In this increasingly bizarre story, Rivky has just put a very brief audio clip of Yoel on her website - saying that she said that he raped her.
"So, she's laying down in bed with me, an hour later I want to have sex with her again, this time she's busy there saying no. After we finished with her she said you know you raped me"
The context of the quote is not given and I would like to hear the whole recording as well as finding out who Yoel was talking with, who recorded the conversation and whether Yoel was aware that he was being recorded. Perhaps more important did she say it with hurt and anger or did she say it with a smile?
A possible answer can be found in the video below where she talks about Yoel raping her. At about 5 minutes she says something that is seems incomprehensible. Perhaps someone can give me a rational explanation.
“When he was raping me he wouldn’t let me kiss him on the mouth because it wasn’t about intimacy”.Here she is describing how she was brutally raped by her husband. She states that it was rape and not normal intimacy because she wasn't allowed to kiss him?! What woman being raped is upset that she can't kiss her rapist? What she is clearly saying is that if he had allowed her to kiss him on the mouth - she would not have considered it rape but intimacy?
Why would allowing her to kiss him make it not rape? What if he allowed her one kiss but not two - is it still rape? I don't think she would convince a jury that she had been brutally raped simply because he didn't want her to kiss him.
@Eddie the other parts are clearly not my point. Her other accusations - whether true or not is as you said best left for expert judges.
ReplyDeleteHowever she clearly states that she is ready to claim rape if he doesn't allow her to kiss him. I don't think there is any jury in the world that would agree that constitutes rape.
The 13 seconds (!!) recording is clearly posted out-of-context. They are afraid of posting the entire length of the conversation because it would make clear that that tiny 13 second snippet does not mean what they are trying to make it sound like he means when the edit 13 seconds out of a long conversation, cutting off the conversation before those 13 seconds and cutting off the recording after the 13 seconds.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, I have to say, I think you completely misunderstood what she was saying.
ReplyDeleteWhen she described not being able to kiss him on the mouth, she wasn't talking specifically about when they had sex, she was talking about the entire duration of the marriage. That he never let her kiss him on the mouth, during any time of their marriage, because their relationship involved no emotional intimacy.
At least, that is what she is claiming. Please, I beg you to listen again to the video clip.
Is there any other part of the video besides for 5:00-5:12 where she mentions him not allowing her to kiss him on the mouth?
It's against the law to record someone without their knowledge.
ReplyDeleteHowever she clearly states that she is ready to claim rape if he doesn't allow her to kiss him. I don't think there is any jury in the world that would agree that constitutes rape.
ReplyDeleteIn all due respect I don't think she is saying what you are claiming. It sounds to me, when I listen to it, that he would never kiss her on the mouth during marital relations, but rather that, according to her, he was using marital relations to dominate and control her, and thus denied her even the most basic demonstrations of intimacy.
Also that one sound bite that we have of Yoel, by itself sounds pretty damning. Clearly he says that she was saying no the whole time. The typical definition of rape is when a man progresses with marital relations when the woman has said no.
However, the problem is that all we have is a sound bite. We lack any and all context. Who was Yoel talking to? Why was he telling them this? What was said before and after that small sound bite?
The D.A. is back.
ReplyDeleteI have never defended Rivki, don't know her or her supporters, and even with this post, I am not defending her. I am just asking questions to get a better understanding, and maybe some of your viewers would be interested in getting answers to these questions, as well.
As anyone who watches the the video will realize, this is an edited video (there is nothing wrong with that). Different clips of what Rivki was filmed saying to the camera where combined together to make one long video. Therefore, when combining her spoken words, you have to take into account the "end" of each clip that was combined with the "start" of the "next clip". Each clip needs to be viewed in its own silo.
I just watched part of the video again (I watched it in the past), and didn't hear the quote you are attributing to her.
You wrote that she said the following: “When he was raping me he wouldn’t let me kiss him on the mouth because it wasn’t about intimacy”.
