Why rape is unique and why should it be a distinct crime from battery?

[GeoffP]

Should this extend to impersonating anyone that the victim would not otherwise have sex with, such as a famous or rich person?

Or how 'bout this little scenario?

"He told me that he loved me. I wouldn't have had sex with him had he not promised to marry me."

No - consent in this case is still to the party, without impersonation. I can't see another ruling on this.

 

[Randwolf]

Dunno - seems I've made the only real point in this thread thus far (rape involves battery)

Your point is invalid in many, many cases. Google statutory rape. No battery need be involved. Nor force. Nor coercion. Unless you infer coercion by definition if one person is of majority age and the other isn't. Just sayin'...

 

[GeoffP]

It extends to any kind of impersonation.



The question is: would a reasonable person agree that she probably would not have consented to sex if she had known that his promise was a lie? The answer to that question would depend on the factual evidence of the case at hand.

On the other hand, that might not be relevant in such a case because the promise to marry might not be considered a proximate part of the consent required for the sex. That is, it may be that consent requires only that she know with whom she is having sex, that she understands what sex involves, that she consents freely at the time to the particular act(s). Reasonable people usually realise that promises can be broken. Any action taken on the basis of a promise is a risk to some degree. The deception in this example may not vitiate legal consent to the sex act, even though it is morally objectionable.

A dishonest lawyer - excuse me: a lawyer - could conceivably argue that this was a little 'prostitutive': services for goods promised, if one excuses the pun. Is that then rape or fraud?

This was rape then, right, James?

I think this would qualify. Then again, I think I'm going to contradict myself above: there's consent, but not to the party. Frankly, I'm skeptical of these yes/no dilemmas: simply make a new law.

BTW, I never once argued that victims were responsible for their own rape.

I don't think anyone of any sense would think you had. Then again, there are many people of no sense, or 'nonsense'.

 

[Kittamaru]

These are tough questions that law makers have to deal with. If you don't like the thread, don't participate.

Run along now, Kittamaru.

Indeed, it is the questions that the law makers deal with - thankfully, for all of civilized society, you are not one of these law makers.

It has nothing to do with if I like this thread or not - my question, which continues to remain unanswered, is thus - what is the purpose of this thread? What are you after?

Your point is invalid in many, many cases. Google statutory rape. No battery need be involved. Nor force. Nor coercion. Unless you infer coercion by definition if one person is of majority age and the other isn't. Just sayin'...

Statutory rape is its own animal entirely, since it invalidates the idea of consent entirely.

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.

As defined in:
Cocca, Carolyn E. 2004. Jailbait: The Politics of Statutory Rape Laws in the United States. Albany : State University of New York Press.

and

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc

In this case, yes, coercion is implied in a way - the person is, due to either being too young/mature, or otherwise mentally unprepared, unable to give consent.

 

[GeoffP]

Some districts already use the definition of 'rape by fraud': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception.

So... separate litigation exists.

 

[Trooper]

Indeed, it is the questions that the law makers deal with - thankfully, for all of civilized society, you are not one of these law makers.

It has nothing to do with if I like this thread or not - my question, which continues to remain unanswered, is thus - what is the purpose of this thread? What are you after?

I vote.

How rape is treated under the criminal law can have significant effects on our status. Therefore, current and unbiased views will allow everyone to make informed decisions and take considered action on these controversial issues.

Kittamaru - kindly make a point or exit the thread stage left.

 

[Randwolf]

Indeed, it is the questions that the law makers deal with - thankfully, for all of civilized society, you are not one of these law makers.

It has nothing to do with if I like this thread or not - my question, which continues to remain unanswered, is thus - what is the purpose of this thread? What are you after?

Perhaps she would like an answer to her OP.

Does anyone agree with the woman in the following video, who believes that the best way to overcome the inequality of women is to assert a parallel between rape and nonsexual violent assaults, if not, why?​

Why don't you enlighten us?

Statutory rape is its own animal entirely, since it invalidates the idea of consent entirely.

And?

In this case, yes, coercion is implied in a way - the person is, due to either being too young/mature, or otherwise mentally unprepared, unable to give consent.

And? All of this has exactly squat to do with your vaunted point of "all rape involves battery." Remember, battery is "the use of force against another". No force is involved in many cases of statutory rape. Ergo, your point is invalid. Concede, already.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.

These persons are considered to not have any right to have sex.

 

[Trooper]

No - consent in this case is still to the party, without impersonation. I can't see another ruling on this.

