NationStates Jolt Archive

From another very controversial Thread
fine
its rape
its sexual exploitation
its a symptom of other sexual abuse
...
but if timmy and sally are "doing it" after school before mom and dad get home from work, there is someting WRONG going on. it may be rape, it may be manipulation, it may be acting out stuff....

there needs to be a boat load of social workers and psychologists show up at their door ....

So ... Here are my 2 question

What is the Legal(Criminal Code) Definition of "SEXUAL ASSAULT" in your country ?

And..In your Opinion...What should the definition be ???

From another very controversial Thread

So ... Here is my question what is the Legal Definition of "SEXUAL ASSAULT" in your country...

And..In your Opinion...What should the definition be ???

sexual assault
n.
Conduct of a sexual or indecent nature toward another person that is accompanied by actual or threatened physical force or that induces fear, shame, or mental suffering.
Dictionary.com

Yeah........I agree

sexual assault
n.
Conduct of a sexual or indecent nature toward another person that is accompanied by actual or threatened physical force or that induces fear, shame, or mental suffering.
Dictionary.com

Yeah........I agreeCountry?

Conduct of a sexual or indecent nature toward another person that is accompanied by actual or threatened physical force or that induces fear, shame, or mental suffering.
hmmm...are you sure that is the Legal definition in Your Country?

the definitions of sexual abuse are really tough these days

or course in that thread i meant that if grandpa had sexually molested one of the kids, they might act out sexually with a sibling.

but when a woman can be "abused" by having a man tell a dirty joke at the water cooler, we may have gone a bit too far.

in general id say its unwanted sexual touching,
in the case of a child ANY sexual touching
in the case of an adult, unwanted, and where there could be a misunderstanding, unwanted that continues after the person expresses that it IS unwanted. (for example on a date, johhny touches judys breast, its not abuse until she tells him to keep his hands to himself and he continues)

and its NOT abuse when judy wants it but has been drinking.

well thats just a prelim, im willing to rethink any of it.

USA

the definitions of sexual abuse are really tough these days

or course in that thread i meant that if grandpa had sexually molested one of the kids, they might act out sexually with a sibling.

but when a woman can be "abused" by having a man tell a dirty joke at the water cooler, we may have gone a bit too far.

in general id say its unwanted sexual touching,
in the case of a child ANY sexual touching
in the case of an adult, unwanted, and where there could be a misunderstanding, unwanted that continues after the person expresses that it IS unwanted. (for example on a date, johhny touches judys breast, its not abuse until she tells him to keep his hands to himself and he continues)

and its NOT abuse when judy wants it but has been drinking.

well thats just a prelim, im willing to rethink any of it.

USA
I mostly agree with your definition...Its pretty fair...

For a liberal, I might actually have a higher threshold than some. For instance, I believe that, while there are far, far too many cases of sexual assault, harrassment, abuse or whatever, there are also far too many false cases. In complete contrast to this, I disagree with the way that the law is composed and treated with regard to people under the age of consent (don't even get me started on the problems of an age of consent.)

I define it as any kind of verbal or physical contact which makes the victim uncomfortable that continues after s/he has expressed that discomfort (excluding of course situations where the victim is physically unable to express that). This means that you can't call sexual harassment until after you express your unhappiness and the behaviour continues (in a workplace scenario) and you can't call rape if the morning after you regret the one-night stand you just had.

the definitions of sexual abuse are really tough these days

or course in that thread i meant that if grandpa had sexually molested one of the kids, they might act out sexually with a sibling.

but when a woman can be "abused" by having a man tell a dirty joke at the water cooler, we may have gone a bit too far.

in general id say its unwanted sexual touching,
in the case of a child ANY sexual touching
in the case of an adult, unwanted, and where there could be a misunderstanding, unwanted that continues after the person expresses that it IS unwanted. (for example on a date, johhny touches judys breast, its not abuse until she tells him to keep his hands to himself and he continues)

and its NOT abuse when judy wants it but has been drinking.

well thats just a prelim, im willing to rethink any of it.

USAI have a problem with it being anything in the case of a child, as you haven't defined the age which child covers or what sexual touching is.

