Rape?

[Eliot Wild]

He didn't neglect to inform her that he was not Jewish... he told her he was Jewish. He didn't leave out a few details... he actively deceived her.

Uhhhh, where did I give the impression I thought otherwise? I suppose my question, as clearly stated in my previous post, would be, did he sign an affidavit or otherwise give sworn statements that he believed to the best of his knowledge and belief that he was Jewish?

Nevermind. This is silly. Silly, but dangerous.

I was trying to show that acts of deception can be perceived broadly. I can also claim that Brittany Carver who told me she was single when in fact she was still dating a guy four times my size actively deceived me during my sophomore year of college. Too bad I didn't attend the University of Haifa.

Active deception can also apply to boob jobs and exaggerations of income. Where does it stop?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nevermind. This is silly. Silly, but dangerous.

I was trying to show that acts of deception can be perceived broadly. I can also claim that Brittany Carver who told me she was single when in fact she was still dating a guy four times my size actively deceived me during my sophomore year of college. Too bad I didn't attend the University of Haifa.

Active deception can also apply to boob jobs and exaggerations of income. Where does it stop?

That's exactly it. Where it stops will be up to the whims of a very fickle legal system. Prosecutors, judges & juries are notoriously
capricious, incompetent &/or vindictive. Prosecution & punishment for such a crime would almost be a lottery system.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It's not so simple. To give consent as a result of deception is still to give consent.
It is wrong, but to call it "rape" is to trivialize the trauma of sexual assault.

A 19 year old and a 15 year old having sex is considered rape. The 15 year old consented... but the law does not consider it to be valid, because legally a 15 year old is unable to consent. Do you figure it is wrong to call statutory rape "rape" because it serves to trivialize the trauma of sexual assault?


I believe it is so simple. Sex without consent is rape, regardless of whether it involves any degree of violence.

The language was more general than just that case.

".... a man's ability to obtain sex through fraud with regard to who he is is more important than a woman's fundamental right to control her own body..."

And that statement was made in the context of this case.

 

[LuisDantas]

Where indeed.

The idea that it was not consent because he lied about his nationality and/or ethnicity is puzzling. Of course she consented. He did not resort to drugs or violence.

It was lousy of him to lie, and I can see how she might feel hurt. But this falls way short of a rape situation.

 

[Revoltingest]

A 19 year old and a 15 year old having sex is considered rape. The 15 year old consented... but the law does not consider it to be valid, because legally a 15 year old is unable to consent. Do you figure it is wrong to call statutory rape "rape" because it serves to trivialize the trauma of sexual assault?
I believe it is so simple. Sex without consent is rape, regardless of whether it involves any degree of violence.

Do you consider the following hypothetical scenarios equivalent & deserving of equal punishment?
A) 16 year old girl has consensual sex with 15 year old boy. A good time was had by all.
B) A woman says "No", but her date overpowers her & violently rapes her.
Both perps are prosecuted, serve jail time & are tracked as sexual predators for the rest of their life.

And that statement was made in the context of this case.

And it is telling that the language wasn't about this man or this woman. It points to bias in the enforcement of such politically charged law.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Uhhhh, where did I give the impression I thought otherwise? I suppose my question, as clearly stated in my previous post, would be, did he sign an affidavit or otherwise give sworn statements that he believed to the best of his knowledge and belief that he was Jewish?

Nevermind. This is silly. Silly, but dangerous.

I was trying to show that acts of deception can be perceived broadly. I can also claim that Brittany Carver who told me she was single when in fact she was still dating a guy four times my size actively deceived me during my sophomore year of college. Too bad I didn't attend the University of Haifa.

or the University of Michigan.

Active deception can also apply to boob jobs and exaggerations of income. Where does it stop?

I don't know... but tell me... if, in the dark of night and the haze of being half asleep, a man led your wife to believe that he was you, and she proceeded to have sex with him believing he was you, what would you make of that?

 

[Revoltingest]

or the University of Michigan.

How does the U of M figure into this?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Do you consider the following hypothetical scenarios equivalent & deserving of equal punishment?
A) 16 year old girl has consensual sex with 15 year old boy. A good time was had by all.
B) A woman says "No", but her date overpowers her & violently rapes her.
Both perps are prosecuted, serve jail time & are tracked as sexual predators for the rest of their life.

I'm not sure if sex between two minors falls under the category of statutory rape... but I get the point that violent rape and statutory rape are not deserving of equal punishment... however, they're both called rape.

And it is telling that the language wasn't about this man or this woman. It points to bias in the enforcement of such politically charged law.

Again, the statement was made specifically in the context of this case.

If I said "What kind of world do we live in where a guy can't go see a movie for less than $10?" I'm complaining about the fact that movie tickets are expensive. I discover this as a result of my having paid too much for a movie ticket. Obviously I don't mean in any way that this fact doesn't apply to a woman, despite having used the word "guy" in my statement.

You're reading far more into the statement than necessary.

 

[Poisonshady313]

How does the U of M figure into this?

Like Israel, Michigan is a state that considers sex through fraud to be rape.

I could just have easily said California or Tennessee. There were four states to choose from, and I picked one at random.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I don't know... but tell me... if, in the dark of night and the haze of being half asleep, a man led your wife to believe that he was you, and she proceeded to have sex with him believing he was you, what would you make of that?

