Rape?

[Magic Man]

In some(not sure how many but at least a few), that is not necessarily so. If the courts deem you sober enough and the other person drunk enough you can be charged with rape.

Do you have examples and/or sources?

Blame the victim?

Yup. If she feels that strongly about having sex with a Jewish guy, then maybe she shouldn't just jump in the sack with a random guy the same day she meets him on the assumption that he's actually Jewish.

Why should it not be a crime to gain sexual intercourse through outright deception when it is to gain money so?

Do you think that having sex and investing money are the same thing?

 

[Mister Emu]

Do you have examples and/or sources?

Sure Kansas law [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]K.S.A. 21-3502:

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rape is sexual intercourse with a person who does not consent to the sexual intercourse, under any of the following circumstances:[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. When the victim is overcome by force or fear;[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. When the victim is unconscious or physically powerless; or[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C. When the victim is incapable of giving consent because of mental deficiency or disease, or when the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug, or any other substance, which condition was known by the offender or was reasonably apparent to the offender.[/FONT]​

Yup. If she feels that strongly about having sex with a Jewish guy, then maybe she shouldn't just jump in the sack with a random guy the same day she meets him on the assumption that he's actually Jewish.

Or perhaps the law should protect a woman, or man, from outright deceit with the intent of sexual intercourse.

Do you think that having sex and investing money are the same thing?

Not at all, our sexual choices should have more not less protection than our financial transactions.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure Kansas law [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]K.S.A. 21-3502:

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rape is sexual intercourse with a person who does not consent to the sexual intercourse, under any of the following circumstances:[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. When the victim is overcome by force or fear;[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. When the victim is unconscious or physically powerless; or[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C. When the victim is incapable of giving consent because of mental deficiency or disease, or when the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug, or any other substance, which condition was known by the offender or was reasonably apparent to the offender.[/FONT]​

Good to know. Note to college students and young people in general. Don't party in Kansas, as they have weird laws about rape.

Or perhaps the law should protect a woman, or man, from outright deceit with the intent of sexual intercourse.

Maybe in some situations, but definitely not the one in the OP.

Not at all, our sexual choices should have more not less protection than our financial transactions.

The first part is the relevant part here. Yes, they are not the same thing, so there's no reason to treat them in the same way. The fact is, if you have sex with someone because they tell you they are not of an ethnicity that you don't like, then that's your problem, and should not come close to being considered rape. Other cases of possible "rape by deception"? We'll take them as they come.

 

[Mister Emu]

Good to know. Note to college students and young people in general. Don't party in Kansas, as they have weird laws about rape.

Maryland code of criminal law 3-304 says:

(a) A person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another:

(1) by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;

(2) if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual; or

(3) if the victim is under the age of 14 years, and the person performing the act is at least 4 years older than the victim.

(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of rape in the second degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 20 years.

Where mentally incapacitated is defined in 3-301 as:

(c) "Mentally incapacitated individual" means an individual who, because of the influence of a drug, narcotic, or intoxicating substance, or because of an act committed on the individual without the individual's consent or awareness, is rendered substantially incapable of:

(1) appraising the nature of the individual's conduct; or

(2) resisting vaginal intercourse, a sexual act, or sexual contact.

Maybe in some situations, but definitely not the one in the OP.

Disagree. Sexual security is far more important that physical assets, and yet we treat those who prey on our assets worse than those that prey on sexuality.

The first part is the relevant part here. Yes, they are not the same thing, so there's no reason to treat them in the same way. The fact is, if you have sex with someone because they tell you they are not of an ethnicity that you don't like, then that's your problem, and should not come close to being considered rape.

No, it is the second part. Our sexual choices should be protected much more than our financial ones. "The fact is, if you give someone your money because they told you they had a great deal, and it ends up it was for them, then that is your problem, and should not come close to being considered theft." If we don't accept that, and we do not, we should in no way accept it in sexual situations either.

 

[Magic Man]

Maryland code of criminal law 3-304 says:

(a) A person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another:

(1) by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;

(2) if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual; or

(3) if the victim is under the age of 14 years, and the person performing the act is at least 4 years older than the victim.