Here is what I heard:
Clip Start 4:49
"and he would rape me to show me that he is powerful and that I am the weak one, and when ever he had to assert his control and his power over me, he would rape me."
Clip Start 5:00
"it wasn't about, in fact, he actually he never let me kiss him on the mouth there was never never ever a kiss on the mouth. Because there wasn't it wasn't about intimacy, it was just about control."
1) Even if you will argue, that the words of each clip should be combined to form one sentence, I still didn't hear the quote as you wrote it.
2) If you are going to argue that she edited the video since your post:
a) Do you have a downloaded version that backs up your quote? Can you upload it, so we can all see/hear the change?
b) Correct me if I am wrong, but if she would of taken the video down and made changes to it, wouldn't the upload date have changed from June 18, 2014 to yesterday (July 24, 2014)? Wouldn't the view count have reset and not be at 116,802? The video also has 492 "Likes" and 134 "Dislikes"
You are correct, that if two people are having a conversation which you are not a party to, and you record the conversation without notifying in advance at least one of the parties that you will be recording the conversation, it would be illegal.
ReplyDeleteYou would not be correct, if one of the people that were part of that conversation knew the conversation was being recorded.
1) By NY state law, it is legal to record a conversation:
a) when both parties to the conversation are in NY state and
b) as long as at least one party to the conversation knows, the conversation is being recorded.
2) If at least two of the parties to the conversation are in two different states, then Federal Law applies. According to Federal Law, as long as at least one party to the conversation knows the conversation is being recorded, it is totally legal.
Rape is rape. The idea that Ms. Stein doesn't understand what rape is just so ridiculous, I don't even know what to say.
ReplyDeleteHer argument is a bit more complex than what you present.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, marital rape is highly complex, and more difficult to prove than say ch'vshalom a violent rape in the street.
Next, she is presenting a case for physical and psychological abuse throughout the marriage (whether real or concocted).
When i started playing at 5 mins it did sound the way you present it, but listening to the whole tape, it is something differnet. she has obviously been coached or educated, to speak in modern secular terms. I think it is dangerous to take all of Yoeli's words as being 100% true, and all of hers as being false - regardless of the BD being a complete falsehood.
It is possible that she has some mental issues, or that he does, or they both do.
@menachem - you are right you don't know what to say. I'am sure you enjoy living in a world which is clear and everything is black or white and there are no uncertainties.
ReplyDeletePlease explain what "Rape is rape". One prominent rosh yeshiva told me that he comes from a very exhausting day and he can barely move. However when he sees that his wife is in need of attention - he tries to please her. Is he being raped since he clearly doesn't want sexual relations and it is only his desire to please his wife that makes him do it? Or is it not rape because he doesn't tell her he isn't interested?
Similarly if a woman isn't attracted to her husband but she wants to stay married for the sake of the kids - and she has sex with her husband - is she being raped? Or again because she didn't tell him he finds him disgusting - it isn't rape?
What about if a woman only wants really passionate sex but her husband only scores a D in performance. Is she being raped since she really only wants an A++ performance? Or perhaps it isn't rape because she wants to remain married and she can handle the disappointment.
What if his wife is always interested - but he has sex while she is sleeping. Is that rape? Or perhaps it isn't because he can assume she would be willing?
Finally what if she say she isn't interested - but he persists and has sex with her against her will - is that rape because she repeatedly said she wasn't interested and she resisted? Or since she became aroused and had full pleasure at the end - it is not rape?
What if she says yes but finds it an unpleasant experience which she doesn't try to stop - is that rape?
Finally what if she says no, doesn't resist but afterwards she says it was nice - is that rape?
Contrary to your naive belief - establishing whether a man who frequently has sexual relations with a woman is in a particular instance raping her - is not easy to establish as is well known by social workers, police, laywers and judges. It is even harder in a situation where she has made no mention to anyone for years - and yet when she wants a divorce proclaims to the world that she has been frequently raped by her husband.
