Sex under false pretenses

Illegal, yes! Rape, No!

However, it is really fucked up. I would be pissed. Oh, and she seems to have had sex with him willingly before marridge, so its kind of her fault too.
He should have all the appropriate sentencing of a liar, and possibly a thief too, but not as a rapist, I think that's stupid.
And what about the woman? She did after all, uncross her legs so.....
I don't quite think that would hold in america, legally. I think it should be-something. hell I don't know....

I would say it's definitely not rape.
Hey, we've all been guilty of something vaguely familiar.  You know, the "hey, I'll call you soon" thing, but you never *do* call.

Oh yeah, the guy was also married with 2 kids.

I don't really think it's comparable. Telling someone you'll call them is nowhere near the same ballpark as lying about your entire life situation in order to get into a girl's pants.

Besides, the "I'll call you later" thing is usually done after the sex, not before, therefore it was not used in the course of securing consent and thus cannot used to build a case of rape by deception.

My comment was meant as a bit of a joke.  But it's still deception in a way.  There are many men out there who will take a girl on several dates with the aim of mere sex.  When they get what they want, they move on.  I've known men like this.  The female involved may have believed she was in a relationship, yet this simply was never going to be the case.  So it does have echoes of what we're talking about here.  It's still deception to obtain sex.
Well, this is coming from the guy who's had to look at post in the morning to even remember the girl's name he slept with the night before.  Haha.  Thankfully, I didn't need to do that with Mel!
I dunno.  Like Teri said, this girl consented to the sex, albeit under a lie, and wasn't exactly being a chaste Jew, but nevertheless he didn't force it upon her per se.
It's not rape.  Deception, yes.  In the vast majority of countries, this would just be passed off as an unfortunate occurence.  It's Israel, which is, as a country, very religious, but in Western society, I can't see it flying as an offence.
I guess it depends on your skew on human rights, and as an extension, religious rights.

Yeah, well all I see this guy being guilty of is cheating, and lying, and there ain't no laws against that in my country.
Then again, who knows what crazy shit they do out in Barbaria. The Saudis cut off thieves hands.
 
But if you think about it, if you put the fact that he's an adulterer aside, he is only guilty of the same thing loads of men do all the time. Telling women they are things they ain't.
Plenty of people think I'm a lion-tamer, that's all I'm saying.

No.  That is not rape.  The sex was consensual, and had she not found out he wasn't being up front with her, there would have been no charge right?
 
Its also not illegal.  People misrepresent themselves all the time in order to get what they want.  Sure, its unethical, its lying and deceit, but its not illegal.  Its not fraud even.  Its just another bullshit reason to sue somebody.  Seriously, what kind of person would do that? 
 
Fucked up shit IMHO

I agree with Fyn. Sure as FUCK not rape, and people do represent themselves all the time.
What if she'd said she was a virgin and wasn't, would the same rules apply? It's fucked up, sure, but hardly worth a jail sentence.

I agree.
I'm surprised that they managed to convict him of rape.
At the end of the day it was consentual which is the element that is absent in rape cases.
People lie for sexual reasons all the time, I suppose this is just a slightly larger case of deception than most.

But is consent still valid if the person is not who they say they are? You consented to have sex with that person with a particular understanding of who they are. If your consent was obtained fraudulently, is it still valid?

Hmm, valid point.
I guess it *is* rape by deception, but...calling it rape kiind of trivialises the term, I feel. I dunno.

But isn't rape sex against the other person's will?

And I bet she was pretty willing at the time. Just because she isn't willing now doesn't make it rape, or else every ex-husband and ex-boyfriend in the world would be a rapist.

Also, I'm fairly sure that the conviction was more based on bias than fair judgement. Seriously, a Jewish victim, a Jewish judge, a Jewish jury, and an Arab defendant? He could have went in there accused of stealing cheese and come out with a life sentence.

Rape is legally defined as sex without consent. Consent is the crucial component.

It's why we have statutory rape laws: people below a certain age cannot legally consent. And, in a case like this, if consent was obtained fraudulently, it is invalidated and becomes a criminal act... at least in Israel.

If she would have normally said no to sex with him, had she known the truth, then it is rape by omission. Technically.
But it's still a little ridiculous.

I think calling it "rape" injects a very loaded word into something that would otherwise just be considered fraud.

