I'm not talking about this incident. I was talking theoretically in response to your point that lying about religion is like lying about a job. Some people take religion very seriously...
Yeah, and your scientology example was bang on.
However, I think she'd have to prove she was uber religious and people who are extremely devout and live by a stunning moral code where sex with a person of a different religion will kill their soul would/should not be having sex with strangers minutes after meeting them.
However, I think she'd have to prove she was uber religious and people who are extremely devout and live by a stunning moral code where sex with a person of a different religion will kill their soul would/should not be having sex with strangers minutes after meeting them.
I know - I was just trying to come up with a scenario.
Yeah, evidently a name like 'Algernon' is a serious dealbreaker. Should have rolled with Zach, and then when the deed was done you could profess that your name was Zach, but you may or may not have been the Zach she was looking for. Mistaken identity is a legal defense!
Good point.
"Oops... I guess I'm not exZACHly who you thought I was."
1) How did she ever discover who the guy actually was?
2) This skank must be related to the prosecutor or there is something else to this that's not in the story...
My best guess, he paid by cheque, it had his real name on it, it bounced.
However, I think she'd have to prove she was uber religious and people who are extremely devout and live by a stunning moral code where sex with a person of a different religion will kill their soul would/should not be having sex with strangers minutes after meeting them.
Not only would the prosecution have to prove that, they'd have to prove that the guy was aware of the fact and deceived her intentionally on that point in order to get at the goods. And that would really only get you in the door to it being a potential criminal act. There's still a long way to go to reach the point of a conviction. It's an incredibly slippery slope, which makes me think any chance of the courts entertaining charges in anything but the most egregious situations (like the twin brothers blind wife, which is really a different situation as she never consented to sex with the particular person in that scenario) is incredibly small.
So if she didn't clue in right away, the Palestinian guy must have been circumcised, right? Isn't that like, not kosher or whatever the corresponding term would be for a Muslim?
Its interesting that society will protect you from being conned out of money but not being conned out of sex.
Although the article points out that in in Israel the law does give some protection:
Quote:
While forced sexual intercourse by deception is an offence under Israeli law, experts say it is a charge used sparingly in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage.
I have to say, I like the idea that the law puts some limits as to how much you can BS another person to get laid.
