Case against Rubel to be dropped because of world cup win :blink:

[Spark]

That makes more sense, but there's still the issue that it sort of treats *** as a sort of "prize" to be given away on the promise of favours as opposed to something that, well, happens between consenting adults.

 

[Dan]

That makes more sense, but there's still the issue that it sort of treats *** as a sort of "prize" to be given away on the promise of favours as opposed to something that, well, happens between consenting adults.

Yeah, certainly, which is why this whole time I've been saying that no matter what perspective you take, there are arguments against it. That's the entire point I'm making -- no matter what someone argues or advocates in this situation, there's always a "but there's still the issue that..."

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, indeed.

This Rubel situation strikes me as something that -- if it has to proceed through the legal system at all -- could be addressed through the not-criminal bit of the judicial system (civil suit? torts? I don't know the actual term there, which is rather dire).

Fraud can be both a criminal offence and a tort. If she's been financially put out by Rubel's original promise and then backflip then she should absolutely be able to sue for damages, whether he was being deliberately deceptive or not (and irrespective of the ***, even). From a criminal perspective however, his original intentions should absolutely be relevant and indeed need to be proven if there is to be any crime at all, IMO, and if there is to be a crime I'd definitely lean more towards criminal fraud than rape.

Again it's important to emphasise the "should" here; I'm not suggesting that's how it actually works at all.

 

[smash84]

yeah, Dan's argument reminds me of that prostitute who when asked by the police that when did she realize that rape had been committed? She replied "only when I asked for money and didn't get it."

 

[Spark]

yeah, Dan's argument reminds me of that prostitute who when asked by the police that when did she realize that rape had been committed? She replied "only when I asked for money and didn't get it."

Whether or not that's rape though (and that's certainly much closer to rape than the Rubel case) that is absolutely illegal and should be hammered.

 

[smash84]

Whether or not that's rape though (and that's certainly much closer to rape than the Rubel case) that is absolutely illegal and should be hammered.

well, Rubel's case is quite similar in some ways. A promise of marriage (money) not being fulfilled.

 

[hendrix]

That makes more sense, but there's still the issue that it sort of treats *** as a sort of "prize" to be given away on the promise of favours as opposed to something that, well, happens between consenting adults.

This this this.

If we didn't have the example of prostitution where *** is treated as a prize, there would be nothing we could compare this to. But even that is fundamentally different. You can't marry someone who doesn't want to marry you.

I'm quite confident that most feminists would be appalled at a rape conviction here and would question why you'd want to marry someone who doesn't want to marry you.

 

[hendrix]

well, Rubel's case is quite similar in some ways. A promise of marriage (money) not being fulfilled.

the "promise" of marriage (engagement) as we all know is something that can fall through and is not the same thing as actual marriage.

The exchange of money for a *** act is more than a promise, it's a transaction.

 

[hendrix]

Such a drama queen, Happy wrote all these when the match was ongoing:

''Yessss! I’m very happy. Got wicket. Well done Babu (baby), keep it up,” she wrote.

She sent a kiss his way after the dramatic win. “I’m speechless.”

“I hope Rubel plays well in all the upcoming matches. Like all cricket fans, I want him to succeed. My congratulations to the entire team,” -bdnews24.com

She is bat**** crazy.

Stay the **** away, Rubel.

 

[Jarquis]

I read Dan's essay up to the point of 'retroactively withdrawing consent' - do you even get how it works?

 

[weldone]

well, Rubel's case is quite similar in some ways. A promise of marriage (money) not being fulfilled.

Marriage and money aren't the same though. Money is not always one of the main reasons for marriage either. Sometimes you may want to marry someone regardless of money, simply because you miss that person so much that you want to spend (at least a large portion of) your life with him/her.

 

[smash84]

Marriage and money aren't the same though. Money is not always one of the main reasons for marriage either. Sometimes you may want to marry someone regardless of money, simply because you miss that person so much that you want to spend (at least a large portion of) your life with him/her.

 

[Spikey]

why dont we call it like marriage fraud or something and not rape. although pews' point of whether Rubel intentionally misled or just got cold feet still confuses matters

 

[GIMH]

Marriage and money aren't the same though. Money is not always one of the main reasons for marriage either. Sometimes you may want to marry someone regardless of money, simply because you miss that person so much that you want to spend (at least a large portion of) your life with him/her.

Weldone with groundbreaking insight here

 

[Flem274*]

i arrived at that dan post on my phone during break. jesus man that was a curve ball when my mind was already goo.

 

[Zinzan]

Bangladesh and Kyrgyzstan - from one extreme to another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKAusMNTNnk

 

[hendrix]

If she's been financially put out by Rubel's original promise and then backflip then she should absolutely be able to sue for damages, whether he was being deliberately deceptive or not (and irrespective of the ***, even)..

Well, if she'd put down a down-payment on a wedding venue (with his knowledge) then maybe, but they weren't even officially engaged. But going further than that sets a dangerous precedent. She might argue that she can no longer find work because she's not "virtuous" anymore or some other bull****.

That's where laws like this encourage really anti-feminist culture. It promotes the idea that the woman is losing some of her value simply by having ***.

 

[Zinzan]

Well, if she'd put down a down-payment on a wedding venue (with his knowledge) then maybe, but they weren't even officially engaged. But going further than that sets a dangerous precedent. She might argue that she can no longer find work because she's not "virtuous" anymore or some other bull****.

That's where laws like this encourage really anti-feminist culture. It promotes the idea that the woman is losing some of her value simply by having ***.

lol at people even trying to rationalise it. Welcome to the world outside the 'West'. Btw - this is relatively mild compared to other countries traditions.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

thank god all our mods aren't lawyers

wait

 

[honestbharani]

I strongly disagree with that line of thinking. I think in essence you are mixing what is moral with what is legal. Maybe Rubel is a complete douche (like many men) and would've said anything to have *** with that girl. That makes him a bad person, but not a criminal. Rape to me is clear-cut: If the woman was forced into *** without her consent, than it's rape. The definition of consent shouldn't be muddied, IMO, to include "conditions", as in "I only give you consent if you promise to marry me".

Let me point out problems with such conditional consents using an extreme scenario: What if a guy tells a gal, "have *** with me because I'm really good in bed and you won't be displeased". Say they then proceed to have *** and the girl decides, well hell, I AM displeased. Is that a case of rape because her "consent" was driven by a promise of ***ual satisfaction?

I think we should simply stick with the "no means no" traditional definition of rape or we'll run into a lot of trouble.

Also, there is a classic case of delaying the pay off till the condiitions are met, in cases where consent is conditional...


Basically, the girl could have decided to wait till Rubel married her before sleeping with him if her consent was always conditional upon them marrying in the future.