My wife can tell in the dark with just a few simple measurements. Just kidding, I'm not even married. My girlfriend, on the other hand, would probably be pleasantly surprised.

I don't know either. Most likely though, to arrive upon my wife in such a vulnerable position, the man would have probably already committed a few other felonies. This is not to trivialize the act of rape in lieu of focusing on other possible crimes; it is a far from perfect example of how different those to two disassociated scenarios are.

I see a difference in simply pretending to be someone you're not, with actually pretending to be a specific person, stealing another's identity to consummate the sexual act.

I will concede this, in all seriousness with all jokes about affidavits and sworn testimony aside, the only way I could possibly see any merit in such a case was if the woman made it clear before hand that the only way she would sleep with the man was that he was Jewish and there were no other factors influencing her decision other than his lie. And even then I am still not so sure how I would ultimately rule were I the judge.

 

[Revoltingest]

Like Israel, Michigan is a state that considers sex through fraud to be rape.

I live there (here?) & never heard of a prosecution like the one cited in Israel. Were Michigan to treat romantic fraud the same as violent rape, there'd be a very noisy outcry.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I will concede this, in all seriousness with all jokes about affidavits and sworn testimony aside, the only way I could possibly see any merit in such a case was if the woman made it clear before hand that the only way she would sleep with the man was that he was Jewish and there were no other factors influencing her decision other than his lie. And even then I am still not so sure how I would ultimately rule were I the judge.

I appreciate you saying this. If it helps matters, here's some of the article from the Guardian.

Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.

When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.

Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.

The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.

The court ruled that Kashur should receive a jail term and rejected the option of a six-month community service order. He was said to be seeking to appeal.
Segal said: "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."


I believe he understood that she would not have had sex with him if she knew he weren't Jewish, whether or not she said so explicitly.

 

[Cypress]

The only racism in this case comes from people like you who decide to make this all about race.

Since this woman had sex with this man by choice, I cannot see what else could be the reson for charging him.

I'm willing to bet if this were a Jewish man and a Palestinian woman, you'd decide that Israelis are not only land grabbing occupiers, but rapists as well.

No, I would not.
As long as it is consensual, a Jewish man can have sex with as many Palestinian women as he wants.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I live there (here?) & never heard of a prosecution like the one cited in Israel.

So?

Were Michigan to treat romantic fraud the same as violent rape, there'd be a very noisy outcry.

It sounds like you believe Israel is treating romantic fraud the same as violent rape.

This is not the case. The guy is getting only 18 months.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Since this woman had sex with this man by choice, I cannot see what else could be the reson for charging him.

No, I would not.
As long as it is consensual, a Jewish man can have sex with as many Palestinian women as he wants.

Yet if the consent isn't valid, then it's not consent at all... like a minor consenting to have sex with an adult.

She consented to have sex with a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious relationship, which Sabbar Kashur was not.

 

[Cypress]

The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.

The court ruled that Kashur should receive a jail term and rejected the option of a six-month community service order. He was said to be seeking to appeal.
Segal said: "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."


I believe he understood that she would not have had sex with him if she knew he weren't Jewish, whether or not she said so explicitly.

When a married man on buisness trip spends the night in a hotel, gets to know a woman, tells her that he is a bachelor and has sex with her - does that mean he is a sophisophisticated, smooth-tongued criminal who should be charged with rape?

 

[Mister Emu]

Since this woman had sex with this man by choice, I cannot see what else could be the reson for charging him.

Her consent was unlawfully, at least in Israel, compromised by the man's lies.

 

[Poisonshady313]

When a married man on buisness trip spends the night in a hotel, gets to know a woman, tells her that he is a bachelor and has sex with her - does that mean he is a sophisophisticated, smooth-tongued criminal who should be charged with rape?

If the woman would not have consented had she known that he was married, then yes.

 

[Cypress]

Yet if the consent isn't valid, then it's not consent at all... like a minor consenting to have sex with an adult.

A minor cannot give consent to a sexual relationship because at this age one has no grasp what sex is about.

She consented to have sex with a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious relationship, which Sabbar Kashur was not.

You are aware how often it happens that the woman wants a serious relationship & the man wants a one-night-stand only?

 

[Badran]

Poisonshady, i have a couple of questions if you don't mind answering them.

1) The deceitful information she got, assumably affected her decision on wether or not she's gonna have sex with him. But, how can that be proved though? I mean how can it be proved that if she knew he was a muslim, she would've never had sex with him? Just because he lied doesn't mean he thought thats the only way he could get to have sex with her. May be he thought it would increase his chances.

2) How did they prove that he did lie?

3) I get that he plead guilty? If so, don't you think he might have did that to avoid facing the other first ridiculous charge mentioned in the article you provided? The " rape and indecent assault", which i presume have a harder punishment?

4) Did she have sex with him on the first time they met?

5) What is the usual term for similar cases, if there is any?

6) Don't you think this particular case has some other influences to it. In other words, do you think if the same scenario happened but with a different kind of deceit, like he lied about being a couple of years younger than he is, or lied about having stuff that he don't, do you think it would be the same? And is there other cases on similar grounds? In other words, should it be just up to the person's expectations and special requirements, or the fact that wether or not he is willing to have sex.

Because to me, a person who have sex with someone without even being able to determine the most basic knowledge about him, doesn't seem to have any problems with having sex, its just personal preferences.