A guy is probably a cad or a hick if he takes advantage of a drunk gal, but I agree, it's not abuse, in the same way that you're still responsible if you drive when you're drunk.

....I disagree with the way that the law is composed and treated with regard to people under the age of consent ....so...what is the "age of consent"....In your country?

so...what is the "age of consent"....In your country?
It's 16, and I think it should either be replaced with a legally defined gray area or lowered quite substantially.

For a liberal, I might actually have a higher threshold than some. For instance, I believe that, while there are far, far too many cases of sexual assault, harrassment, abuse or whatever, there are also far too many false cases. In complete contrast to this, I disagree with the way that the law is composed and treated with regard to people under the age of consent (don't even get me started on the problems of an age of consent.)

I define it as any kind of verbal or physical contact which makes the victim uncomfortable that continues after s/he has expressed that discomfort (excluding of course situations where the victim is physically unable to express that). This means that you can't call sexual harassment until after you express your unhappiness and the behaviour continues (in a workplace scenario) and you can't call rape if the morning after you regret the one-night stand you just had.
i can agree with that
except perhaps for certain circumstances where a person is exceptionally sensitive and find offense at what has come to be considered normal conversation. i think that person has to toughen up rather than have everyone else change their normal way of talking

It's 16, and I think it should either be replaced with a legally defined gray area or lowered quite substantially.I agree with the gray area...

i can agree with that
except perhaps for certain circumstances where a person is exceptionally sensitive and find offense at what has come to be considered normal conversation. i think that person has to toughen up rather than have everyone else change their normal way of talking
Yeah, thats the problem. The laws still seem to assume that women are made of candy glass. Most of them, (most of the ones I know anyway), are more than capable of sticking up for themselves. Sexual harassment laws are there to prevent a boss from firing a sub-ordinate who won't have sex with them, not to sue a whole company for creating a "sexually charged arena". Nonsense suits filed by opportunistic people out to make a quick buck detract from actual issues, like pay equity or fair hiring practices.

I agree...exept for the "quite subtantially"...
Well I'd say 3 years at the minimum, or maybe less, but with a "buffer zone" (you could date someone within your age range, but not someone who was much older/ younger.)

so...what is the "age of consent"....In your country?

In Canada, 14, so long as there is no power differential involved.

edit - I should say, that if a person is 12 or moe, but the partner is 16 or less and also no more than two years older, that is also OK. So we have a kind of a gray area.

Well I'd say 3 years at the minimum, or maybe less, but with a "buffer zone" (you could date someone within your age range, but not someone who was much older/ younger.)that would make it 13....In my opinion...its realistic.

that would make it 13....In my opinion...its realistic.
That's what I think (about 20% reduction though, fairly substantial).

The real thing is, while it may be a nice fiction, the AoC doesn't actually make any difference to the average age at which people start having sex.

As said, in Canada it is 14. I don't think there should be a grey area. The way I think (please don't label me a pedophile for this), when a child reaches puberty and has been educated about sex that is the "age of consent". It may be as young as 10 sometimes, but that makes the most sense.

In my opinion all concencual sexual assault should legal and widely practiced--all the ancient gods used to sexually assault mortals all the time

As said, in Canada it is 14. I don't think there should be a grey area. The way I think (please don't label me a pedophile for this), when a child reaches puberty and has been educated about sex that is the "age of consent". It may be as young as 10 sometimes, but that makes the most sense.
"Breeding licences" maybe? :D

Sex ed should be as important as history, english or maths IMO, and should be about more than just the dangers of sex.

In my opinion all concencual sexual assault should legal and widely practiced--all the ancient gods used to sexually assault mortals all the time

Consentual sexual assault? It's either consentual or it's sexual assault... :confused:

You still believe in those ancient gods? Greek, Roman, Egyptian? :confused:

Consentual sexual assault? It's either consentual or it's sexual assault... :confused:

You still believe in those ancient gods? Greek, Roman, Egyptian? :confused:
yes--I think there is a pantheon of lesser nature gods

That's what I think (about 20% reduction though, fairly substantial).

