Rape victim is coveted status - George Wills

[Matt1970]

Wait, you don't want to engage in an intellectually honest discussion because you've purposely avoided and ignored the point? You're going to willfully ignore the fact that my POINT was coercion will make people 'let' other people do things? IIRC, it was you wanted to debate the definition of 'let.'

And instead you'll run away?

Why am I not surprised. . .

Can you please run away for a long time?

You have already proven you are incapable of an intellectually honest discussion by equating "let" with holding a gun to someone's head. Then you tried to justify it by blabbering on about shoplifting. Anything intellectually honest said bye-bye to you long ago.

 

[Daverino]

Doublepost

 

[Daverino]

You have already proven you are incapable of an intellectually honest discussion by equating "let" with holding a gun to someone's head. Then you tried to justify it by blabbering on about shoplifting. Anything intellectually honest said bye-bye to you long ago.

No that is NOT what I said. I said that the word 'let' is independent of force. So her 'letting' him have sex with her after she said no is equivalent to me 'letting' you take my wallet after I said no.

If you 'let' someone do something it doesn't imply consent.

 

[mrjminer]

The definition referenced in your link is only used for statistical reporting purposes, it has no impact on state or federal law.

Nice catch, I completely missed that when I skimmed through it.

 

[Matt1970]

No that is NOT what I said. I said that the word 'let' is independent of force. So her 'letting' him have sex with her after she said no is equivalent to me 'letting' you take my wallet after I said no.

If you 'let' someone do something it doesn't imply consent.

That is what you said. In fact you just said it again only you left out the gun to your head part. And yes, let is consent.


let
1. To give permission or opportunity to; allow
2. To cause to; make

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/let

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wait, you don't want to engage in an intellectually honest discussion because you've purposely avoided and ignored the point? You're going to willfully ignore the fact that my POINT was coercion will make people 'let' other people do things? IIRC, it was you wanted to debate the definition of 'let.'

And instead you'll run away?

Why am I not surprised. . .

Can you please run away for a long time?

Running away? No. Walking away, shaking my head in disbelief. Yes.

I prefer not to put people on ignore; however, I'll try to respect your wishes as best as my memory allows...which btw isn't promising a lot! Peace.

 

[fskimospy]

Justoh quoted the PA statute. Please explain to me how force is not a necessary element of crime.

You're correct that the PA statute says this, and in this case since the college was in PA that is important. There are many other states, New York for example, where his conduct would be rape.

The better thing to say is that rape in Pennsylvania requires force or an inability to consent.

 

[Daverino]

Running away? No. Walking away, shaking my head in disbelief. Yes.

I prefer not to put people on ignore; however, I'll try to respect your wishes as best as my memory allows...which btw isn't promising a lot! Peace.

Yay. Someone who is desperate to justify rape putting me on ignore.

I'm ok with that.

 

[justoh]

You're correct that the PA statute says this, and in this case since the college was in PA that is important. There are many other states, New York for example, where his conduct would be rape.

The better thing to say is that rape in Pennsylvania requires force or an inability to consent.

Could be rape 3 or sex assault in ny, but not necessarily.

S 130.35 Rape in the first degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages
in sexual intercourse with another person:
1. By forcible compulsion; or
2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
or
3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years
old or more.

So not rape 1.

S 130.25 Rape in the third degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:
3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without
such person`s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some
factor other than incapacity to consent.

same as pa's sexual assault, but (relevant part bolded).

S 130.05 Sex offenses; lack of consent.
1. Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every
offense defined in this article that the sexual act was committed
without consent of the victim.
2. Lack of consent results from:
(a) Forcible compulsion; or
(b) Incapacity to consent; or
(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching,
any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to
consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce
in the actor's conduct; or
(d) Where the offense charged is rape in the third degree as defined
in subdivision three of section 130.25, or criminal sexual act in the
third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.40, in
addition to forcible compulsion, circumstances under which, at the time
of the act of intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct,
the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in
such act, and a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have
understood such person's words and acts as an expression of lack of
consent to such act under all the circumstances.

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm

It would depend on whether a reasonable person could have interpreted her vaguely recounted expression as a lack of consent, given all the other circumstances. I guess because you guys are the majority on anandtech, the rest of us are unreasonable. She clearly expressed her desire not to have sex. So clearly that she can't even remember what she said.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I already read the statute. last time I checked rape 3 was still rape. Is there a reason to believe that has changed?

Also, of interest is that what he did is still considered sexual assault in Pennsylvania. If people want to argue "no, he didn't rape her, he only sexually assaulted her" that's their business.

Regardless, i don't care about the probability of conviction in this particular case and I have no interest whatsoever in debating the evidence. Plenty of people on here have made the argument that her lack of positive denial meant that she had consented. ie: even when fully accepting her version of events as accurate they thought that the fact that she didn't affirmatively stop him the second time meant consent. Not only is that deeply wrong, it is in fact unreasonable and morally repugnant.

