Can't we all just get along?

[gumboot]

This seems to be stating the exact same thing - if you don't have consent, you have rape. If this is true, I fail to see what the Matteo-bashing is about. Both sides seem to be agreeing, quite frankly, I'm not honestly sure what the fighting is over.

Matteo Martini does not understand the words he/she is quoting. Hence the "fighting".

 

[MattC]

How about the part where he says Fiona wasn't raped, even though she didn't consent to sex?

I'm sure you would like to be told you weren't raped, when someone had sex with you without your consent.

Many have taken the liberty to inform me that what I like or like not matters little. I am inclined to agree with them.

In other words, you and I agree with what he is quoting from Wikipedia, but even though he keeps quoting it, he doesn't seem to understand it, and doesn't actually agree with it because somehow in his mind there has to be duress.

It seems to be that way as I read more of his posts in the thread, yes.

Matteo, I'm actually sort of curious. What exactly do you think this is, if not rape?

~ Matt

(EDIT: Also, Phantom, I'm slightly confused about this:

The only time that no objection can equal consent is when there is a relationship (may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties). In this context there was no relationship, and no context that would allow for an assumption of consent, so it is invaild and that returns to "the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent." No Consent = Rape.

There's a major difference in definition between "no objection" and "no consent", in fact they seem to be polar opposites upon reading the definitions of both "objection" and "consent". I assume by "no objection" you mean to say "no obstruction" or "no contestation", wherein the victim did object to the act but for whatever reason did not actively try to obstruct or contest it, e.g. try to prevent it?)

 

[Lonewulf]

Many have taken the liberty to inform me that what I like or like not matters little. I am inclined to agree with them.

Indeed. I can't wait for someone to come on that was molested as a child, so I could tell them that they should just get over it.

Then I can say it doesn't matter what they like or dislike about what I'm saying. Hey! Nice logic there!

 

[MattC]

Indeed. I can't wait for someone to come on that was molested as a child, so I could tell them that they should just get over it.

Then I can say it doesn't matter what they like or dislike about what I'm saying. Hey! Nice logic there!

I'm not sure where I went wrong to prompt these sort of responses, quite frankly.

gumboot and PhantomWolf have stated somewhat clearly that I mistook Matteo's meaning. Upon reading this, I reread his post and am beginning to agree with them.

It seems you think I made my initial post in some agreement with Matteo upon the issue, when in reality I was merely confused. As my registration date suggests, I'm comparatively new here - I have no real frame of reference for any particular individual here outside of perhaps four. When someone quotes something, I am therefore inclined to think that they understand it since, well, they're quoting it and therefore intend for it to be used as support for their views. In some credit to myself, when PhantomWolf and gumboot alerted me that Matteo may have possibly been confused about what he'd quoted, I immediately went to look over his posts in the thread and, upon doing so a second time, seriously find myself agreeing that he is.

I do not understand what prompts such a vitriolic response to a query from someone clearly inexperienced on these forums.

Thank you Phantom and gumboot for honestly answering me in a polite and respectful fashion.

~ Matt

 

[Matteo Martini]

Matteo I seriously think you have gotten the wrong end of a stick here. Rape does not need to be under duress, it is just sex without consent. I really don't understand why you keep bring duress into it.

Wikipedia does it

Duress has nothing to do with consent other than it automatically means that consent is void. Just because consent is void under duress, doesn't mean that absence of consent without duress is consent, it isn't and the quote you quote says that. With or without duress, legally, no consent = rape, it's that simple, what part can't you understand?

What do you eactly mean by "consent"?
A written paper?
Has it to be signed?
Does the girl have to say "please, make love with (to) me"?

The only time that no objection can equal consent is when there is a relationship (may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties). [..]

Evidence of what you are saying, please (bold is mine)!
Also, please define which kind of relationships you are talking about (does friendship count as relationship?)

 

[Matteo Martini]

Matteo Martini does not understand the words he/she is quoting. Hence the "fighting".

She.
I am a woman.

Originally Posted by Title XLVI, 794.011
(a) "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

Was Fiona coercefully submitted?
If yes, she was raped.
If no, she was not.
Simple as that.

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
It seems to be that way as I read more of his posts in the thread, yes.

Matteo, I'm actually sort of curious. What exactly do you think this is, if not rape?
[..]

In somewhere between consensual sex and rape.
Still, not rape.
Still, not legally prosecutable.
If you think it was, please provide evidence.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Indeed. I can't wait for someone to come on that was molested as a child, so I could tell them that they should just get over it.
[..]

Please, do not derail the thread.
We are not talking about children, here

 

[MattC]

In somewhere between consensual sex and rape.
Still, not rape.
Still, not legally prosecutable.
If you think it was, please provide evidence.

All right. Some definitions first of all.

(source: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0794/SEC011.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0794-%3ESection%20011#0794.011)

(a) "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

(h) "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

(e) "Physically helpless" means unconscious, asleep, or for any other reason physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.