(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of rape in the second degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 20 years.

Where mentally incapacitated is defined in 3-301 as:

(c) "Mentally incapacitated individual" means an individual who, because of the influence of a drug, narcotic, or intoxicating substance, or because of an act committed on the individual without the individual's consent or awareness, is rendered substantially incapable of:

(1) appraising the nature of the individual's conduct; or

(2) resisting vaginal intercourse, a sexual act, or sexual contact.

OK, note to college kids and young people in general: Don't party in Maryland. Any other states you want to add to the list that have these weird laws?

I mean, sure, a dentist shouldn't be fondling his patients when he knocks them out in the chair, but if you're at a party and you get drunk and consent to sex with someone, that's your fault. I can understand thinking the other person took advantage of your inebriated state, but there's no reason for it to be illegal.

Disagree. Sexual security is far more important that physical assets, and yet we treat those who prey on our assets worse than those that prey on sexuality.

Do we? How so? Anyway, the point is that if someone being Jewish is that important to you, then make sure he's Jewish before going through with anything. I joked earlier that my pick-up lines would be illegal, but many times people of both sexes pick up people at bars or other places using info that isn't necessarily truthful. If you're going to prosecute something like this, you'd have to prosecute millions upon millions of Americans. Or you could just realize that people will lie to get in others' pants, and you have to be careful of that.

No, it is the second part.

No. The first part answered my question. The second part had nothing to do with my question.

Our sexual choices should be protected much more than our financial ones. "The fact is, if you give someone your money because they told you they had a great deal, and it ends up it was for them, then that is your problem, and should not come close to being considered theft." If we don't accept that, and we do not, we should in no way accept it in sexual situations either.

This is why it wasn't relevant. Having sex and giving someone money are two very different things. Sex should not be considered a legal contract like money matters should. If you're going to charge this guy with fraud, then why don't you charge my friend with fraud when he told me he liked comic books but it turned out he didn't, even though I'm now his friend?

 

[Comicaze247]

Not all contracts are written.

If she outright said, "I won't sleep with you unless you are Jewish," then yes, I'd agree that it would be a verbal contract. Otherwise, she was just being gullible.

The guy's a douche, for sure, but unless he did either of the following:

rape

1    /reɪp/ Show Spelled [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
–noun 1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

then he is not guilty of rape. She consented, and therefore, was not forced. Yes, she was duped, but he didn't force her to believe him. She chose to believe him.

 

[Mister Emu]

OK, note to college kids and young people in general: Don't party in Maryland. Any other states you want to add to the list that have these weird laws?

Arizona, California... States differ some, like Alabama and Florida, require the administration be without consent, others do not... I'd look it up before I "partied" anywhere...

Also, England has a similar law from what I've seen...

Do we? How so?

In this instance, one is a crime, theft by deception... the other is being defended and the victim blamed.

Anyway, the point is that if someone being Jewish is that important to you, then make sure he's Jewish before going through with anything.

And nothing other than the person saying they are Jewish should be necessary...

If you're going to prosecute something like this, you'd have to prosecute millions upon millions of Americans. Or you could just realize that people will lie to get in others' pants, and you have to be careful of that.

Or both, careful, and if the victim feels raped by the deception, prosecution.

No. The first part answered my question. The second part had nothing to do with my question.

The second portion explained why the analogy was viable.

Having sex and giving someone money are two very different things.

Yes, one is more important than the other. The freedom of sexual choice.

Sex should not be considered a legal contract like money matters should.

They both deal with consent. I did not consent to you spending my money on a car, I consented to it being used in the investment I agreed to. Similarly, the girl did not consent to have sexual relations with an arab man, she consented to do so with a Jew.

If you're going to charge this guy with fraud, then why don't you charge my friend with fraud when he told me he liked comic books but it turned out he didn't, even though I'm now his friend?

Because a fraudulent basis for friendship is not a crime. Fraudulent financial transactions are, and fraudulent sexual intercourse is rape.

 

[Mister Emu]

If she outright said, "I won't sleep with you unless you are Jewish," then yes, I'd agree that it would be a verbal contract. Otherwise, she was just being gullible.

