Rape by deception

This has very little to do with atheism but I thought I'd post it here anyway.

I saw THIS video about a man who was convicted of "rape by deception" in Israel. The author of the video makes a good argument for the law (although not necessarily the particular case.) I would be interested to know what you think about the idea that one can commit rape by fraud. If you think that this sort of law has merit in society, at what point would you draw the line? Where does lying for sex cross the line from unscrupulous behaviour to rape?

I kind of agree with the premise of the video, but I can see all sorts of problems with enforcing these kinds of laws. 

I think calling it "rape by fraud" is incorrect, since rape requires there to be force.Genetic_Code

Not necessarily.  Rape is only defined as unconsensual sex.  Statutory rape does not involve force; rather, it is the decision that, because one participant was below the age of consent, that person was unable to properly give consent, hence the sex was unconsensual.  This ruling is quite similar to that: it's saying that, because the person was not in possession of information that would have caused her to act differently, she could not have properly given consent to the sex.

I have to say I'm a bit bothered by this, though; it seems like a rather bad precedent to act as though it's not a woman's fault to have failed to get to know a man before having sex with him, and furthermore that any man who has sex with such a woman is raping her.  At least in the case of a minor a case can be made that she is too mentally immature to know what she's doing; in this case, the woman was just being an idiot, and managed to get a rape conviction out of it.

Not necessarily.  Rape is only defined as unconsensual sex.  Statutory rape does not involve force; rather, it is the decision that, because one participant was below the age of consent, that person was unable to properly give consent, hence the sex was unconsensual.  This ruling is quite similar to that: it's saying that, because the person was not in possession of information that would have caused her to act differently, she could not have properly given consent to the sex.

GabuEx

True, but she did give consent nevertheless. It doesn't matter if she wasn't making a proper judgment out of false information. By your logic, the false intel that said that Iraq had WMDs raped or forced the U.S. into war.

I have to say I'm a bit bothered by this, though; it seems like a rather bad precedent to act as though it's not a woman's fault to have failed to get to know a man before having sex with him, and furthermore that any man who has sex with such a woman is raping her.  At least in the case of a minor a case can be made that she is too mentally immature to know what she's doing; in this case, the woman was just being an idiot, and managed to get a rape conviction out of it.

GabuEx

That's an excellent point. This law encourages women to prematurely have sex with a man without knowing the person. Another argument is how the woman is going to prove that she was lied to? It's her word against his.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Not necessarily. Rape is only defined as unconsensual sex. Statutory rape does not involve force; rather, it is the decision that, because one participant was below the age of consent, that person was unable to properly give consent, hence the sex was unconsensual. This ruling is quite similar to that: it's saying that, because the person was not in possession of information that would have caused her to act differently, she could not have properly given consent to the sex.

Genetic_Code

True, but she did give consent nevertheless. It doesn't matter if she wasn't making a proper judgment out of false information. By your logic, the false intel that said that Iraq had WMDs raped or forced the U.S. into war.

I have to say I'm a bit bothered by this, though; it seems like a rather bad precedent to act as though it's not a woman's fault to have failed to get to know a man before having sex with him, and furthermore that any man who has sex with such a woman is raping her. At least in the case of a minor a case can be made that she is too mentally immature to know what she's doing; in this case, the woman was just being an idiot, and managed to get a rape conviction out of it.

GabuEx

That's an excellent point. This law encourages women to prematurely have sex with a man without knowing the person. Another argument is how the woman is going to prove that she was lied to? It's her word against his.

With my cynical hat on I'd, say the religions of the country and accused might have had something to do with it. Also, are Islamic men circumcised in Israel? - i.e. wouldn't she have known before the fact that he was not Jewish? (I have my medical hat on now.)

More generally though, I think it would be another abdication of personal responsibility. I really do think people should take the appropriate actions and/or take personal accountability before calling rape.

True, but she did give consent nevertheless. It doesn't matter if she wasn't making a proper judgment out of false information. By your logic, the false intel that said that Iraq had WMDs raped or forced the U.S. into war.

Genetic_Code

Minors can give consent, too.  That doesn't matter in the cases of statutory rape, because it is ruled that the minor did not know what she was doing while giving consent; therefore, the sex remains unconsensual, even if the minor thought she was giving consent.  This is pretty much the same thing: the ruling says that the woman thought she was giving consent, but because she was not in possession of important information, she did not know what she was doing, and therefore could not actually give consent.