The real thing is, while it may be a nice fiction, the AoC doesn't actually make any difference to the average age at which people start having sex.
i am always shocked when some poor 16 year old boy gets tossed into jail for having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend
those laws are to protect children from adult sexual predators. a 14 year old girl can be manipulated into sex with a 25 year old man and they need protection from that. NOT from their teenaged boyfriends.

Should the definition not be, the same as the definition of assault but with the added sexual element to it.

All the other stuff about age etc is rather missing the point. Sexual assault should be the same definition no matter the different mitigating factors around it. To have it any other way makes for biased and unjust laws.

Oh and


in the case of a child ANY sexual touching




is that child child, adult child, child adult. And surely the quailifer unwanted should be in there. Unless of course you feel children should not be allowed to have the same cival rights as do other people.

A guy is probably a cad or a hick if he takes advantage of a drunk gal, but I agree, it's not abuse, in the same way that you're still responsible if you drive when you're drunk.

What if the girl is so drunk that she is passed out on the bed and he takes advantage of her? Is it "not abuse" then?

Consentual sexual assault? It's either consentual or it's sexual assault... :confused: In some countries...you could engage consentualy...yet the local laws say you must be Criminaly charged.

What if the girl is so drunk that she is passed out on the bed and he takes advantage of her? Is it "not abuse" then?
If she is unable to give to consent, then I consider that non-consentual (consent being active, non-consent being the default position). Consent doesn't have to be direct.

Should the definition not be, the same as the definition of assault but with the added sexual element to it.

All the other stuff about age etc is rather missing the point. Sexual assault should be the same definition no matter the different mitigating factors around it. To have it any other way makes for biased and unjust laws.


is that child child, adult child, child adult. And surely the quailifer unwanted should be in there. Unless of course you feel children should not be allowed to have the same cival rights as do other people.The age of consent means that anyone under that age is unable under the law to give consent, so all sexual contact would be considered unconsentual, thats why age is an issue in this debate.

I'll assume this is the closest thing to sexual assult:

§ 769. Unlawful sexual contact in the first degree; class F felony.

A person is guilty of unlawful sexual contact in the first degree when, in the course of committing unlawful sexual contact in the third degree or in the course of committing unlawful sexual contact in the second degree, or during the immediate flight from the crime, or during an attempt to prevent the reporting of the crime, the person causes physical injury to the victim or the person displays what appears to be a deadly weapon or represents by word or conduct that the person is in possession or control of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

Unlawful sexual contact in the first degree is a class F felony. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 767; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 61 Del. Laws, c. 56, § 2; 65 Del. Laws, c. 494, § 1; 66 Del. Laws, c. 269, § 21; 67 Del. Laws, c. 130, § 8; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 74 Del. Laws, c. 93, § 3.)

§ 767. Unlawful sexual contact in the third degree; class A misdemeanor.

A person is guilty of unlawful sexual contact in the third degree when the person has sexual contact with another person or causes the victim to have sexual contact with the person or a third person and the person knows that the contact is either offensive to the victim or occurs without the victim's consent.

Unlawful sexual contact in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 761; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 65 Del. Laws, c. 494, § 1; 66 Del. Laws, c. 269, § 19; 67 Del. Laws, c. 130, § 8; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

I agree with it, or are we talking about rape?

In Canada, 14, so long as there is no power differential involved.

edit - I should say, that if a person is 12 or moe, but the partner is 16 or less and also no more than two years older, that is also OK. So we have a kind of a gray area.
Holy sh*t, really? Yeees. In a couple o' weeks...

I LOVE this country.

I think the fact is that there is always going to be some exception, so we have to let judges decide.

For example on the drinking thing, people doping their dates to have sex with them.

Consentual sexual assault? It's either consentual or it's sexual assault... :confused:

You still believe in those ancient gods? Greek, Roman, Egyptian? :confused:
I don't argue with people who still support the beliefs of Greeks, Romans and Egyptians, mainly because I never met anyone who did. All the worshippers are dead, excluding new-age cults, some wacky people and Wicca, which I have serious problems with.