So wiat...
They met *that* day?  She didn't exactly hang about did she?  The charge is actually "rape by decpetion"?  The guy's claiming he never actually pretended to be Jewish?  This whole case is bullshit.  So she can ascertain in that whole time the guy, Dudu, was interested in a serious relationship?
So, how about this?  SHe had sex with him, knowing full well he was not Jewish, then feeling like she'd sinned, she invents the entire story?
Woah, but there's more.  Apparently some other guy was charged with "fraud" for telling a woman he was a neurosurgeon to impress her.  Well, then fuck me, I too amd guilty of fraud.  I'm sure I've made myself out to be more than I am to impress a girl before, and I'm sure a huge proportion of men have.
It simply is an unjust verdict to pass on this guy.  And 18 months?  Jesus, you get less than that for actual, real rape in this county!

And you know, I kind of agree with his condemnation of his verdict as being racist.  This is Israel, and he's an Arab.  They haven't exactly got the greatest love for each other, Jews and Arabs, despite the occasional sexual encounter such as this one.

A Jew was convicted under this same law in 2008, setting the precedent. A decision is not racist just because the plaintiff and defendant are of different races.

I do agree that she's a skeezebag, though. But the law protects everyone--including skeezebags.

Possible, Gorzek.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-...

Something tells me this board will need a hidden forum to discuss this kind of stuff.

In legal terms, I think this comes under the broader language implied by sexual assault and not the narrower language implied by rape.

You cannot rape the willing. She was willing at the time regardless of why she was. The fact that he misrepresented himself was grounds for a fraud even in America, The results would more likely be resolved in civil court than in criminal court. "Your Honor he said he had a big ten inch but as you can plainly see it was all just tube socks." Aside from the guy being a liar among other things he was not Jewish I am cetain that a jewish man would not have received this sentence. A jewish man would likely at most been found guilty of fraud of some type and had the woman been arab the man Jew would we even have had this story to peruse?

Joe, a Jewish man was convicted of the exact same offense in 2008. I don't know what sentence he got but there does not appear to be racial preference involved in the application of this law.

Wow, wait, it's from the guardian. I'm away. Fucking guardian, I hate them so much.
 
It would be good ot have a hidden forum, except it is so easy to make a profile that anyone smart enough to care (i.e. non spambots) can just sign up and pass themselves off as a spam-bot. All you need is a name that makes no sense.
 
By the way, telling people you're a writer is much better than telling them you're a Jew.

Yeah, the Guardian sucks. Almost as bad as the Daily Fail.

I've suggested private forums before, but I had no takers. I believe the critique groups are private, though, in the sense that you have to be registered to view them.

I'd support private groups.

But for what purpose? That's the question. Is it just so we can have a more "open" discussion area or what?

Private forums just don't make sense to me.
Hey Jimmy? Arent you supposed to be working? LOl.
I'm just giving you shit.

I'm just a paranoid mother-fucker. I hate the idea of being watched by unknown parties.

Personally I think all of our crazyness turns outsiders off of return visits. But then I'd also say, "Fuk' 'em if they can't take a joke!"
My paranoid ass would think you guys are always talking about me behind my back. ( But you do that anyway, don't you? You bastards!)hehe

You'd be able to see it, I think.

When I'm bored at work I screw around online. It happens. Sometimes I use it to "work a problem." Put it in the back of my mind while I trade barbs with you assholes. Helps me solve problems.

   
Well, this thread has to do with sex matters, right?  You know what happened with me the last time you had a hidden forum, heehee.  I actually became one of the assholes you traded sex matters barbs with!

You are getting the messaging system confused with private fora which are only open to members. This is a public forum, meaning it is open to the whole internet.

Well, we can have private fora that not even all members can see, for instance. I could set it up to only allow certain people in, or certain user roles (full users only, etc.)

I believe I only allow full users into the critique group fora. They aren't even visible to anonymous users.

Meh.  I don't think anything we talk about here needs to be "private".   Have at it, I say!

You would be surprised at just how much I have divulged the last time around.  In light of my writings thus far on Bookzek, let us never speak of this again in this thread!

I don't think a private forum is necessary. Maybe if the site gets bigger, and there's more people we don't really know around, but for now...nah.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about it.

I'll have a private forum all of my own.
 
Who knows what I'll get up to in there...
 
...

And here's a random question...
 
You know on that crappy show, Girls of the Playboy Mansion?
 
Do those girls seriously have to sleep with Hugh Heffner, 'cause he's kind of old and gross.

In order to be a playboy bunny, you have to bone Hugh Hefner. *Puke*

Gross. All of a sudden I am not interested in sex anymore.

He looks like a half-tanned piece of leather.

Eugh, you watch E! Leland? That's is even more gross.

E!?

E! is a channel which only seems to show Girls of the Playboy Mansion.
It's a pretty dire program but it amuses me at times.
What really disturbed me was when Hugh Heffner had the twin sisters as two of his girlfriends...They must get paid ALOT of money!