I get a call from a guy, who said that he was a record producer and was bringing in his client, who had hurt his back. He wanted to make sure that we could keep it on the down low. He said that it was Roger Waters. I wasn't a big Pink Floyd fan at the time and had never heard of him. No one else knew what he looked like. Well, excitement ensues, and in enters a big fat, red-haired, Irish man with a heavy accent. He had fractured a disk. So, they admit him. He prances around the hospital telling everyone who he is. Says that he has a concert in Europe in a few days and offers to pay one of the physicians an enormous amount of cash to fly with him and keep him comfortable. He convinces the doctor to order a case of morphine to take with them and says his pilot will pick it up from the hospital pharmacy. A man shows up in plain coveralls and exits with the morphine. He then convinces the hot X-ray tech to sneak him out that night and take him hot tubbing at her place. The dumbass slept with him. She brings him back and the next morning his room is empty. The hospital ate the bill, of course. The president of the corporation, administrator, and all involved (including myself) was called in and told to keep our mouth shut, or else. Well, it’s been years, and the corporation went belly up, but now I know what Roger Waters looks like. I've always wondered if they pulled that same scam elsewhere.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying, Geoff.

That was a true story. She thought she had sex with Roger Waters. She bragged about it to everyone. When the truth came out, she felt violated. She would have never had sex with a con-artist had she known.

However, in your opinion, this is not rape? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[Kittamaru]

Perhaps she would like an answer to her OP.

Does anyone agree with the woman in the following video, who believes that the best way to overcome the inequality of women is to assert a parallel between rape and nonsexual violent assaults, if not, why?​

Why don't you enlighten us?

I believe the best way to overcome the "inequality of women" is to recognize two things:
1) Women and Men are, inherently, different. It's a fact of biology that they are physiologically and psychologically distinct and different, and are more naturally apt towards certain things than the other.
2) Despite the above, NOTHING beyond that which requires certain... equipment... is beyond either gender, and they should not consider anything the exclusive domain of either men nor women on the basis of gender.

In other words - once we stop separating ourselves based on gender and start accepting each other as brothers and sisters on this fourth rock from the sun, we will be able to overcome these inequalities and treat each other as true equals - not just for the basis of gender, but race, religion, et al.

And?


And? All of this has exactly squat to do with your vaunted point of "all rape involves battery." Remember, battery is "the use of force against another". No force is involved in many cases of statutory rape. Ergo, your point is invalid. Concede, already.

I thought it was rather obvious - rape is x, statutory rape is y. Then again, legally speaking, I do not believe statutory rape exists - rather, it is a collective term (citation - "State Legislators’ Handbook for Statutory Rape Issues" (PDF). U.S Department of Justice - Office for Victims of Crime.) Typically, its designation depends on what is going on - for example, Statutory Rape involving "sex with a consenting yet underage minor" is typically called corruption of a minor or unlawful sex with a minor. If the minor is forced, physically or otherwise, it is often called Sexual Battery of a Child or Sexual Assault of a Child.

Thus, rape and statutory rape are not interchangeable items.

Thus, while something can be statutory rape without involving battery, at present (excluding some special jurisdictions it would appear) all rape involves some form of battery, on the basis that you are physically violating someones body against their wishes.

Per Cornell University Law School:

Battery
Definition
1. In criminal law, a physical act that results in harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.

2. In tort law, the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.

Do you, Randwolf, wish to explain how Rape can, in some way, occur WITHOUT "offensive contact"?

These persons are considered to not have any right to have sex.

Not exactly - it is presumed that they are emotionally and mentally incapable of (too immature) to understand the risks, and as a result, give consent for, sexual relations.

Much the same as they cannot enter into a legally binding contract.

 

[GeoffP]

Rape as defined clearly does encompass nonconsent without force. But that's in the case of minors: the rationale for that latter protection is that minors don't understand the context and so don't know what they're getting into. Is it not more reasonable to conclude that adults do know, or rather have a better capacity to understand fraudulent or immoral purpose, and so in such cases are victims of fraud? The woman in this case agreed to sleep with him - so there's consent, rather than nonconsent, without force. Yet the last two sentences in your first paragraph were very telling: she felt violated and would never have had sex with a con-artist she didn't know. So... on the whole... I think it is rape after all. Sex crimes are sex crimes. They have a special character. Would I make an exception here and not in the case of say, someone who impersonated a fiancee or something? Of course not. In essence, the two things cannot be different.

