Lovefraud recently received an email from a woman in Israel. She says that she was involved with a man for almost two years, and had sexual relations with him. He promised that they would marry and have children. The guy seemed to have a wife, but he claimed it was a fake marriage to get a passport. Well, he was, in fact, married and leading a double life—a con man. The woman is trying to get him prosecuted for “rape by deception.”
Yes, Israeli law includes the concept that consensual sex based on a false premise is rape. Here’s the actual law:
RAPE
345. (a) If a person had intercourse with a woman —
- (1) without her freely given consent;
- (2) with the woman’s consent, which was obtained by deceit in respect of the identity of the person or the nature of the act;
- (3) when the woman is a minor below age 14, even with her consent;
- (4) by exploiting the woman’s state of unconsciousness or other condition that prevents her from giving her free consent;
- (5) by exploiting the fact that she is mentally ill or deficient, if — because of her illness or mental deficiency — her consent to intercourse did not constitute free consent.
then he committed rape and is liable to sixteen years imprisonment.
When I first heard of this law, I was amazed. A law like this actually exists? What a great idea! How many of us have been lured into sex through deception? My sociopathic ex-husband told me that he was a financially stable entrepreneur, a decorated war veteran and in love with me—none of which was true. I would be thrilled to have him prosecuted for his outrageous lies.
Israeli case
Only a few people have been prosecuted under the “rape by deception” provision in Israel. One case from last year was the subject of a lot of media hype. It turned out to be a very bad case, unlikely to gather support for a law that many of us would probably like to see enacted here.
A man by the name of Saber Kushour was convicted of rape by deception because he led a Jewish woman to believe that he was a Jewish bachelor, and they had consensual sex. In fact he was a married Palestinian with two children. The woman filed a complaint.
Here is what Tzvi Segal, one of three judges in the case, said:
“The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price — the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims — actual and potential — to protect their wellbeing. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price.”
You can read about the story, and the verdict, in Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew on Guardian.co.uk.
As you would think by the above headline, the story touched off international criticism that the Israeli court was racist, and the law was a ploy to inhibit interracial dating.
Once details of the case were known, it got even messier. Apparently the woman, who was not named, approached Kushour as he walked out of a convenience store. Within 10 or 15 minutes of meeting, the two went to a nearby building and had sex.
The woman told police that she had been abused by her father since she was young and forced by him to become a sex worker. She also said that the sex wasn’t consensual; she was raped and left naked and bleeding.
Then it turned out that she had filed 14 previous rape complaints. The prosecution agreed to a plea bargain, reducing the sentence to “rape by deception,” supposedly to prevent a long cross-examination of the victim. My guess is that the prosecutors decided the woman wasn’t credible, and if they took the case to trial, they would lose. The prosecution took what it could get. But Kushour thought the sentence was too long—18 months— and he is appealing his conviction. Read:
Saber Kushour: ”˜My conviction for “rape by deception” has ruined my life’, on Guardian.co.uk.
Arab rape-by-deception charge ”˜was result of plea bargain’, on Guardian.co.uk.
Israeli Palestinian man to appeal rape-by-deception conviction, on CNN.com
Possible in the U.S.?
So, could there be such a law in the United States? Actually, a few states have similar laws—California, Tennessee, Alabama and Michigan. They’re called “rape by fraud” or “rape by coercion” laws.
Back in 1995, Nashville, Tennessee was all a-twitter about the case of the “Fantasy Man.” Raymond Mitchell III, a 45-year-old businessman, took to calling women late at night. In a sexy whisper, he persuaded them to unlock their doors, undress, put on a blindfold, and wait for him in bed. At least eight women thought he was their boyfriend and had sex with him.
Mitchell turned out to be a man with a double life. By day he was a churchgoer who spent time with his ailing mother and helped raise a fatherless nephew. By night he was the Fantasy Man. Mitchell was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison for rape by fraud and attempted rape by fraud. Read:
Three accuse ”˜Fantasy Man’ lover of rape on LATimes.com
Rape by fraud guilty verdict on NYDailyNews.com.