 

[justoh]

Yes, I already read the statute. last time I checked rape 3 was still rape. Is there a reason to believe that has changed?

Also, of interest is that what he did is still considered sexual assault in Pennsylvania.

Regardless, i don't care about the probability of conviction in this particular case and I have no interest whatsoever in debating the evidence. Plenty of people on here have made the argument that her lack of positive denial meant that she had consented. Not only is that deeply wrong, it is in fact unreasonable and morally repugnant.

You mean, what he did could be considered sexual assault in pa, and what he did could be rape 3 or sexual assault in ny. I can't argue with that. Especially if the jury is like-minded and have no interest in the evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

You mean, what he did could be considered sexual assault in pa. And what he did could be rape 3 or sexual assault in ny. Especially if the jurors are like-minded and have no interest in the evidence.

Sure, that's fine. Again, I have literally zero interest in the issue in terms of a prosecutable case. My only interest is the bizarre idea that people have on here that not fighting someone off means consent.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, I already read the statute. last time I checked rape 3 was still rape. Is there a reason to believe that has changed?

Also, of interest is that what he did is still considered sexual assault in Pennsylvania. If people want to argue "no, he didn't rape her, he only sexually assaulted her" that's their business.

Regardless, i don't care about the probability of conviction in this particular case and I have no interest whatsoever in debating the evidence. Plenty of people on here have made the argument that her lack of positive denial meant that she had consented. ie: even when fully accepting her version of events as accurate they thought that the fact that she didn't affirmatively stop him the second time meant consent. Not only is that deeply wrong, it is in fact unreasonable and morally repugnant.

Whereas it is entirely reasonable to believe that a woman would rather go through the horror of being raped than go through the hassle of saying no a *gasp* second time.

😵😵😵

 

[justoh]

looool

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yay. Someone who is desperate to justify rape putting me on ignore.

I'm ok with that.

I'm not putting you on ignore as I hold out hope that some day we can have a rational and reasonable conversation. Clearly, this is not possible at this time.

 

[justoh]

Sure, that's fine. Again, I have literally zero interest in the issue in terms of a prosecutable case. My only interest is the bizarre idea that people have on here that not fighting someone off means consent.

I honestly don't understand what you mean. Just trying to be objective here. If you aren't interested in whether or not it's prosecutable then how could you possibly care about the supposed victim? Or victims generally, of which there are a lot?

I don't see anyone arguing that not fighting someone off means the same thing as consent, except maybe that michal guy. But in law it's apparently universally recognized as relevant to the question of whether there was consent.

 

[MrPickins]

I don't see anyone arguing that not fighting someone off means the same thing as consent, except maybe that michal guy.

Have you missed all of Nehalem's posts in this thread? 😕

 

[justoh]

Have you missed all of Nehalem's posts in this thread? 😕

Help me out and quote him, please. You know very well that he couldn't have stated that in every post, and i try to avoid reading most of what he writes. What i have read seems (incredibly) to make some sense for a change.

 

[nehalem256]

con·sent [kuhn-sent] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent

Well going by the definition of the word consent it would seem she did consent to having sex with him.

She essentially said she choose to permit him having sex with her because otherwise he would keep nagging her.

 

[MrPickins]

Help me out and quote him, please. You know very well that he couldn't have stated that in every post, and i try to avoid reading most of what he writes. What i have read seems (incredibly) to make some sense for a change.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent

Well going by the definition of the word consent it would seem she did consent to having sex with him.

She essentially said she choose to permit him having sex with her because otherwise he would keep nagging her.

There you have it.

In Nehalem's twisted mind, laying there = consent.

 

[nehalem256]

There you have it.

In Nehalem's twisted mind, laying there = consent.

You mean "kind of laying there". Which of course also means sorta not laying there. Sorry if you have problems understanding basic English.

From her own words she permitted him to have sex with her instead of going to the hassle of saying no a second time.

 

[justoh]

There you have it.

In Nehalem's twisted mind, laying there = consent.

That's cheating. You can't quote from the future to qualify a statement from the past. It's also not exactly the same thing as saying that not fighting him off is equivalent to consent. It's not fighting him off plus other statements she made expressing inconvenience mostly, along with a misquoted lay dictionary definition of consent that is admittedly irrelevant.

 

[justoh]

Surely she could have been a little more emphatic.

 

[MrPickins]

You mean "kind of laying there". Which of course also means sorta not laying there. Sorry if you have problems understanding basic English.

From her own words she permitted him to have sex with her instead of going to the hassle of saying no a second time.

You can permit something without giving consent. Tons of examples have been given in this thread.



Regardless, I'm done with you. You've proven yourself to be a worthless individual with reprehensible views.

You earn the honor of being the first person I've set to ignore in my decade and a half on Anandtech.

Congrats.

 

[MrPickins]

Surely she could have been a little more emphatic.

Surely, but that in no way shifts the blame to her. She had already said no.