system is flawed? Do you understand why we are criticising the "system"?

The precedent they used in finding him guilty as above was a case that involved a man claiming to be involved with public housing to get women to have sex with him and another who claimed to be a neurosurgeon to get a woman to have sex with him. Now, the difference here is that their precedents were not charged with rape by deception but with simple fraud. "Dudu" was charged and convicted of rape, because he is an Arab and not Jewish and the court further enforces the racism and bad law of their ruling with this, after making a comment about his ethnicity:

"The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price - the sanctity of their bodies and souls."

Since this is not a 'new phenomenon', nor is it "terribly novel in its implications or motivations" in your world, you should be able to site specific examples in the last 20 years, where a court has upheld abject racism and found a man guilty of rape, because he was not of a particular race and religion. I am being nice and only asking for 3.

 

[GeoffP]

??

I asked you to provide 3 examples in the last 20 years where someone was charged and convicted of rape for not disclosing their race and religion to the victim, who had consented and cooperated to the sex, but changed their minds when they later found out that the accused was not of the religion and race she/he assumed they were.

??

I've already explained that I didn't stipulate to your narrow interpretation of the phenomenon. I was speaking to the larger motive; there's no end to the cases of men killed for dating women of the wrong religion. Was this confusing, somehow?

You said it was fairly common.

This is poorly phrased. I said the trope of 'purified dating and marriage' was not unprecedented; and it isn't. Can you stop mischaracterizing the discussion, please? Thanks.

What makes this case uncommon is that we have abject racism and a supposedly advanced and fair legal system, in a fairly Western country, uphoding racism and making a bad decision all round.

Correct: in toto, this would in fact be a relatively novel element.

Oh and Geoff, I am not Sam.

Oh, sorry: Freudian slip.

Again, you seem to have failed to grasp what happened here.

I think you might have intended this latter post for someone else: I've already illustrated that this trope is not exactly novel. Maybe you could get someone else on the forum to explain it in more detail. In short: punishing someone ex officio for transgressing religious choices in dating and marriage are not at all new. I've attached a link that might help you understand. Thanks.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.2284553321

 

[Bells]

So you have nothing?

Okay then.

We are talking about a Western legal system that allows a man to be convicted of rape, after he had consensual sex with a woman, because he is an Arab and not a Jew.

I've already explained that I didn't stipulate to your narrow interpretation of the phenomenon. I was speaking to the larger motive; there's no end to the cases of men killed for dating women of the wrong religion. Was this confusing, somehow?

My interpretation are not narrow. This is what happened.

We aren't talking her family going out with pitchforks and torches to lynch the Arab for touching their daughter. We are talking about a legal system that has sentenced him to 18 months in prison for rape, even though the sex was fully consensual from both parties - in that they even acknowledge that she willingly and knowingly cooperated to have sex with this man she met a few minutes before - but because he is an Arab and not a Jew as she assumed, it is rape - ie, if he were Jewish, she would not have been raped.

I didn't make it narrow. That ^^^^ is what happened.

There is no "larger" motive. What we have is a legal system that allows this to happen because of the race and religion involved. At this point, one could ask if Israel has gone backwards to the point where America was 100 years ago, when a "nigger" having sex with a white woman would be found guilty of rape simply because he was black and she white.

This is poorly phrased. I said the trope of 'purified dating and marriage' was not unprecedented; and it isn't. Can you stop mischaracterizing the discussion, please? Thanks.

I am not the one mischaracterising the discussion. I am saying it is what it is and you are talking about racial and religious purity in dating? This wasn't a date. This, was a quick fuck in an abandoned building and the woman claiming she was raped and indecently assaulted because he was an Arab. When the police and the DA realised she had consented and cooperated with the 'quick fuck', they charged him with rape anyway, but changed it so that it was 'rape by deception' because he was an Arab.

We're not talking about relationships here or racial purity in relationships. She felt she was raped because she had sex with an Arab and a non-Jew, even though she consented and cooperated and approached him to have said sex. And the legal system in Israel agreed with her - in other words, they charged him and convicted him of rape for being an Arab and not a Jew.

Do you understand now?

Has that sunk in yet?

Correct: in toto, this would in fact be a relatively novel element.

/Facepalm.

I think you might have intended this latter post for someone else: I've already illustrated that this trope is not exactly novel. Maybe you could get someone else on the forum to explain it in more detail. In short: punishing someone ex officio for transgressing religious choices in dating and marriage are not at all new. I've attached a link that might help you understand. Thanks.

