Basically, a very naughty Palestinian pretended to be Jewish to a girl he met in the street, and they had sex like ten minutes later.
She found out he is an Arab, and he is going to jail.
For rape.
Basically she is such a racist that it is rape for her to have dirtied herself by having sex with an Arab.
1980’s South Africa is chortling.
Well, that seems patently unfair, but I’m glad the matter received national criticism, as the article states.
Hopefully it will be overturned on appeal.
The problem is that Israel has an (IMO stupid) law that lying about one’s identity to get sex vitiates consent.
Actually, since the Israeli woman (almost certainly) has had military training and the Palestinian man (almost certainly) has not, I figure a fairer (or at least more entertaining) solution would be to Thunderdome it.
This judge sounds like the modern Israeli equivalent of a Jim Crow redneck from the 1950’s. How typical is that? “Unbearable price?” What was the price? “Serious romantic relationship?” She was a pickup at a bar, is he fucking kidding?
Is there any chance at all that this charge would be made if the “races” were reversed?
Also, does this “rape by deception” thing apply to Jewish boys who tell girls they have Lamborginis or that they’re in the Mossad? How about if a Jewish girl lies about not having a boyfriend? Is she a rapist?
This is completely fucked up. It’s fucking Jim Crow, man. It’s bullshit.
“No groin, no Krav Maga. Hello groin.”
To the first, the answer is apparently “yes”, since the leading case involved a guy lying about being in the gov’t. Dunno about the second.
The ‘lying about yourself = rape by deception’ thing has, apparently, been around a few years, and this is the first case where the lie involves ‘not being Jewish’. The law is not in itself indended to be a racial matter, but in this particular instance it happens to be.
The problem is the law, which is open to obvious abuse. Hopefully, the appellate court will deal with it.
So, what he’s saying is, the defendant is an EVIL CONNECTOR???
[sub]Smooth tongued, silver tounged, what’s the difference?[/sub]
See, this is why one side or the other should stop circumcising.
The term, by the way, is “fraud in the inducement”(lying to someone to get them to consent to sex), which, under US law, isn’t enough to convict someone of rape, unlike “fraud in the factum” (lying to someone about the sex. . . Someone pretending to be a woman’s husband, or a doctor having sex with a woman when she thinks he’s giving her a gynecological exam.)
Don’t stick your dick in the crazy!
So saying “I love you” could lead to a rape charge if its construed as a successful ploy to get into her pants?
How long is the appeals process in Israel?
"“In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not,” said a former senior justice ministry official. "
What context is he talking about? Is it that Good jewish girls only have casual pre-marital sex with Jewish boys. Or is it the notion that if you had a child as a result of sex with a West Bank or gaza Palestinian, the child might be expelled from Israel upon reaching majority so women would be reluctant to have sex with Palestinians generally. Or is it that Israel has institutionalized racism for much the same reason that Magellan wants to be “wary” of muslims??
And people still think Carter is an anti-semite for comparing this situation to Apartheid. :boggle:
Looks like some US states have such laws: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/politics/uwire/main3894875.shtml
Though the article is short on details.
What I’m ‘boggling’ about is how you are taking one incident - highly criticized within Israel at that - and, generalizing the hell out of it, claiming it proves Israel is an apathied society.
Fact is, I don’t think the ‘rape by deception’ law make sense, but assuming it does then arguably a married guy claiming he’s a single of a different ethnic group would “qualify” as much as a guy claiming to be a rock star or surgeon.
Fact is, who people choose to have sex with is still something they are allowed to be “racist” about. A woman (or man) can be totally irrational on this score, and as ‘racist’ as any KKK member in voluntarily decising to have sex with someone - if they don’t like Blacks, or only like Blacks, or Arabs, or Jews, or whomever - that’s their business; and tricking or fooling 'em by pretending to be who you are not is at least ethically repugnant (though as i said, I disagree with it being a matter for criminal law).
According to this article, about 40 U.S. states have “rape by fraud” laws.
One noteworthy case was that of Tennessee’s “Fantasy Man”:
*"NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The phone rings late at night. In a sexy whisper, a man persuades a woman to unlock her door, undress, put on a blindfold and wait for him in bed.
At least three women did so, thinking he was their boyfriend, and had sex with the so-called Fantasy Man–one woman twice a week for two months.
Now they want police to charge Raymond Mitchell III with rape.
The 45-year-old businessman says he was just fulfilling the women’s fantasies and the sex was consensual.
Police aren’t sure what to do. Investigators are looking at whether Mitchell claimed to be someone else, which could constitute rape by fraud.
Fantasy Man has become the talk of Nashville. And tabloid television has been calling.
“My callers can’t believe how incredibly stupid, gullible and horny women can be,” said WLAC talk radio host Dave Macy."*
(Good luck getting a date, Mr. Macy.)
In the midst of the hysteria in the Boston area over the Boston Strangler murders in the '60s, there was a guy posing as a physician who specialized in calling up women, telling them he’d met them earlier at a party on Beacon Hill and wondered if they could get together.
He wound up, um, intimate with an amazing number of them. The Boston P.D. eventually nabbed him on a charge of “gross lewdness”.
I suspect these sorts of rape by fraud laws are on the books in other countries as well.
Assuming that ethnic/religious prejudices/taboos in relation to sex are unique to Israel, strikes me as at the very least, incredibly naive.
Except that not only is this law on the books, but the judge said
and a former Israeli ministry official says
So either the judge is racist, or he is indicating that–in his opinion as a judge–Israeli society is racist, or both.
That’s actually really interesting because the situations involved are so ambiguous. For example, one woman realized that it wasn’t her husband immediately but went along with it because she feared violence–in this case, neither party would have any way of indicating their motive to the other, and it would be difficult to prove rape. OTOH, one can also see how she would be justified in her actions during and after the act.
Wait, so…what exactly was his “in”? And what does it have to do with the Boston strangler?
Judge is a “she,” jftr.
This story was recounted in Gerald Frank’s “The Boston Strangler”. He used it as a bizarre illustration of how on the one hand, women in the area were panicking over the murders and taking extraordinary security precautions, while at the same time many were leaving themselves vulnerable to this con artist.
If I understand your first question - his “in” was the line about having met them at some party or other (at the time there were a lot of parties on “the Hill”, and women apparently figured they’d met him even if they couldn’t remember his name). I’m sure he struck out a lot too, but persistence paid off.