I have a Devil's counter-argument, though: since the woman wanted to be able to claim that she'd slept with someone in Pink Floyd, this suggests fraud: she slept with him for the social 'currency' of making that claim. By public proclamation of the act, she attempted to convert it into that very social currency. As such, the act transits from the personal (a sex crime) into the public (fraud). I don't really believe any of that, but I would bet it's been tried in a court and I'm curious to see how one would counter.

 

[Tiassa]

At present, it is not rape, and thus is not pertinent to this conversation...

Thirty-eight minutes of some man minimizing rape, and our neighbor can't comprehend that fraud might be offensive to the defrauded.

Thirty-eight minutes of advertising exploiting sensationalism so that we can hear a man tell us everything we need to know about rape.

A lazy topic post. Intellectual sloth. Apparently this aspect of the rape phenomenon is so important that she needs people to sit through thirty-eight minutes that she can't be bothered to distill in any way.

But first he's going to tell us something about parents selecting the sex of their child.

I find it interesting that we should consider it a mundane assertion that people would not find being defrauded offensive.

I think, however, that we could start making rape "just another assault", but alongside that, well, you know those people who teach sexual "virtue" to their children? Those people would need to be arrested and jailed for making too big a deal out of sexual immorality; the damage their confusion causes, when rape is "just another assault", is criminal. Furthermore, transforming rape into just another assault would mean anti-abortion people are evil for trying to prevent women from seeking medical attention to solve the injuries inflicted by this particular assault. They, too, will need to be jailed for aiding and abetting assaults.

But given the prominence he puts on "humiliation" as the factor that makes sexual violence "special", and maybe in his thirty-eight minutes he unpacks that somewhat so that it makes sense in some context other than a well-to-do male telling women about rape, but you know, that sort of thing wasn't important enough for our topic poster to explain, so no, I'm not sitting through thirty-eight minutes of the British petit-bourgeoisie telling women in India about rape.

Of course, the idea that the penis is a weapon would rise front and center; assault and battery? Sure, in the way that stabbing or shooting someone is. It's just that I don't see how getting rid of the word "rape" will make the actual phenomenon go away. Maybe Trooper would be happy if, like, we started calling all black people "whitey", and then black people would ... what, disappear? It's always interesting to watch people pick up a new tool and have exactly zero ideas about how it works and what it is used for.

There are, or course, similar processes between the characterization of rape as just another assault and the question of broken promises. In either case, that the question exists in the twenty-first century is by the will of men. We could have legislated for our daughters' virtue at any point over the centuries, but we didn't; either the virtue is a lie or too many men feel they'll lose too much if society goes in that direction. But as it is, the general tendency in societies of all developmental stages is to do what it can to protect the unwrit right of a man to get laid. The breadth of factors compressed into the question of broken promises is such that we really do enter the realm by which we can call a woman does owe a man sex because he bought dinner, and then we can turn around and call her a prostitute.

Many people think they've found a bauble of insight but fail to check it against the rest of the shards on the market. In the end, it becomes a question of specificity, such as inquiring why we might redefine these specific issues so generally.

And it is morbidly entertaining, in a way. Under such a general circumstance I can actually think of a woman I know who would get burned in court for being a genuinely lousy lay. That is to say, No means no, and yes, you're supposed to stop even mid-thrust if she decides she's done, and we need not dispute these principles. But under the generalizing scheme our neighbor's rape-as-just-another-assault notion requires, yes, I can indeed see a circumstance that comes down to the court having to look at an alleged rape victim and say, "So ... when was the last time you actually got a guy off during sexual congress?"

Better yet, imagine a woman up on one of these assault charges: She told me she was good in bed. And she's lousy. Just kisses the tip? Can't take a full thrust? Doesn't swallow, won't finish, and is verbally abusive about it all.

Yeah. Poor dude.

And, yes, I've had a lover like that. Go down, wait for her to tell you to penetrate, copulate for thirty seconds, then stop because she's done. After a while, it becomes routine. And in the end, 'tis better to simply admit that one's own hand is more stimulating, and stay the hell out of that particular bed. But dude, the number of women who could be brought up on fraud charges under such standards? And honestly, I'm pretty sure the solution shouldn't be that our daughters need to learn how to deep throat.

It's almost like some people want morbid comedy. Life itself is entertaining enough that we should not have to invent such dangerously farcical outcomes.

Hmph. Maybe it would be more functional if our neighbor actually proposed a scheme instead of thirty-eight minutes of, Here, I'm incapable of expressing what I want to say, so watch this video and distill whatever it is I'm not able to tell you to distill.