As for Consentual Sexual Assault, ever heard of Bondage and Discipline? Sadism and Masochism? While I think it's the wackiest thing ever, that's what it is.

In an amourous situation: any sexual contact after the person receiving the contact has expressed the absence of consent for that contact.

In a non-amourous situation: any sexual contact without a prior history of consent, unless consent is expressed.

So if Jack and Judy are necking, and Jack touches Judy's tit, it is O.K. unless she physically or verbally expresses non-consent. But if Judy is walking down the street and Jack comes up behind her and pats her ass, it is sexual assault unless Judy has a history of consenting to such situations, or if and after she withdraws consent.

Note that Judy might consent, and even like it. Unless Jack knows this, unless they have such a history, it is still sexual assault. But since this functionally depends on her pressing charges, her consent pretty much negates it, although this is far more effective if it is active and not tacit consent.

Verbally or with media: sexual content that one or more person's present, in any situation when such persons cannot be expected to simply leave (at work, on a bus, etc.), has expressed being offended by, is sexual harrassment. Also sexual content of a nature and intensity that a reasonable person would conclude that one or more persons present would be offended by it is sexual harrasment.

So if Jack and Dick are sitting in class and whispering about sexual matters, inspired by their Health class, and not in particularly graphic terms, and Jane tells them to shut up and they do not (it not being Health class) then it is sexual harrassment. If they are talking about the oral sex that Jack got from Judy last night, then unless they know that Jane and everyone else in earshot would not mind it is sexual harrassment even if she does not complain.

Also, if I had written "talking about how good Judy's ****s feel when she's ****ing his ****", then this post would be sexual harrassment, even though anyone who is offended by it has the power to close the window.

When one is drunk or otherwise drugged: if s/he is too drunk to withhold consent, s/he is too drunk to consent, and any sexual contact is sexual assault. Note that this means, basically, semi-conscious, and does not generally include having lowered inhibitions in and of itself.

Also if the recipient is intoxicated involentarily, such as due to unwittingly drinking a spiked drink or somesuch, and the actor is aware of this and the recipient is not, or if the actor is the spiker or an accomplice, it is sexual assault even if it merely exploits lowered inhibitions. The recipient did not consent to having his/er inhibitions lowered. Unless the recipient is aware of it, and the actor is not involved with the spiking, and the recipient is intoxicated at a relatively low level, in which case it would be consentual.

So if Jack arrives late at the party and Judy is there and she's a little pickled and says "try the punch, I think it's spiked *giggle*", and Jack drinks it and gets a little drunk as well, Jack is fully in control of his consent while Judy is, or initially was, not of hers. They start necking and Jack slips his hand up her skirt, and she doesn't stop him. Since he did not act as a secret poisoner to lower her inhibitions, and she is not so drunk as to be near or approaching semi-consciousness, so it's ok. If Jack keeps drinking until he is semiconscious, and Jill continues taking advantage of him, then it's sexual assault.

If Biff, who spiked the punch, puts physical moves on Judy, then even if she is just a little drunk and knows it, it is sexual assault, even if she consents. He secretly poisoned her in order to, or simpy preincidental to, moving on her sexually. You shall not allow a poisoner to live, and even moreso to benifit sexually from his victim's lowered inhibitions.

As differences on age: no particularly original ideas here. I like the law here: 16 is old enough unless it is incest or otherwise the older person is in a position of power over the younger, in which case it is 18, and there is a 3 year window, so that if Dick turns 18 before Sally turns 16, it is still legal (and thus encourages relationship stability over sleeping around).

Also, if I had written "talking about how good Judy's ****s feel when she's ****ing his ****", then this post would be sexual harrassment, even though anyone who is offended by it has the power to close the window.I dont think so...

In an amourous situation: any sexual contact after the person receiving the contact has expressed the absence of consent for that contact.

In a non-amourous situation: any sexual contact without a prior history of consent, unless consent is expressed.

So if Jack and Judy are necking, and Jack touches Judy's tit, it is O.K. unless she physically or verbally expresses non-consent. But if Judy is walking down the street and Jack comes up behind her and pats her ass, it is sexual assault unless Judy has a history of consenting to such situations, or if and after she withdraws consent.
Wrong, she has yet to give no consent with butt tapping.

