You be the judge - sexual assault?

Those children do not know anything happened either.

So why are you dodging the question?

I mean, your contention has been the requirement of threat for harm and knowledge by the victim. Dr. Bradley's victims were never threatened and had no knowledge of what he was doing to them. Many could feel it, but had no understanding as to why it was wrong or untoward. So if we were to use your logic in this thread, Dr. Bradley committed no crime.

Unless you now wish to change what you have argued in this thread and turn it into something else?

Ah, so now the change. They need to find out that anything happened. What of Dr. Bradley's victims who were babies and never find out? Has he committed no crime against them when he fondled their vaginas through their nappies/diapers?

What of paedophile priests who groom their victims and then molest and rape them. The children are unaware that anything bad is happening. No crime, right? What of paedophiles who sneak photos of children in various stages of undress in a school changing room and trades it with other paedophiles to determine which child should be kidnapped for them to rape? The child is unaware, of course, until he or she is kidnapped. When do you think the crime actually occurs? Do you ignore the taking photos with intent to pick the victim and then plan the kidnapping and just focus on the kidnapping and rape? What if the child is drugged and unaware of the harm caused to them? I take it the kidnapping and possibly the rape is out of the question as well then, right, since your reasoning is that the victim has to feel or know of the threat for there to be harm. If a paedophile teacher drugs and rapes a child while that child is at school, and the child remains unaware, your reasoning or logic (or lack there of) would entail no crime has been committed. Because the child did not feel threatened and the child in unaware of what happened to them.

The only reason the perpetrator's actions were known in case A is because others spoke out. The victims were completely unaware.

Which brings me to the next question.

You argued that there needs to be threat or the victim needs to feel threatened for there to be harm. In Case A, the victims were not threatened, did not feel threatened and were unaware. So how can the doctors listed in Case A have committed a crime?

Try not dodging and actually answering in regards to the arguments you have made in this thread. In other words, try to be consistent.

And yet, you tried to dismiss it earlier when you said the victim "doesn't know anything happened" and demanded I try a different example...?

I think it is disturbing that we are now arguing whether raping and molesting children is really a crime if the victim does not know it actually happened and the victim was somehow not harmed by it because the victim did not feel threatened beforehand....

Are you for real?

Is this a troll? Are you posting this shit just to get a rise out of people?

Or do you actually believe what you are saying and why?

I want you to consider who in society makes such arguments and I want you to consider why they would be wrong.

To the one, it is our role to protect those who cannot protect or defend themselves. To suggest that the "real harm" is caused when the victims are informed of what happened to them is obscene. To the other, you completely ignore the actual crime committed against the victim by the perpetrator and the harm they ultimately cause. To blame others for informing the victim instead of the actual perpetrator who caused the actual harm..

I'll ask again, are you for real?

To suggest that raping a patient in a coma, for example, would not really be a crime because the victim did not feel threatened and was unaware of the assault... Because that is essentially what you have argued throughout this thread. It can be applied to a variety of criminal acts, such as raping a woman who is in a coma. Or a doctor sexually molesting a newborn baby who is unaware of any crime being committed against them.. To actually suggest or question if the "real harm" is caused to them by people telling them they are victims.. Why are you absolving the perpetrator of the crime he or she committed by placing the blame and "real harm caused" on those protecting the victim and future victims from the perpetrator?

Oh I'm sorry, you weren't the one who posted this?

Was this sideshowdave, your alternate personality, who wrote that?

Oh sweet Jesus..

I don't know sideshowbob.. What do you think is beneficial in portraying children as sexual objects or sexual beings to adults? What dangers can come from portraying children as sexual objects to paedophiles, I wonder? What can possibly go wrong with normalising the sexualisation of children to paedophiles....?

No no, please tell us how you really feel..

I'll be honest. The last time we had this particular discussion was with a paedophile named ScottX. Stryder banned him, permanently and I reported him to the police for some of the links he posted on this website due to nature of the photos, because the objects of those photos were children, to protect this website, the links were to paedophile online websites and because I am obligated by law to report, and not long after, Stryder being the internet whizz that he is, discovered ScottX was more than likely caught up in a paedophile ring that was tracked by police internationally online. ScottX was a school teacher to boot, by the way.

So I really do not think that you should be singing praises for raising or 'provoking some discussion'.

There are inherent dangers to what you have argued for in this thread, sideshowbob and I should not have to remind you of that. You are an intelligent man. I would never, ever, have pegged you for someone who would argue this:

*Sigh*

Why would drugging her be a crime? After all, by your logic, if she is unaware of it, is it really a crime?

 

I agree.

It is troubling and disturbing.

 

No, it is not.

Most people recognise that if a woman does not consent, then it is rape. And if a woman is unconscious, she is unable to consent, and it is therefore rape.

I do not understand why this is a gray area for you...

This reminds me of something...

Ah yes, Sir Matthew Hale:

"For the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."​

From the 17th century.

Just so you are aware, and in case you are married or in a relationship of any kind.. If a man or woman rapes his or her wife, partner, or same sex partner while she or he is unconscious, it is still rape. It is still a crime.

Consent is not implied. Implied consent is actually a myth. Something Australia recognised decades ago.

Perhaps you live in a country or community that still views women as chattels? Do you?