 

[Randwolf]

I thought it was rather obvious - rape is x, statutory rape is y.

That's what you get for thinking without practice. "rape is x, statutory rape is y" Really? I thought rape was rape. But then again, we have this gem from post #14: "Obviously, you cannot really rape someone without 'using force against another'"
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...tinct-crime-from-battery.142947/#post-3239717
So what is real rape? Perhaps you're a Todd Akin fan...

Then again, legally speaking, I do not believe statutory rape exists

That's nice. If your six year old daughter consents, it's not real rape, right?

Do you, Randwolf, wish to explain how Rape can, in some way, occur WITHOUT "offensive contact"?

Yes. I can explain how rape can occur without offensive contact, as interpreted by the "rapeee" - statutory rape.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I don't really believe any of that, but I would bet it's been tried in a court and I'm curious to see how one would counter.

I wonder...If after a Pink Floyd show a woman went back stage and had sex with one of the members, and the member was technically "on the clock" as a member of "Pink Floyd," if there was a charge of some sort, would a case be against "Pink Floyd" or the member?

 

[Kittamaru]

That's what you get for thinking without practice. "rape is x, statutory rape is y" Really? I thought rape was rape. But then again, we have this gem from post #14: "Obviously, you cannot really rape someone without 'using force against another'"
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...tinct-crime-from-battery.142947/#post-3239717
So what is real rape? Perhaps you're a Todd Akin fan...

I dare say, you would make an exceptional lawyer- twisting words seems to come real natural to you!

That's nice. If your six year old daughter consents, it's not real rape, right?

Where did I say "statutory rape is not real rape", hm? Kindly provide a quote, or retract your factually incorrect statement.

And no, it would be rape - at six years old, a child is a minor and is incapable of providing consent. Do you not know this?

Yes. I can explain how rape can occur without offensive contact, as interpreted by the "rapeee" - statutory rape.

That would depend - are you claiming corruption of a minor or unlawful sex with a minor? Or are you referring to Sexual Battery? In the end, the contact is still offensive (albeit not to the minor per se, but rather to society, as the "rapee" in the case of sex with a minor is not the one pressing charges, and thus their opinion in the matter is, quite simply, irrelevant) so, you are still incorrect.

 

[GeoffP]

It'd be against whoever the lawyer can get it to be against, frankly. I think that's the way these things work out.

 

[Trooper]

Thirty-eight minutes of some man minimizing rape, and our neighbor can't comprehend that fraud might be offensive to the defrauded.

Thirty-eight minutes of advertising exploiting sensationalism so that we can hear a man tell us everything we need to know about rape.

A lazy topic post. Intellectual sloth. Apparently this aspect of the rape phenomenon is so important that she needs people to sit through thirty-eight minutes that she can't be bothered to distill in any way.

But first he's going to tell us something about parents selecting the sex of their child.

I find it interesting that we should consider it a mundane assertion that people would not find being defrauded offensive.

I think, however, that we could start making rape "just another assault", but alongside that, well, you know those people who teach sexual "virtue" to their children? Those people would need to be arrested and jailed for making too big a deal out of sexual immorality; the damage their confusion causes, when rape is "just another assault", is criminal. Furthermore, transforming rape into just another assault would mean anti-abortion people are evil for trying to prevent women from seeking medical attention to solve the injuries inflicted by this particular assault. They, too, will need to be jailed for aiding and abetting assaults.

But given the prominence he puts on "humiliation" as the factor that makes sexual violence "special", and maybe in his thirty-eight minutes he unpacks that somewhat so that it makes sense in some context other than a well-to-do male telling women about rape, but you know, that sort of thing wasn't important enough for our topic poster to explain, so no, I'm not sitting through thirty-eight minutes of the British petit-bourgeoisie telling women in India about rape.

Of course, the idea that the penis is a weapon would rise front and center; assault and battery? Sure, in the way that stabbing or shooting someone is. It's just that I don't see how getting rid of the word "rape" will make the actual phenomenon go away. Maybe Trooper would be happy if, like, we started calling all black people "whitey", and then black people would ... what, disappear? It's always interesting to watch people pick up a new tool and have exactly zero ideas about how it works and what it is used for.

There are, or course, similar processes between the characterization of rape as just another assault and the question of broken promises. In either case, that the question exists in the twenty-first century is by the will of men. We could have legislated for our daughters' virtue at any point over the centuries, but we didn't; either the virtue is a lie or too many men feel they'll lose too much if society goes in that direction. But as it is, the general tendency in societies of all developmental stages is to do what it can to protect the unwrit right of a man to get laid. The breadth of factors compressed into the question of broken promises is such that we really do enter the realm by which we can call a woman does owe a man sex because he bought dinner, and then we can turn around and call her a prostitute.