If it was known that she was seeking a Jewish man, and only that, and he presented himself as Jewish, it is the same situation. Yes, she was gullible either way, just like the people Bernie Madoff scammed out of their life savings. That does not make it any less of a crime.

She consented, and therefore, was not forced.

Her consent was invalid, due to his deception.

Yes, she was duped, but he didn't force her to believe him.

And being duped into sexual relations is acceptable? Also, rape does not require force, rather a lack of consent.

 

[Magic Man]

Arizona, California... States differ some, like Alabama and Florida, require the administration be without consent, others do not... I'd look it up before I "partied" anywhere...

Also, England has a similar law from what I've seen...

That was a rhetorical question. My point was that that's a ridiculously stupid law. If someone gets drunk and drives a car, I guess that's not their fault either. If someone gets drunk and beats someone up, I guess they can't be held accountable for that either.

In this instance, one is a crime, theft by deception... the other is being defended and the victim blamed.

Ah, but that's not quite true. This is not the same thing. For one, no one is defending the guy who claimed to be Jewish. I believe everyone has said that that's pretty low. If someone comes up to you on the street and says "Give me some money so I can buy food to eat tonight", and you give him a couple dollars to buy food, but then find out he bought booze with it instead, I tend to doubt you have any legal recourse. So, in reality we do treat those who prey on our money the same as those who prey on our sex.

And nothing other than the person saying they are Jewish should be necessary...

What do you mean, legally or morally? Morally, sure. Legally, a lot more should be necessary.

Or both, careful, and if the victim feels raped by the deception, prosecution.

Nope.

The second portion explained why the analogy was viable.

No, it didn't.

Yes, one is more important than the other. The freedom of sexual choice.

Exactly. The freedom of sexual choice. That means you have the choice to sleep with anyone you want (as long as they're of age). It also means it's your responsibility to know who you're sleeping with.

They both deal with consent. I did not consent to you spending my money on a car, I consented to it being used in the investment I agreed to. Similarly, the girl did not consent to have sexual relations with an arab man, she consented to do so with a Jew.

It depends. Who am I? Am I your investment broker? That's a much different situation than the OP. Am I your friend with no professional ties? Then it's your fault for trusting me.

Because a fraudulent basis for friendship is not a crime. Fraudulent financial transactions are, and fraudulent sexual intercourse is rape.

First, the last part is not necessarily true. Second, why make fraudulent sex a crime and not fraudulent friendship?

 

[Mister Emu]

That was a rhetorical question.

Brainfart

My point was that that's a ridiculously stupid law.

I'm not so sure... On one hand, yes you are, at least partially, responsible for what happens when you are intoxicated... on the other, people should be held accountable for abusing someone's state when they know it is adversely affecting judgment.

For one, no one is defending the guy who claimed to be Jewish.

His ability to freely do it is being defended.

If someone comes up to you on the street and says "Give me some money so I can buy food to eat tonight", and you give him a couple dollars to buy food, but then find out he bought booze with it instead, I tend to doubt you have any legal recourse. So, in reality we do treat those who prey on our money the same as those who prey on our sex.

That you compare sexual intercourse to a couple dollars... well... I can't agree with that.

What do you mean, legally or morally? Morally, sure. Legally, a lot more should be necessary.

Why? You should be legally held to honesty is situations like sex and financial transactions.

No, it didn't.

Yes, it did. If sexual freedom is at least as important as financial freedom, then sexual choice should be protected at least as much as financial transactions.

Exactly. The freedom of sexual choice. That means you have the choice to sleep with anyone you want (as long as they're of age). It also means it's your responsibility to know who you're sleeping with.

It also means your freedom is protected from force and deceit.

It depends. Who am I? Am I your investment broker? That's a much different situation than the OP. Am I your friend with no professional ties? Then it's your fault for trusting me.

Either way, friend or investment broker, you are a criminal if we agree to invest my money and you use it to buy a car.

 

[Comicaze247]

If it was known that she was seeking a Jewish man, and only that, and he presented himself as Jewish, it is the same situation. Yes, she was gullible either way, just like the people Bernie Madoff scammed out of their life savings. That does not make it any less of a crime.

