Motoring3 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The report I read said that the chap had merely told her that he wasn't married and that his name was 'Daniel' (apparently a very popular name amongst Jewish men).
It would be interesting to see whether a man in Isreal could sue a woman for misrepresenting herself if after a sexual encounter, he found that she'd had a boob job or was wearing foundation.
"You honour, I would never have had sex with her if I'd known that she had skin blemishes and was naturally flat chested".
A judicial minefield.
It would be interesting to see whether a man in Isreal could sue a woman for misrepresenting herself if after a sexual encounter, he found that she'd had a boob job or was wearing foundation.
"You honour, I would never have had sex with her if I'd known that she had skin blemishes and was naturally flat chested".
A judicial minefield.
Hiya everyone, Im new here and just had to sign up when I read this. What an absurd and ridiculous law! So is he being penalized for lying about his faith or maybe for being Arab as I suspect. So it was consensual sex with the woman liking the man till she found out his faith was different? What The Funicular? Is this a new form of super racism?
Ankou in both cases it wasn't rape just stupid loose women that later regretted how quick their knickers came off and how gullible they were and decided to call the cops. My worry is if these women were ignored by the police that may have actually lied and said they were forcefully raped in the normal sense of the word.
>> "In the verdict, Judge Zvi Segal said that the consent for sex was obtained under false pretenses. "If she had not thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," the judge wrote in his verdict.
What nonsense. Closer to the mark would be: If she had not *assumed* the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in *sex*, she *might* not have *shagged a man she met in the street earlier that day*.
For when and where she met him, see the BBC version of the story at http://www.bbc.co.uk/...middle-east-10717186. It's not rape. It's racism ...
What nonsense. Closer to the mark would be: If she had not *assumed* the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in *sex*, she *might* not have *shagged a man she met in the street earlier that day*.
For when and where she met him, see the BBC version of the story at http://www.bbc.co.uk/...middle-east-10717186. It's not rape. It's racism ...