You haven't illustrated anything. What you have illustrated is your handwringing - again. You claim that this is not "uncommon", but you have yet to provide any proof where this kind of thing has occured in the last 20 years in any court in the world.

You can't even understand the complexities of what has happened with this verdict and how this now opens the door for accusations of rape for any misrepresentation, not to mention the abject racism of the judges ruling which sets a very dangerous precedent. You can't grasp the fact that the cases they cited as a precedent to this ruling involved Jews who were charged with fraud and not rape, but applied rape in this case because he was an Arab. Here is the precedent they used:

In 2008, the High Court of Justice set a precedent on rape by deception, rejecting an appeal of the rape conviction by Zvi Sleiman, who impersonated a senior official in the Housing Ministry whose wife worked in the National Insurance Institute.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/jurists-say-arab-s-rape-conviction-sets-dangerous-precedent-1.303109

But for this case, they applied rape, because the guy is an Arab.

Do you understand why this is bad? Do you understand what Levy is saying in this article?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/he-impersonated-a-human-1.303359

 

[Doreen]

Absolutely, including in the far east like India. Here there is an alignment with what is good and right, and the aspect of a 'written law' mandates it as the enforceable, whereby it cannot be so without appearing as a written law accepted in the judiciary. I see an alignment with the Hebrew laws and the passions seen of those chasing whaling ships and animals being mistreated, both enroute to slaughter and in the absence of safe environments.

And the whalers and others see animals as simply part of our dominion, something ordained to for our use by the Abrahamic tradition. The values support both sides. And clearly, given what has happened in Abrahamic countries, the primary affect has been negative for animals.

It is a reason I am compelled to side with the Hebrew laws, and remain amazed such laws are not seen in derivitive religions of Christianity and Islam - maybe there is but I don't know of them. These must not be alluded to but expressly written to make them a law.

For those who need laws to treat other creatures ethically. To those who have encased self-distrust and self-hatred into a permanent essential feature of themselves and others.

One serves an animal more by accepting these laws, than being a vegetarian

Well, no. Vegetarians reduce the market for the mistreatment of animals. Kosher animals in most countries, those raised in agribusiness, have pretty terrible lives.

- the latter is far easier to do.

the easiness is not an objective quality but one that is subject to what feels easy to those are vegetarian or follow those laws or both.

TO FEED AN OWNED ANIMAL BEFORE ONESELF - because the domestic animal is totally dependent on the owner.

NOT TO TAKE THE MOTHER AND CHILD TOGETHER

NOT TO LEAVE A HOLE IN THE GROUND OF AN ANIMAL'S VICINITY

NOT TO BIND AN ANIMAL'S MOUTH DURING THRESHING

NOT TO OVERLOAD AN ANIMAL

TO GIVE ONE DAY OF REST FROM WORK

NOT TO MIX AN ANIMAL IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK [any milk, because we cannot be sure where the milk comes from, but an animal can].

TO ASSIST AN OVERLADEN ANIMAL EVEN IF IT BELONGS TO AN ENEMY. [A most impacting law].

The last being a law ignored by jews in general. I mean, I never heard of a single israeli bombing run cancelled on behalf animals in the target area. The other rules are good use for owners.

 

[Doreen]

Theft is when you say NO or STOP to someone taking your stuff, or you resist, or you are obviously incapable of consenting (eg asleep, unconscious, not present, etc) and someone does it anyway.

Duh.

It's not theft when you CHOOSE to give your things (like your money) to someone,even if they lied to you to induce you to do so...

Oh wait...if someone tells you a lie to induce you to give them something of value, that's fraud and a crime.

So isn't sex "something of value"? Why would it be treated differently, when it seems ethically WORSE to get sex by false pretense than mere cash?

The woman got sex. If I sell you a car, but you thought I was white, but really I am black and, horrors, I actually sat in the driver's seat you are going to sit on, have I defrauded you? Did I steal from you? Nah. Did I steal from you if you assumed I was white and I did nothing to disuade you of your impression? No. Did I steal from you or defraud you if I said I was white? No. Because it is irrelevent.

If I say the car has x miles and it has y miles. That is fraud and a kind of theft. Because it is lie about the product.

The court decided that his race was relevent to their quickie sex.

Here, I think, is the answer: I can imagine myself lying to get sex, and yet I do not like to think of myself as a criminal; and if a woman lied to me to get sex, I am sure I'd enjoy it.