@Eddie - at this point one can legitimately have questions about what Yoel has said and say this needs futher investigation and clarification - but one can not be certain that she is telling the truth. She does not have a hezkas kashrus because of her documented lies and the absence of evidence supporting her.
ReplyDeleteI do have problems with your statement "it is dangerous to take all of Yeol'is words as being 100% true" I would not word it so strongly and I think at most one is allowed to have questions that need further investigation if it is personally relevant. There is no justification for a massive campaign of villification and publically declaring him to be evil.
I quite agree - I am not chas v'shalom calling either party evil. that is precisely my point that each side is telling a self serving story, and from my understanding of halacha, even the Dayan must not l'chatchila presume either party to be rasha. None of the statments or videos have been made with a shavua, so it is possible for them to lie. On the other hand, clearly whoever falsified the Mill Basin documents is a rasha gemur(a). It could have been one of the "fixers" who is backing Rivky.
ReplyDeleteNo means no. If she resists and he has sexual intercourse, this is definitely rape.
ReplyDeleteDid you not learn this at psychologist's school?
"Finally what if she say she isn't interested - but he persists and has
ReplyDeletesex with her against her will - is that rape because she repeatedly said
she wasn't interested and she resisted? Or since she became aroused and
had full pleasure at the end - it is not rape?"
Actually Rambam considers this particular case to be rape (of a married woman), and she is not liable. Whether it applies witin marriage is a different and difficult question.
My cynical view is that because the marriage didn't work out, then retroactively she is calling it rape, because she had different expectations. On the other hand, there may have been abuse and violence we are unaware of. The fact finding in halacha is different than secular system. Was there some violence and her feminist supporters have built a big monster out of this? It reminds me of a woman in the USA who was awarded $40Billion for her husband dying from smoking!
having worked in video editing it is clear that there was a cut made there and that Rabbi Tzadok is correct. She was initially discussing a rape situation and then a cut was made where she was talking about sexual relations in general and how even "normal" relations were not loving because they would not kiss on the mouth. The video editor did a poor job with that cut by not establishing context but it's clear to me from the edit.
ReplyDeleteI was having a complex issues with my husband, I tried voodoo and white magic without any success But when
ReplyDeleteMr Robinson performed a love spell for me, it was fantastic and very powerful, It was amazing, he was a miracle worker, The king of of love spell, his powerful spells brought back my lover, he is a professional spell caster, his spell deserves a credit. I like people who can get things done, after 3 days I got a phone call from my lover who has refused to call me for almost 3 months, I'm so happy! I felt like a little kid when we met each other again. I am more than satisfied! my greatest joy was to have my lover again, contact by email robinsonbuckler@yahoo. com or call him + 19715126745
Ahhh. So this isn't in defense of Ms Stein and her cohorts, Mr. Just the Facts? Ahhhh. How delusional can one be?
ReplyDeleteYour original belief that she was equating not being able to kiss him with rape, is a reasonable misunderstanding. I can see how, with the video editing, if you miss a couple of words, you can interpret it very differently. (It looks like you posted it pretty late at night, around 2am, although, you could have written the post much earlier in the evening, I suppose.)
ReplyDeleteBut, I would claim that the vast majority of reasonably intelligent, objective observers, would understand that Rivky was referring to a lack of emotional intimacy in their marriage, not specifically during the alleged rapes.
I urge you, for the sake of clarity, to either take down this post, or make an update, to reflect that.
She could have completely fabricated the abuse, but there's enough confusion as it is.
What about the recording. Is authentic, or may there have been editing?
ReplyDelete___
However, I will quote Rabbi Tzadok:
However, the problem is that all we have is a sound bite. We lack any and all context. Who was Yoel talking to? Why was he telling them this? What was said before and after that small sound bite?
Did rifky respond to yoelis offer?
ReplyDeletewhere's rifkys response to yoels very fairly offer?
ReplyDeleteShe is saying that in general their relationship is about control and not intimacy. The lack of kissing is an example of that. You are completely misunderstanding what she is saying.
ReplyDelete