(j) "Physically incapacitated" means bodily impaired or handicapped and substantially limited in ability to resist or flee.

Now that we have the component definitions out of the way, let's commence with the statutory definitions of sexual battery in its various degrees.

(3) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or uses actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

This is really a blanket statute designed to cover all sexual offenses of this nature, thereby ensuring a minimum standard of punishment that will be inflicted upon those who commit the crime.

Certain circumstances exist within the law, however, that will elevate a generic second-degree sexual battery offense into a first-degree sexual battery offense, to be enumerated momentarily:

(4) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older without that person's consent, under any of the following circumstances, commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115:

(a) When the victim is physically helpless to resist.

(b) When the offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence likely to cause serious personal injury on the victim, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the present ability to execute the threat.

(c) When the offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate against the victim, or any other person, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the ability to execute the threat in the future.

(d) When the offender, without the prior knowledge or consent of the victim, administers or has knowledge of someone else administering to the victim any narcotic, anesthetic, or other intoxicating substance which mentally or physically incapacitates the victim.

(e) When the victim is mentally defective and the offender has reason to believe this or has actual knowledge of this fact.

(f) When the victim is physically incapacitated.

(g) When the offender is a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer as defined by s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), who is certified under the provisions of s. 943.1395 or is an elected official exempt from such certification by virtue of s. 943.253, or any other person in a position of control or authority in a probation, community control, controlled release, detention, custodial, or similar setting, and such officer, official, or person is acting in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe that the offender is in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government.

Did this man have sex with Fiona? Yes.
Did Fiona expressly give her consent? No.
(ergo, we have justification for a second-degree sexual battery charge - proving it is another matter, but it's not really germane here)
Was Fiona physically helpless against the crime? Debatable.
(as a matter of course, anything debatable will be charged in an attempt to force a plea bargain)


We therefore have exceptional justification in saying that, under Florida state law, this man would be most certainly prosecutable.

~ Matt

(EDIT: I'm actually somewhat surprised that the statute doesn't specifically mention coming out of a deep sleep in any form. The closest thing that appears to be there is this:

(c) "Mentally incapacitated" means temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling a person's own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent.

but that seems even less germane the more and more I read it.)

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm not sure where I went wrong to prompt these sort of responses, quite frankly.

gumboot and PhantomWolf have stated somewhat clearly that I mistook Matteo's meaning. Upon reading this, I reread his post and am beginning to agree with them.

It seems you think I made my initial post in some agreement with Matteo upon the issue, when in reality I was merely confused. As my registration date suggests, I'm comparatively new here - I have no real frame of reference for any particular individual here outside of perhaps four. When someone quotes something, I am therefore inclined to think that they understand it since, well, they're quoting it and therefore intend for it to be used as support for their views. In some credit to myself, when PhantomWolf and gumboot alerted me that Matteo may have possibly been confused about what he'd quoted, I immediately went to look over his posts in the thread and, upon doing so a second time, seriously find myself agreeing that he is.

I do not understand what prompts such a vitriolic response to a query from someone clearly inexperienced on these forums.

Thank you Phantom and gumboot for honestly answering me in a polite and respectful fashion.

~ Matt

I was unable to come up with any other fashion to translate this:

Many have taken the liberty to inform me that what I like or like not matters little. I am inclined to agree with them.

Which was made in reply to this:

How about the part where he says Fiona wasn't raped, even though she didn't consent to sex?

I'm sure you would like to be told you weren't raped, when someone had sex with you without your consent.

So. I brought up where Fiona said she was raped, which was the Original Post (OP). Then I brought up how Matteo stated (as he has several times throughout this thread, so you'll pardon me if I don't come up with examples) that Fiona was not raped, which prompted the whole exchange. You said in reply, and the ONLY thing you said in reply, was "Many have taken the liberty to inform me that what I like or like not matters little. I'm inclined with agree with them."

Can you please explain how I am to parse that, without reading it as a statement that Fiona should be emotionless when told that she's not been raped to her face, in the exact same tone as DanishDynamite and Matteo have been using?

I'm not sure how else to parse your statement. The only other ways, seems to make it deviate from what I was saying, ignoring my statement overall and creating a non sequitor.

Pardon me if my patience on this topic is wearing thin. There have been many comments throughout these series of threads, such as DanishDynamite saying, "I'm not sure what lessons we can get from your non-rape", Matteo agreeing with Danish, and Skeptigirl essentially ridiculing the idea that a man can be raped by a woman in a similar thread. There are many that do not feel comfortable now, with sharing any private information or information involving their own rape, because of tactless posts that essentially mock those that discuss their own private issues.

 

[Matteo Martini]

All right. Some definitions first of all.

(source: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0794/SEC011.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0794-%3ESection%20011#0794.011)







Now that we have the definitions out of the way, let's commence with the statutory punishments for sexual battery in its various degrees.



This is really a blanket statute designed to cover all sexual offenses of this nature, thereby ensuring a minimum standard of punishment that will be inflicted upon those who commit the crime.