Note that Judy might consent, and even like it. Unless Jack knows this, unless they have such a history, it is still sexual assault. But since this functionally depends on her pressing charges, her consent pretty much negates it, although this is far more effective if it is active and not tacit consent.

Its not secual assualt if she enjoys it. Rape is when you don't.

Verbally or with media: sexual content that one or more person's present, in any situation when such persons cannot be expected to simply leave (at work, on a bus, etc.), has expressed being offended by, is sexual harrassment. Also sexual content of a nature and intensity that a reasonable person would conclude that one or more persons present would be offended by it is sexual harrasment.


So if Jack and Dick are sitting in class and whispering about sexual matters, inspired by their Health class, and not in particularly graphic terms, and Jane tells them to shut up and they do not (it not being Health class) then it is sexual harrassment. If they are talking about the oral sex that Jack got from Judy last night, then unless they know that Jane and everyone else in earshot would not mind it is sexual harrassment even if she does not complain.

Also, if I had written "talking about how good Judy's ****s feel when she's ****ing his ****", then this post would be sexual harrassment, even though anyone who is offended by it has the power to close the window.

Wrong, If Jack and Dick are talking aboyt Health Class and she isn't mentioned it is not sexual harrasment or sexual assualt. Sexual harassment can't be about another. i talk about Jane, Sally can't sue me for harrasment.
You have to talk about them.

When one is drunk or otherwise drugged: if s/he is too drunk to withhold consent, s/he is too drunk to consent, and any sexual contact is sexual assault. Note that this means, basically, semi-conscious, and does not generally include having lowered inhibitions in and of itself.

Also if the recipient is intoxicated involentarily, such as due to unwittingly drinking a spiked drink or somesuch, and the actor is aware of this and the recipient is not, or if the actor is the spiker or an accomplice, it is sexual assault even if it merely exploits lowered inhibitions. The recipient did not consent to having his/er inhibitions lowered. Unless the recipient is aware of it, and the actor is not involved with the spiking, and the recipient is intoxicated at a relatively low level, in which case it would be consentual.

So if Jack arrives late at the party and Judy is there and she's a little pickled and says "try the punch, I think it's spiked *giggle*", and Jack drinks it and gets a little drunk as well, Jack is fully in control of his consent while Judy is, or initially was, not of hers. They start necking and Jack slips his hand up her skirt, and she doesn't stop him. Since he did not act as a secret poisoner to lower her inhibitions, and she is not so drunk as to be near or approaching semi-consciousness, so it's ok. If Jack keeps drinking until he is semiconscious, and Jill continues taking advantage of him, then it's sexual assault.

If Biff, who spiked the punch, puts physical moves on Judy, then even if she is just a little drunk and knows it, it is sexual assault, even if she consents. He secretly poisoned her in order to, or simpy preincidental to, moving on her sexually. You shall not allow a poisoner to live, and even moreso to benifit sexually from his victim's lowered inhibitions.

As differences on age: no particularly original ideas here. I like the law here: 16 is old enough unless it is incest or otherwise the older person is in a position of power over the younger, in which case it is 18, and there is a 3 year window, so that if Dick turns 18 before Sally turns 16, it is still legal (and thus encourages relationship stability over sleeping around).
Hmm:"If Jack keeps drinking until he is semiconscious, and Jill continues taking advantage of him, then it's sexual assault."
Semi conscious? What is that described as?

very well thought out post, druthulhu, the touching sections i especially agree with

as to the verbal, media. i think its only sexual harrassment if they dont STOP or if they are talking about someone they know is in earshot. talking about judy's sexual performance would be harrassing judy if done in public. continuing to talk dirty after sally complains, if they talk loudly enough for it to be impossible for sally to not listen without leaving, is probably sexual harrassment.

if, in the middle of a thread i have started about ...politics...you start posting sexual material, it would be harrassment because i cant read the thread without seeing it. you would obviously be posting it only for the purpose of harrassment.

patting someones ass is never rape. it can be sexual assault and should be considered criminal if a person has a history of unwanted ass patting on people who do not consent to it.

