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

you forgot part(s).
Truncated:
However, assault requires more than words alone.

Three elements must be established in order to establish tortious assault: first, the plaintiff apprehended immediate physical contact, second, the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind) and third, the defendant's act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended the resulting apprehension). But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_(tort)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

If/When it is classified as rape, then coercion is still being used - plus, honestly... I have to question - how do you impersonate someone that the person knows well enough to want to have sex with? I would wager that the "victim" has to either A) be incredibly stupid B) incredibly naive, or C) incredibly drunk to mistake someone as someone they know well enough to want to have intercourse with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The video was an interesting listen. I dont know if its the 'best way' but I think there is a parallel between rape and violent assaults.

Define sexual harassment first. Here is a clip from Daily show. Around 2:25+ there is a group of women describing some things that have happened to them that I doubt anyone would disagree with; it is verbal sexual harassment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/jessica-williams-cat-calling-daily-show_n_5927894.html

But on the flip side and in real life, I have had two jobs recently where the hiring manager expressed hesitation on having me working with the men due to fears I may be easily offended. These are both small companies who simply cant afford trouble and the reality being created is, its easier to just not hire a woman than it is trying to imagine (and prevent) any possible combination of ways something as simple as Wow, I love the way that shirt looks on you may be perceived.

I've worked places where the answer became No one talks to anybody about anything non-work related. Bleh. Couldnt wait to get out of those places.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was signed into law in California by Governor Jerry Brown on September 9, 2013.

I gave you the penal code.

Now, please go away.

 

Good point.

 

I do apologize - I did not notice the date on that.

In that case, you would do well to read the rest of my post, as it still applies...

then coercion is still being used - plus, honestly... I have to question - how do you impersonate someone that the person knows well enough to want to have sex with? I would wager that the "victim" has to either A) be incredibly stupid B) incredibly naive, or C) incredibly drunk to mistake someone as someone they know well enough to want to have intercourse with.

But, then again, I guess you don't have anything to say about that, as usual.

 

Read the history and the cases. Google it.

 

Why should I? My point is rather simple - I don't see how you can be so easily fooled as to the identity of someone who you should be close enough to have sex with... unless of course you are just sleeping around (excluding perhaps identical twins). None the less, such a case should be treated the same - coercion is still being implied, only it is psychological rather than physical.

 

Are you done?

 

Dunno - seems I've made the only real point in this thread thus far (rape involves battery)... does this thread happen to serve a purpose, beyond your soapboxing and (essentially) attempting to disguise re-opening a previously closed thread?

 

"In 2008, it was reported that a Massachusetts woman, Marissa Lee-Fuentes, unknowingly had sex with her boyfriend's brother in the dark basement that she was sleeping in. He could not be prosecuted, because Massachusetts law then required that rape include the use of force."

"Many of the rapes committed by Richard Allen Minsky fit the definition of rape by deception."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception#Notable_cases

I asked you a question.

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

But, then again, I guess you don't have anything to say about that, as usual.

 

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."

 

This was rape then, right, James?


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

 

So she had sex with someone without ascertaining their identify first... okay then. Doesn't make him any less of a creep, nor make the crime any less "wrong"... but I have to question her in this... but maybe it's just a part of who I am that I make sure the person I'm talking to is actually who they say they are, and if I cannot be sure then personal information is never released. Then again, how could you not know your lover well enough to distinguish them from someone else... and if there were any question, why would you just "go for it"?

And I already answered

Au Contraire - you simply failed to read and comprehend.

In this case, the person was tricked into having sex through deception - perhaps Coercion is the wrong word, as that in itself implies force or threats of a physical nature. As Alan Wertheimer writes:

Alan Wertheimer - Consent to Sexual Relations, page 194 - Citation 3 from Susan Estrich, Real Rape Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, page 102. Citation 4 from Jane E. Larson "Woman Understand So Little, They Call My Good Nature Deceit": A Feminist Rethinking of Seduction" Columbia Law Review, page 374


As I have not only answered your question, but laid to any reasonable rest any sort of question of my motives and meaning, I ask again - what is the point of this thread? What are you trying to ascertain here? Deception invalidates consent; that seems to be a reasonable understanding of the law. The problem, then, is determining if deception was present ("I wouldn't have had sex with him if he didn't love me" argument - how do you quantify "love"?)

 

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.

 

God, are you serious? Get off the thread if all you're going to do is prevaricate and troll, or ask an adult if you don't understand something.

 

Ah. Wasn't sure how that would work, but that's a good point. An actual point. I suppose that would conceivably be rape also.

 

Is all assault tort assault?