Certain circumstances exist within the law, however, that will elevate a generic second-degree sexual battery offense into a first-degree sexual battery offense, to be enumerated momentarily:

I think I agree with all the above.
But not time to read all.

Did this man have sex with Fiona? Yes.
Did Fiona expressly give her consent? No.
(ergo, we have justification for a second-degree sexual battery charge - proving it is another matter, but it's not really germane here)
Was Fiona physically helpless against the crime? Debatable.

Please, let`s debate on this.
If Fiona was helpless it would have been rape.
Since she was not, it was not rape.

[..]We therefore have exceptional justification in saying that, under Florida state law, this man would be most certainly prosecutable under state statutes.

~ Matt

See above.

 

[Lonewulf]

If Fiona was helpless it would have been rape.
Since she was not, it was not rape.

So... consent doesn't matter?

 

[Matteo Martini]

So... consent doesn't matter?

Of course it does.
But, if there is no duress, being quite (="do not say no") means consent, according to me and to the law.
By the way, why do you guys even argue on this since Fiona herself agreed she was not raped?

 

[MattC]

Please, let`s debate on this.
If Fiona was helpless it would have been rape.
Since she was not, it was not rape.

You did not ask me to debate opinion with you.

You very specifically stated this:

Still, not legally prosecutable.
If you think it was, please provide evidence.

I then did so.

It seems that the man is liable for second-degree sexual battery regardless of Fiona's condition at the time. You may debate the ability of a prosecutor to win a conviction on a first-degree sexual battery case as much as you like, but that's ultimately irrelevant to your question. I quoted the applicable law to you in an attempt to demonstrate that the state could prosecute this man, which seems to be exactly what you asked me to do. If I am wrong, please let me know.

~ Matt

 

[Matteo Martini]

You did not ask me to debate opinion with you.

You very specifically stated this:



I then did so.

~ Matt

You have providen evidence that Fiona would have ben raped if:
a) has she been drugged by the guy;
b) had she been physically helpless
c) the guy threatened to retaliate
d) the victim were mentally defective
e) the victim were physically incapacitated

Please, tell me which of the above options apply in this case.

 

[MattC]

You have providen evidence that Fiona would have ben raped if:
a) has she been drugged by the guy;
b) had she been physically helpless
c) the guy threatened to retaliate
d) the victim were mentally defective
e) the victim were physically incapacitated

Please, tell me which of the above options apply in this case.

hm. Well, there's some contention as to whether or not Fiona would have been physically helpless, but under overcharging principles you include it so as to actually be allowed to argue it.

I made an error (of rather epic proportions I might add) in my initial post and provided this definition:

(3) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or uses actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

Yeah, I fail. Here's the actual, much more relevant definition:

(5) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

There.

Did the man have sex with Fiona? Yes.
Did Fiona give her consent? No.

Ergo, applicable charge.

~ Matt

 

[MattC]

Lonewulf,

I fear I may have taken your first post a bit more personally than it was intended. I saw the original version of it and frankly took some small offense.

Ultimately, the offense I took rested on a very simple point - I had no idea of what Matteo had said anywhere else in the thread when I asked my original question. As I said in my original post, I came here late and posted the first question that came to mind - my mistake there.

I was therefore inclined to view the second line of your edited comment as somewhat condescending, but as I was somewhat incensed by the second line of the first one I'm afraid my rage at myself for not actually doing the research beforehand carried over.

I'd originally intended for you to take my "Many have taken the liberty to tell me..." statement precisely as it was worded - as a third party to the issue, what I think of it really has no meaning, and that many people have had to remind me of my third-party status in debates of this nature previously. The issue occurred, me wishing it had not does not change the fact that it already has. I did not mean for it to be interpretable as being applicable to anyone else other than me speaking about myself, I most certainly did not mean for you to interpret it the way you did - and for that I apologize. It was my fault, I'll take whatever blame for it you feel justifiable.

~ Matt

 

[Lonewulf]

I was therefore inclined to view the second line of your edited comment as somewhat condescending,

I can be that at times, yes. Especially when I'm getting pretty worked up over an issue. I let emotion invade my reason.

It was my fault, I'll take whatever blame for it you feel justifiable.

Your punishment will be to come over when I have a barbecue sometime in Texas and you're in the region for some reason, and we talk without the clunkiness of online communication. That should be adequate.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Matteo...

Read this really carefully, especially the bit I underlined.

(a) "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

it is quite clear from the underlined section that coersion has nothing to do with it. It clearly says that "failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender" is not deemed to be consent. No Consent = Rape.

It's been shown that under Florida law he would have been guilty of Sexual battery (appearnetly what they call rape.) Let's look at UK law.

1 Rape (1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Again, no consent = rape

What part of that can't you figure out? Nothing in any rape law says that there has to be agression, coersion, or duress. All that Rape requires is failure to get consent from the other person. That's it, no consent = rape really easy, I can't believe you are still arguing this.

 

[PhantomWolf]

BTW, here's the appropriate law from Florida.

(5) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.