”˜Fantasy Man’ going to prison on News.Google.com.
In a similar case in Massachusetts, the perp was not convicted. A woman lived with her boyfriend in the basement of his father’s home. Her boyfriend’s brother also lived in the house. One night, while the woman slept and her boyfriend was at work, a man came into the room. It was dark, the woman thought her boyfriend had come home, they had sex—but it was the brother.
The brother was prosecuted for rape. But because Massachusetts law specifies that rape requires force, and the sex was consensual, the state supreme court ruled that no rape had been committed.
Read Does sex through fraud constitute rape? On Salon.com.
I have a feeling that we’re not going to see many rape by deception laws. Even if the laws were enacted, they wouldn’t be enforced. I mean, most prosecutors won’t go after people who commit bigamy, so they’re unlikely to go after people who are slick enough to talk themselves into other people’s pants.
/
.
Constantine,
I agree that with the underlying dynamics of the dysfunctional relationships plus the genetics it is very difficult to say where one thing stops and another starts.
For many years it was observed that there was a higher rate of dysfunction among adopted children, and it was “assumed” that it was because the kid knew he was adopted, felt abandoned by his primary genetic parents, etc ya da, ya da. At that time it was also “assumed” that kids were total products of their environment, so it “made sense” that there had to be some “reason” in their environment to cause that problematic behavior.
Well, of course, the basic idea that kids are 100% environment is patently FALSE….which for me, as an animal breeder has always been pretty obvious. Even my maternal grandparents who were farmers knew that there were “certain families” in the community with mental illness and that “you shouldn’t marry into that family.” BTW Thomas Jefferson’s family was very inbred with first cousins marrying for multiple generations. It is thought that his own mother was pretty much insane, and there is a book called “Jefferson’s Nephews” a historical account of some of his psychopathic nephews who murdered a slave named George in 1812 and buried his body in a chimney. The New Madrid earthquake that year toppled the chimney and the body was discovered. The family was eventually “outed” by debt and bad behavior, but it is a VERY interesting historical account of a family with typical psychopathic behavior—bad debts, bad business, trickery and murder. Jefferson had tried to get the brothers jobs and help them, but they kept having problems, typical of a psychopathic “entitlement” mind set. With your interest in history and psychopathy I think this book would be right down your alley!@.......
\
Constantine
The advantage of living in a small town where husband’s family was original settler is the family history is open knowledge.
Mommy is oldest sibling and the BOSS. She was one of the mean girls in high school. VERY abusive to her siblings. And one brother who went off to the service and when he came home and no longer kowtowed (i prefer the spelling cowtowed b/c it’s a dairy town) to her orders was ostracized by the family on her orders. The man died of alzeimers and she still insisted that if you wanted to be in her will or her good graces, you could not attend the funeral. (ps While he was still with it, I had him over for dinner.)
Husband’s father was a good ol boy SOB. Hated women. Told my husband that if he was ever considerate of me, it proved he was weak. Good news. Thereafter such wonderful spath training, my husband was NEVER considerate of me so guess that means he wasn’t weak.
I really do think my husband was so seductive b/c that was the basic condition of his primary relationship with his dominant parent. His dad was dominating and mean, but his mommy protected him from his dad. My husband was nature and nurtured into spathlife.
My husband’s mother’s family were known to be backstabbers from the get go. That’s why they never became prominent like all the other original settlers. Grandma was the town B, his mom was the town B, his GREAT grandparents were known for their cruelty. How far back do ya think the gene went. They didn’t call it spath 100 years ago but I know some of the stories and they were bizarre in their logic and treatment of others, MORE bizarre than other settlers (those with the mindset of original settlers are many times a little off. they run away from first families and they feel no pain so they survive better than others…)
Constantine, glad you ordered the book on Roman economy and down fall…It really is a well researched book….I think you’ll like the “Jefferson’s Nephews” too. Also well researched and interesting from a point of view of studying psychopaths, American economics, genetics and history.
The weather is too marvelous for me to be inside reading much now, but am enjoying the outside while it is nice. This winter I will really be back into the reading binges when it gets cold.