Unless I see anywhere that she outright said "I would only date and/or sleep with a Jewish man," I can't see how it would be any kind of "breach of contract."

Her consent was invalid, due to his deception.

As it is with many cases around the world. Both men AND women are guilty of it.

"I love you."
"I'm rich."
"I'm single."
"I'm on the pill."

And being duped into sexual relations is acceptable?

I never said it was. As I said, he's a douche, but not a rapist.

Also, rape does not require force, rather a lack of consent.

The act of forcing something upon someone already suggests a lack of consent.

 

[budhabee]

I wonder who was first to blab about it. Somebody has a BIG mouth. :run:

 

[Mathematician]

"I'm on the pill."

Well, I personally think that a woman (or when the male pill comes out, man) who lies about being on birth control should suffer the consequences by not being able to collect child support payments from the other partner. Just as I think someone who contracts an STD from a liar should be able to seek compensation. Just as I think a man who purposely puts a hole in the rubber should pay more than just child support.

In this case, however, there were no lasting consequences.

 

[Mister Emu]

Unless I see anywhere that she outright said "I would only date and/or sleep with a Jewish man," I can't see how it would be any kind of "breach of contract."

I don't believe the specifics of their conversation(s) leading up to situation are available. Regardless, when you are presented with an offer, you do not have to declare that if it were something else, you would not accept it.

If I go to the grocery store and buy a package of Reese's cups, I don't need to declare to the grocer that if it were not Reese's I would not buy it to demand my money back if in fact what is packaged as Reese's is not.

As it is with many cases around the world. Both men AND women are guilty of it.

Therefore?

I never said it was. As I said, he's a douche, but not a rapist.

As I've noted before, in the financial realm you wouldn't say of a con-man who stole money by lying about investing it, instead using it for himself, "He's a douche, but not a thief."

Is he a violent rapist? No. No one's said, or compared him to, that. But he got sex with compromised consent, and I don't see any problem with that being illegal.

The act of forcing something upon someone already suggests a lack of consent.

Yes, but it is also rape to get consent in other ways than direct force... getting consent from a minor, or through intoxication is rape as well.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not so sure... On one hand, yes you are, at least partially, responsible for what happens when you are intoxicated... on the other, people should be held accountable for abusing someone's state when they know it is adversely affecting judgment.

Either you're responsible for your actions or you're not. I gave other examples. If I'm not responsible for my actions when I'm drunk, then you can't arrest me or take away my license or anything when I drive drunk. On the other hand, if I'm responsible for my actions when I'm drunk, then you can do any of that stuff when I drink and drive, but also I'm responsible for who I sleep with while drunk, too.

His ability to freely do it is being defended.

And? There are a lot of things one could do and be an ***hole that shouldn't be illegal. It's a dick move to get her number and then never call her, too, but that shouldn't be illegal.

That you compare sexual intercourse to a couple dollars... well... I can't agree with that.

Then I guess you're just going to refuse to see anything outside of your opinion. I compared two situations that you think are equal. Obviously this woman didn't think that much of giving away her sex since she did it the same day she met a guy who claimed to be Jewish.

Why? You should be legally held to honesty is situations like sex and financial transactions.

Maybe, but where does that end? If I tell a girl she's one of the hottest girls I've ever seen, and she later finds out I was lying, but after we slept together, is that grounds for arresting me? If I tell a girl she has beautiful eyes, if I tell her I've been to France (her home country) when I haven't, if I tell her I love dogs...where does it end? It's agreed that you shouldn't lie to get in someone's pants. However, it should not be illegal.

Yes, it did. If sexual freedom is at least as important as financial freedom, then sexual choice should be protected at least as much as financial transactions.

And it is.

It also means your freedom is protected from force and deceit.

Again, maybe to a point, but this isn't that point. Maybe if your husband's twin brother pretends to be your husband, that would qualify, but this story doesn't. This is on the same level as the homeless guy example I gave.

Either way, friend or investment broker, you are a criminal if we agree to invest my money and you use it to buy a car.

A criminal? According to what laws?

 

[Nerthus]

I wouldn't be happy if someone lied to me like that, but it is not rape. She consented to having sex with the 'man' - you can't consent to having sex with a religion.