Many people think they've found a bauble of insight but fail to check it against the rest of the shards on the market. In the end, it becomes a question of specificity, such as inquiring why we might redefine these specific issues so generally.

And it is morbidly entertaining, in a way. Under such a general circumstance I can actually think of a woman I know who would get burned in court for being a genuinely lousy lay. That is to say, No means no, and yes, you're supposed to stop even mid-thrust if she decides she's done, and we need not dispute these principles. But under the generalizing scheme our neighbor's rape-as-just-another-assault notion requires, yes, I can indeed see a circumstance that comes down to the court having to look at an alleged rape victim and say, "So ... when was the last time you actually got a guy off during sexual congress?"

Better yet, imagine a woman up on one of these assault charges: She told me she was good in bed. And she's lousy. Just kisses the tip? Can't take a full thrust? Doesn't swallow, won't finish, and is verbally abusive about it all.

Yeah. Poor dude.

And, yes, I've had a lover like that. Go down, wait for her to tell you to penetrate, copulate for thirty seconds, then stop because she's done. After a while, it becomes routine. And in the end, 'tis better to simply admit that one's own hand is more stimulating, and stay the hell out of that particular bed. But dude, the number of women who could be brought up on fraud charges under such standards? And honestly, I'm pretty sure the solution shouldn't be that our daughters need to learn how to deep throat.

It's almost like some people want morbid comedy. Life itself is entertaining enough that we should not have to invent such dangerously farcical outcomes.

Hmph. Maybe it would be more functional if our neighbor actually proposed a scheme instead of thirty-eight minutes of, Here, I'm incapable of expressing what I want to say, so watch this video and distill whatever it is I'm not able to tell you to distill.

That man is Michael Sandel. He’s a professor of government at Harvard University, where he has taught political philosophy since 1980.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/about/michael-sandel/

His content is more interesting than your reblogs.

Thanks for stopping by Tiassa.

 

[Trooper]

So... on the whole... I think it is rape after all.

Gotcha! Okay, penetration without informed consent should satisfy the statute’s force requirement, but then how do we prove it was non-consensual vs. consensual?

Is a good2go app necessary?

The M.T.S. ruling also altered the definition of consent. Instead of placing responsibility on the victim to say “no,” the court said, the court should define any sex in the absence of a clear “yes” as rape.

"Permission can be found in words or action that, when viewed in the light the circumstances, would demonstrate consent to a reasonable person. The victim does not have to demonstrate expressed non-consent or resistance."

If permission can be found in words or actions, would a video consent form be useful?

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...dressler/rape/state-in-the-interest-of-m-t-s/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/09/29/good2go_a_new_app_for_consenting_to_sex.html

We don’t want flowers and chocolates. We want condoms and consent forms!

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

it is presumed that they are emotionally and mentally incapable of (too immature) to understand the risks, and as a result, give consent for, sexual relations.

Much the same as they cannot enter into a legally binding contract.

So you agree.

 

[Randwolf]

I dare say, you would make an exceptional lawyer

Thank you, I'm sure.

twisting words seems to come real natural to you!

Really? Which words, precisely, did I twist Kitt?

Where did I say "statutory rape is not real rape", hm? Kindly provide a quote, or retract your factually incorrect statement.

You didn't. What you did imply is that there are some rapes that are not "real". Right here: 'Obviously, you cannot really rape someone without "using force against another" and without "resulting in harmful, offensive, or sexual contact".' http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...tinct-crime-from-battery.142947/#post-3239717

And no, it would be rape - at six years old, a child is a minor and is incapable of providing consent. Do you not know this?

Do you not know this? It was my point in the first place...

That would depend - are you claiming corruption of a minor or unlawful sex with a minor? Or are you referring to Sexual Battery? In the end, the contact is still offensive (albeit not to the minor per se, but rather to society, as the "rapee" in the case of sex with a minor is not the one pressing charges, and thus their opinion in the matter is, quite simply, irrelevant) so, you are still incorrect.

And in the end, your point, per your verbatim quote: "Obviously, you cannot really rape someone without 'using force against another'" is still incorrect.

But you're not man enough to admit that you spoke out of hand. You're sloppy with your denotations and even sloppier with your connotations. End of story.