I believe that entering the military, voting and sexual intercourse should be legal at eighteen. It's already that age for voting but you can die for your country two years before you're allowed a say in its politics. With an average age span of 70-80 years, 18 seems a pretty good time to start shagging your brains out. It also gives you a little more maturity to understand exactly what sex is. For those engaging in 'underage' sex, I agree with a grey(ish) area but the two involved should be within say, three years of each others age. Sex is good, joyful and can be a genuine expression of love but just getting your knickers and trousers off because (to use Clintons phrase) 'you can', shouldn't mean you feel obliged to. And I'm not one of those that preaches sexual abstinence instead of safe sex.

...sexual intercourse should be legal at eighteen. WOW

18? :confused:
That is not realistic.
...not in America anyways...

WOW

18? :confused:
That is not realistic.
...not in America anyways...

Of course. That's why I agree with a grey area.

WOW

18? :confused:
That is not realistic.
...not in America anyways...
Honestly, I think 18 is the perfect age. True, I'd prefer it to be lower for my own wicked desires, but, as a lunatic authoritarian, believe that to prevent any mishaps, it should be higher. You understand a bit more at that age, er, so I gather, and you need to understand a bit more to make the right decisions. That's what the Age of Consent is about. For some things, things with harder decisions, the age should be higher.

Wrong, she has yet to give no consent with butt tapping.

I'm not sure what you're saying here but it sounds like you're saying that it's ok because she hasn't said "no". Wrong. Consent is not a status that can be assumed unless specifically withdrawn. Absence of consent is the default state.

Its not secual assualt if she enjoys it. Rape is when you don't.

Wrong again. What dictionary did you get that from? There are people who consent to sex and do not enjoy it, and believe it or not there are even some women who like to be forced - but it's still rape.

Wrong, If Jack and Dick are talking aboyt Health Class and she isn't mentioned it is not sexual harrasment or sexual assualt. Sexual harassment can't be about another. i talk about Jane, Sally can't sue me for harrasment.
You have to talk about them.

Wrong #3. Part of the legal definition of sexual harrassment is "creating a hostile workplace environment", and that extends to schoolwork: nude posters, dirty jokes, graphic sex talk, etc. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the person who is offended.

Hmm:"If Jack keeps drinking until he is semiconscious, and Jill continues taking advantage of him, then it's sexual assault."
Semi conscious? What is that described as?

Have you never been drunk? Have you never seen someone who is very drunk? Drunk enough to not know where they are or who you are or what they are doing? Do I really need to describe it to you?

I dont think so...

You think there are people without the power to close the window?

Drunk people...

...I dunno, if both parts are too drunk to think, it doesn't seem like rape to me.

Its not secual assualt if she enjoys it. Rape is when you don't.
If it was considered rape everytime a woman didn't enjoy sex...

Its about consent. Enjoyment don't enter into it.

If it was considered rape everytime a woman didn't enjoy sex...

Its about consent. Enjoyment don't enter into it.
You can give consent to sexual assault, but then it's not assault, it's BDSM. Consent is the word.

Honestly, I think 18 is the perfect age. True, I'd prefer it to be lower for my own wicked desires, but, as a lunatic authoritarian, believe that to prevent any mishaps, it should be higher. You understand a bit more at that age, er, so I gather, and you need to understand a bit more to make the right decisions. That's what the Age of Consent is about. For some things, things with harder decisions, the age should be higher.

I agree-18 seems a fine age, but for one more reasons.

At age 18 you can hold a long term job and, potentially, support others. You can't do that as effeciantly at younger ages.

If it was considered rape everytime a woman didn't enjoy sex...
...there'd be a LOT more virgins :p

I'm not sure what you're saying here but it sounds like you're saying that it's ok because she hasn't said "no". Wrong. Consent is not a status that can be assumed unless specifically withdrawn. Absence of consent is the default state.