He might have tricked her, but he didn't force her.

 

[Mister Emu]

Either you're responsible for your actions or you're not.

You are responsible for your actions, and others are responsible for theirs.

And? There are a lot of things one could do and be an ***hole that shouldn't be illegal.

That it is an ******* thing to do is not the reason for it to be illegal. That he had sex when consent was compromised is. Consent is not valid when based on deceit.

Then I guess you're just going to refuse to see anything outside of your opinion.

I just can't agree with the low value you place on sex and the ability to freely make sexual choices.

Maybe, but where does that end?

If you tell a woman, or a man, a lie designed to create a sexual encounter and you knew, or it was determined that you should have known, that without that lie you would have been rejected, you have compromised any consent you may have gotten.

And it is.

If it is illegal to deceive to gain money and legal to deceive to gain sex... no, it is not.

A criminal? According to what laws?

Fraud laws.

 

[Magic Man]

You are responsible for your actions, and others are responsible for theirs.

Good. Then we agree that the laws concerning raping of a drunk person should be taken off the books, since we're responsible for our actions even while voluntarily drunk.

That it is an ******* thing to do is not the reason for it to be illegal. That he had sex when consent was compromised is. Consent is not valid when based on deceit.

Yes, it is.

I just can't agree with the low value you place on sex and the ability to freely make sexual choices.

I'll buy into that if you can show me where I placed a low value on sex. It seems this woman is the one doing that by having sex with a guy she just met, and not only that, but she couldn't even be positive he was actually Jewish, even though that was such an important issue to her apparently.

If you tell a woman, or a man, a lie designed to create a sexual encounter and you knew, or it was determined that you should have known, that without that lie you would have been rejected, you have compromised any consent you may have gotten.

In other words, you want the guy who tells the girl he loves her or that she's the hottest girl he's ever seen to go to jail, right?

If it is illegal to deceive to gain money and legal to deceive to gain sex... no, it is not.

You seem to be forgetting the obvious differences in the situations. I'd think by now you'd have understood that.

Fraud laws.

Thanks for the vague, unhelpful. I'll try again, though. A criminal? Under what laws?

 

[Smokeless Indica]

It wasn't rape. He didn't force her to do anything. Just because he said he's Jewish that didn't mean she HAD to sleep with him. She couldv'e still said no.

 

[Mister Emu]

Good. Then we agree that the laws concerning raping of a drunk person should be taken off the books, since we're responsible for our actions even while voluntarily drunk.

Granted, I am certainly unsure of those laws... but that I find people responsible for their actions, even when intoxicated, does not undermine the reasoning behind the law. Just because one party is responsible for being intoxicated and the decisions made in the state, does not mean the other party is not responsible for abusing the intoxicated state of the first party.

Yes, it is.

No, it is not. That is why theft by deception exists as a crime. If you consent to give away money based on a deception, you have been robbed...

I'll buy into that if you can show me where I placed a low value on sex.

You compared being deceived into sex with being deceived into losing a few dollars...

It seems this woman is the one doing that by having sex with a guy she just met, and not only that, but she couldn't even be positive he was actually Jewish, even though that was such an important issue to her apparently.

His statement was under guarantee of the law. Unfortunately for her was dishonest, and unfortunately for him he faced said law.

In other words, you want the guy who tells the girl he loves her or that she's the hottest girl he's ever seen to go to jail, right?

In other words, I want a person's freedom to freely choose their sexual partners to be protected by the law.

You seem to be forgetting the obvious differences in the situations. I'd think by now you'd have understood that.

The difference exists in what is gained. Sex or property... the one that is more valuable is the one that is not protected.

Thanks for the vague, unhelpful. I'll try again, though. A criminal? Under what laws?

I honestly cannot believe you demand a specific statute saying fraud is illegal... but alright.

Kentucky law:
KRS 514.040
(1) A person is guilty of theft by deception when the person obtains the property or services of another by deception with the intent to deprive the person thereof.

Whether they be friend or investment broker, if they deceive you into giving them your money, or property, for one purpose(such as an investment) and they then go and use it for personal gain(such as buying a car) they are criminals. If the value of the theft was more than $500 they are felons.