Also, this isn't my logic; this is the logic that the court used.  Obviously I don't agree with it, since I said so in my first post.

Another argument is how the woman is going to prove that she was lied to? It's her word against his.

Genetic_Code

Well, America has no problem with this question, at least: the woman's word automatically wins. :P

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

True, but she did give consent nevertheless. It doesn't matter if she wasn't making a proper judgment out of false information. By your logic, the false intel that said that Iraq had WMDs raped or forced the U.S. into war.

GabuEx

Minors can give consent, too.  That doesn't matter in the cases of statutory rape, because it is ruled that the minor did not know what she was doing while giving consent; therefore, the sex remains unconsensual, even if the minor thought she was giving consent.  This is pretty much the same thing: the ruling says that the woman thought she was giving consent, but because she was not in possession of important information, she did not know what she was doing, and therefore could not actually give consent.

Also, this isn't my logic; this is the logic that the court used.  Obviously I don't agree with it, since I said so in my first post.

True.

Well, America has no problem with this question, at least: the woman's word automatically wins. :P

GabuEx

Yeah, and that can be an even bigger problem for the man in case the woman lies and gets away with it, but it should teach men to be more responsible with who they select to share a bed with and Christians could now say that even the law now supports men to wait until marriage before having sex.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Not necessarily. Rape is only defined as unconsensual sex. Statutory rape does not involve force; rather, it is the decision that, because one participant was below the age of consent, that person was unable to properly give consent, hence the sex was unconsensual. This ruling is quite similar to that: it's saying that, because the person was not in possession of information that would have caused her to act differently, she could not have properly given consent to the sex.

Genetic_Code

True, but she did give consent nevertheless. It doesn't matter if she wasn't making a proper judgment out of false information. By your logic, the false intel that said that Iraq had WMDs raped or forced the U.S. into war.

I have to say I'm a bit bothered by this, though; it seems like a rather bad precedent to act as though it's not a woman's fault to have failed to get to know a man before having sex with him, and furthermore that any man who has sex with such a woman is raping her. At least in the case of a minor a case can be made that she is too mentally immature to know what she's doing; in this case, the woman was just being an idiot, and managed to get a rape conviction out of it.

GabuEx

That's an excellent point. This law encourages women to prematurely have sex with a man without knowing the person. Another argument is how the woman is going to prove that she was lied to? It's her word against his.

Yea I definitely agree with Gabu. I think it is the responsibility of an individual to know who they are having sex with before they consent to having sex with this person.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Not necessarily. Rape is only defined as unconsensual sex. Statutory rape does not involve force; rather, it is the decision that, because one participant was below the age of consent, that person was unable to properly give consent, hence the sex was unconsensual. This ruling is quite similar to that: it's saying that, because the person was not in possession of information that would have caused her to act differently, she could not have properly given consent to the sex.

Plzhelpmelearn

True, but she did give consent nevertheless. It doesn't matter if she wasn't making a proper judgment out of false information. By your logic, the false intel that said that Iraq had WMDs raped or forced the U.S. into war.

I have to say I'm a bit bothered by this, though; it seems like a rather bad precedent to act as though it's not a woman's fault to have failed to get to know a man before having sex with him, and furthermore that any man who has sex with such a woman is raping her. At least in the case of a minor a case can be made that she is too mentally immature to know what she's doing; in this case, the woman was just being an idiot, and managed to get a rape conviction out of it.

GabuEx

That's an excellent point. This law encourages women to prematurely have sex with a man without knowing the person. Another argument is how the woman is going to prove that she was lied to? It's her word against his.

Yea I definitely agree with Gabu. I think it is the responsibility of an individual to know who they are having sex with before they consent to having sex with this person.

But if a person is supplying false informaiton, then it can be pretty hard to know who they are. The only problem I have with this kind of law is that a line of demarcation needs to be established for it to be inforced well.

We all lie in pursuit of mates. Those lies may be fairy innocuous like omitting an interest in an activity you think your partner might respond negatively to (as I have done) or they could be more significant, like pretending to be wealthy or interested in some political cause.  The video gives an example which I think was clearly a case of rape. A man posed as the boyfriend of different women, convinced them to blind fold themselves and entered their homes to have sex with them. The trouble comes when trying to define a point at which unscrupulous behaviour becomes rape.

For me rape is when you have sex with someone against their will: when they are conscious and they dont want to or when they are drugged or unconscious during the act.

Although impulsively I immediately think of the first case when I think of rape. Not so much the rest.