The notion that deception regarding "critical characteristics" could constitute rape differs to the extreme from the traditional definition of rape. First of all the notion that the deception itself constitute some kind of rape is laughable. The people involved are consenting to sexual relations at that time not to a life-long relationship, marriage or whatever. The deception does not mean that the people are not consenting to the sexual act at that time. Secondly it is impossible to define these "critical characteristics", they could be anything depending on the individuals involved. It's not like the courts are going to be able to determine the conditions upon which adult women may consent to sex (and men too for that matter, the ruling isn't even gender-neutral: it's like the idea that women could lie about "critical characteristics" had never occurred to Rubinstein). The judge's extreme stretching of the term rape means that it can now be applied to almost any sexual relationship. For example it opens the possibility for two people to simultaneously rape each other during consensual sex. Two victimless "crimes" and yet there are two "victims" and two "perpetrators", I would love to see how a court would handle that...
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Iran plans missile upgrade after receiving Russian anti-air system within two months (Reuters)
from the article: Bedouin man accused of rape after posing as Jewish pilot