Absence of consent isnt the default state in all cases. You need to add the "reasonable person" bit. If a reasonable person would find said action offensive then you could apply absense of consent. Complimenting someone on their looks isnt offensive to a "reasonable person" however some might find it offensive. After they tell said offender that they find it offensive, then consent is withdrawn.


Wrong again. What dictionary did you get that from? There are people who consent to sex and do not enjoy it, and believe it or not there are even some women who like to be forced - but it's still rape.

I'm afraid your mistaken, or perhaps misspoke yourself. If a woman "likes to be forced" by her partner, then she is roleplaying and it is not rape. And simply not enjoying sex isnt grounds for a crime by your partner (if it were, more than half this country would be in jail)


Wrong #3. Part of the legal definition of sexual harrassment is "creating a hostile workplace environment", and that extends to schoolwork: nude posters, dirty jokes, graphic sex talk, etc. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the person who is offended.

Again, reasonable person. Examples you posted above would be offensive to a reasonable person but, posters of Dallas Cowgirl cheerleaders e.g., not all dirty jokes, sex talk but not graphic variety, etc are not always offensive to said reasonable person. That is where the person being offended must speak up and let the offender know.

Have you never been drunk? Have you never seen someone who is very drunk? Drunk enough to not know where they are or who you are or what they are doing? Do I really need to describe it to you?

Yes I have been drunk, drunk enough to be on the verge of passing out. I still knew where I was. I think the issue is he was questioning the legal definition of "semi-conscious". Since we are dealing with legalities here, you need to use legal terms and definitions.

My Idea is that it would be sexual assault if:

A. One person is unwilling. I.E. says "no"

B. One is inable to say yes or no.

C. One is for whatever reason, Age, Impairment, Etc, Unable to make the decision to say Yes, or No wisely.

If you have to force your attentions on someone else, then you are NOT a man or woman, Just a pathetic immitation of a human being.

If you have to force your attentions on someone else, then you are NOT a man or woman, Just a pathetic immitation of a human being.
... That's not literal, right?

My Idea is that it would be sexual assault if:

A. One person is unwilling. I.E. says "no"

B. One is inable to say yes or no.

C. One is for whatever reason, Age, Impairment, Etc, Unable to make the decision to say Yes, or No wisely.

If you have to force your attentions on someone else, then you are NOT a man or woman, Just a pathetic immitation of a human being.

What about

D. One has not been given the opportunity to say "no"? Like, grabbed in the crotch without warning.

Absence of consent isnt the default state in all cases. You need to add the "reasonable person" bit. If a reasonable person would find said action offensive then you could apply absense of consent. Complimenting someone on their looks isnt offensive to a "reasonable person" however some might find it offensive. After they tell said offender that they find it offensive, then consent is withdrawn.

That works for sexual harrassment. However a "reasonable person" would not think it is acceptable to grab a woman's ass without her consent. Any physical sexual contact must be actively consented to, unless there is precedent of consent.

I'm afraid your mistaken, or perhaps misspoke yourself. If a woman "likes to be forced" by her partner, then she is roleplaying and it is not rape. And simply not enjoying sex isnt grounds for a crime by your partner (if it were, more than half this country would be in jail)

I am not mistaken and I did not misspeak. There are women (and men) that like to be forced, and not in roleplay with consent. Perhaps it is a matter of mental illness, but it is real. And yes, it was you that said that rape is when one doesn't enjoy it, not me.

Again, reasonable person. Examples you posted above would be offensive to a reasonable person but, posters of Dallas Cowgirl cheerleaders e.g., not all dirty jokes, sex talk but not graphic variety, etc are not always offensive to said reasonable person. That is where the person being offended must speak up and let the offender know.

And in my original example of someone being offended by having to hear non-licentious talk about sex, the offended person did express her offendedness. To which you stated that she did not have a ligitimate complaint unless they were talking about her. Just not true.

Yes I have been drunk, drunk enough to be on the verge of passing out. I still knew where I was. I think the issue is he was questioning the legal definition of "semi-conscious". Since we are dealing with legalities here, you need to use legal terms and definitions.

No I don't.

This is not a court room or a law class. You know what I mean, and we all know that you do.