Oxy
Very interesting story. Fits my theory about spaths who stay in the same small town are actually a nest of vipers. They instigate each other to do bad things, and they egg each other on, and they excuse each other as if such thinking is normal (well, normal for them), BUT not a one trusts any of the others….. NO LOYALTY even as they used each other. In my husband’s family, they control by WILL, that is, they dangle the family will as bait. Best be good or ya get nothing. Screwy way to live. Controlled by what you might get when you are too old to spend it?
Katy,
I think in many ways pioneers are “risk takers” and that means high in P-traits, so I think in many ways our “founding fathers” were high in risk taking, were the ones who moved out from the settled lands of home, went to the wilderness and survived because they could do what it took to survive, and sometimes that survival depended on being the meanest mo’fo on the mountain. (how’s that for a run-on sentence? Mrs. Barlow would whip me for that! LOL) Anyway, the self-selection of those that were “survivors” and “pioneers” I think contributed to the gene pool of those Scots Irish ancestors of mine that were a hard drinking, hard fighting, clanish bunch of pioneers. Add in a bit of inbreeding and you have got some tough mo’fos. Jefferson’s family were the aristocrats, but they also inbred to keep the money in the family. They too were the ones who were the risk takers leaving England and Europe for the opportunity in the colonies.
Many times sailors were the “rough crowd” as well, still are many times. Pilots and bull riders, cowboys and political candidates, kings and dictators. Of course there are the Bernie madoffs as well, the “Casper milque-toast” type of crook/psychopath.
Constantine,
I believe that the similarities between spaths comes from their childhood. Any person, whether it is a POW, or a slave or a woman with an abusive husband or a child with n-parents, will learn ways to insure their survival. Pleasing/appeasing the abuser, in the form of love-bombing and brown-nosing authorities are 2 spath traits that would insure the survival of someone who is powerless.
That is basically what a spath does. He uses the methods of a powerless person: Deceit, conniving, trickery and brown-nosing. But in this case, the person isn’t powerless at all. So it unexpected to say the least.
In the book, “Why is it always about you?” the author describes the 3 trick pony: charm, pity and rage.
These are the manipulations of a human infant – the most powerless creature on earth. A baby must charm it’s parents to survive and elicit pity when it’s hungry. When all else fails, it must scream in rage. (hopefully it won’t get shaken to death).
So in general, I would say that spath behavior comes from the most primitive place in the human mind.
There are other behaviors that are equally primitive but don’t have a parallel in infancy. Instead, these behaviors, such as putting the victim on a pedestal before sacrificing them, scapegoating, projecting blame etc…, parallel the behaviors of primitive cultures trying to appease an unseen but angry god.
Rene Girard is a great source of information for that.
IMO, the spaths are very much the same because their behavior is based on a common denominator: the snake brain. Most of their behaviors/motivations are based on primal emotions, even though it appears (and they believe) that they have no emotions at all.
It’s ironic that so much of human nature can be best understood by looking at it from 180 degrees the opposite of what it appears.
Katy, “controlled by what you might get when you are too old to spend it” LOL
My egg donor said to me a while back (year or two ago I think) “well, I haven’t changed my WILL, you know” like that would influence how I communicated (or didn’t) with her. She tried using money to control me, or the PROMISE of money, not realizing that eventually, if you beat a dog enough times, even for a steak it won’t come to you. It has never gotten through to her that it is NOT ABOUT MONEY. To her I think money is everything now, to me, it is less than nothing. She doesn’t get that. I’ve never asked her for money, or taken money she offered, because I’ve known all along that any “gifts” would have STRINGS attached and I didn’t want that. My ex-in-laws used to “do things” for my first husband and me, and I quickly learned that the “gifts” and “things” had STRINGS attached, so I was careful to never become “beholden” to my own egg donor for anything. Even though that was the FACT she still accused me of trying to “get her money.” Funny thing, though, I was the one do did NOT try to take her money, I tried to protect her from the ones who DID steal her money or get her to give it to them by deception….”Oh, grandma, I’ve found JEEEZZZUS, SEND MONEY.” LOL Talk about Gallows humor!
.