So you would enjoy being robbed. How can that be?

 

[Pandaemoni]

The woman got sex. If I sell you a car, but you thought I was white, but really I am black and, horrors, I actually sat in the driver's seat you are going to sit on, have I defrauded you? Did I steal from you? Nah. Did I steal from you if you assumed I was white and I did nothing to disuade you of your impression? No.

Those are examples of something that is not fraud (though if you sell me a car and we do not actually agree on the color, then I can sue you for "rescission" which, if I won, means I get all my money back and you have to take the car).

I admit that a lie can be small enough to not amount to fraud, but I think lying to someone to get sex is a bit more serious than not correcting their impression about the color of a product. I would liken the omission regarding car color as being more akin to me lying to you to get you to kiss me in severity. Both lies are bad, neither lie amounts to something anyone should go to jail for.

On the other hand, lying to get sex is more severe than that. It is a judgment call whether someone should go to jail for such a lie, just as it is a judgment call where the lie in a commercial context crosses from civilly actionable to "fraud."

So you would enjoy being robbed. How can that be?

Absolutely the point; I would not enjoy that. So, if a you lie to me to trick me into consenting to pay you money--and that is fraud and bad and a crime--then why are lies designed to trick me into giving you access to my body not criminal?

Again, I think the answer is a combination of the the (stereotypically masculine) views: (i) that, with sex, everyone wins...whereas with fraud, at least one person loses and (ii) that men always have and expect to continue to lie to women to get laid, so therefore it should be non-criminal.

That is certainly not ethical, but I suspect that is the basis for the disparate treatment in the law in the U.S. I am not saying that is right...in fact it seems difficult to defend (if one were a die-hard solipsist, that would make it easier).

To take a slightly different situation, if a woman lied to me to induce me to marry her, in addition to being grounds for annulment, I see a strong case for that to me made criminal as well--if the lies were egregious enough.

I certainly have no problem giving these crimes other names. "Rape by deception" would follow just as easily as "larceny by trick" does from plain vanilla "larceny", and it could have a lesser sentence due to its less traumatic nature.

 

[GeoffP]

So you have nothing?

Again: you either don't understand what I'm discussing here, or are pretending not to for reasons of your own. I hate to say it, but I predict your next move will be to accuse me of supporting it.

My interpretation are not narrow. This is what happened.

Your conditions - this case, or "what happened" - is narrow.

We aren't talking her family going out with pitchforks and torches to lynch the Arab for touching their daughter. We are talking about a legal system that has sentenced him to 18 months in prison for rape, even though the sex was fully consensual from both parties - in that they even acknowledge that she willingly and knowingly cooperated to have sex with this man she met a few minutes before - but because he is an Arab and not a Jew as she assumed, it is rape - ie, if he were Jewish, she would not have been raped.

But it doesn't differ in morality (which this thread is about, mind) from the same thing that goes on everywhere else, unless you're calling the legal aspects immoral in their own right. Still, one wonders what kind of bent legalities get invoked after the mobbing of people for the wrong kind of marriage elsewhere. Happens all the time in Egypt, and my understanding is that the perpetrators just walk.

I am not the one mischaracterising the discussion. I am saying it is what it is and you are talking about racial and religious purity in dating? This wasn't a date. This, was a quick fuck in an abandoned building and the woman claiming she was raped and indecently assaulted because he was an Arab. When the police and the DA realised she had consented and cooperated with the 'quick fuck', they charged him with rape anyway, but changed it so that it was 'rape by deception' because he was an Arab.

Do you not understand that this is an issue of racial purity in dating? You've outlined those precise details above. As such, it's not different to the same memes in other societies, except that here it's the individual motivating the case. It has some moval minor aspects, but as a general meme it's nothing new.

Do you understand now?

Has that sunk in yet?

There's the usual assault on my intellect. Glad to see some things stay the same.

You haven't illustrated anything. What you have illustrated is your handwringing - again. You claim that this is not "uncommon", but you have yet to provide any proof where this kind of thing has occured in the last 20 years in any court in the world.

And there's the "handwringing" meme; First, again, I don't think you understand what "handwringing" is. Second: you set very specific goalposts for what I already described as a general phenomenon. I can give plenty of examples of the same meme in action elsewhere, but you'll dismiss them out of hand because they don't meet your arbitrarily narrow interpretation of this meme.

I deleted the rest because it sounded like more hysterical shrieking. Sorry.