Can't we all just get along?

[Matteo Martini]

Let's try and make this easy:

Couple not in sexual relationship: Red light unless given green
Couple in sexual relationship: Green light unless given red

Legal evidence?
Add: I mean, post a link to the law/evidence that says this.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Actively engaging in the intimate activity. Making statements that imply or explicitly state a desire to have sex. Being in a pre-existing sexual relationship with the person. That kind of thing.

Please, post a link to the law that says that "Actively engaging in the intimate activity" means consent and lack of "Actively engaging in the intimate activity" means lack of consent.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Legal evidence?

Legal doesn't actually differentiate between the two. Legally if there is no consent, it's rape.

I'm making it simple by pointing out that generally in a sexual partnership consent is assumed given between the two unless specifically stated otherwise.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Legal doesn't actually differentiate between the two.[..]

But you did.

ETA: we agree that no consent = rape (no need to write this all the time)

 

[PhantomWolf]

But you did.

ETA: we agree that no consent = rape (no need to write this all the time)

Yes I did because generally getting into a sexual relationship with someone means that you give them your consent for sexual activity during the period of the relationship when you start it. That means until you retract that consent it is active.

i.e. even in a relationship you still require consent, it's just that the consent is give a lot longer ago and covers a greater period of time than for those not in a relationship.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Yes I did because generally getting into a sexual relationship with someone means that you give them your consent for sexual activity during the period of the relationship when you start it. That means until you retract that consent it is active.

i.e. even in a relationship you still require consent, it's just that the consent is give a lot longer ago and covers a greater period of time than for those not in a relationship.

Do you have any evidence to back what you said: ??

Couple not in sexual relationship: Red light unless given green
Couple in sexual relationship: Green light unless given red

Please, I am waiting for a link or something..

 

[gumboot]

Please, post a link to the law that says that "Actively engaging in the intimate activity" means consent and lack of "Actively engaging in the intimate activity" means lack of consent.

It's called case law. Implied consent is a well established legal principle - most commonly applied to breath-testing for drunk drivers and people giving first aid to an unconscious person.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you have any evidence to back what you said: ??

Couple not in sexual relationship: Red light unless given green
Couple in sexual relationship: Green light unless given red

Please, I am waiting for a link or something..

It's already been given. The law states that lack of consent is rape, you already agree with that.

Thus "Couple not in sexual relationship: Red light unless given green"

And as I pointed out above, when you enter a sexual relationship with someone you give your consent then, so you've given the green light right there and it will stay on until you say no, Red Light.

If you want a link, try reading the first paragraph of your wiki quite again, otherwise try using a bit of logic and sense.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It's called case law. Implied consent is a well established legal principle - most commonly applied to breath-testing for drunk drivers and people giving first aid to an unconscious person.

Please, provide a link where case law backs what you guys claimed

 

[PhantomWolf]

If you look at Florida Law:

(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.

Really it seem the only part of my "make it simple" that you seem able to quibble if the second part, and since legally no difference is made between couples and not couples, all that matters is when and for how long consent is given. Generally in a couple this is early on and for as long as the relationship lasts, if you disagree feel free to show why.

 

[Matteo Martini]

If you look at Florida Law:

(a) "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission.

Since we all agree (I hope) that Fiona was not coercifully submitted (and she is not underage, disable, etc. etc.), I would like to know why her lack of resistance can not be intended as Fiona giving her "intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent".

"Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.[..]

Which does not mean "failure of showing intimate engagament means failure of consent".
Agreed?

 

[gumboot]

Please, provide a link where case law backs what you guys claimed

A good case would probably be:

People v. Jovanovic, 263 A.D.2d 182, 700 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1999)

 

[PhantomWolf]

Which does not mean "failure of showing intimate engagament means failure of consent".
Agreed?

No I don't agree. You seem to think that if the victim doesn't complain then they consent, the law specifically says this is not true.

 

[gumboot]

Another would be:

State v. Wilkens, 1980 Ohio App. LEXIS 13745

 

[Matteo Martini]

No I don't agree. You seem to think that if the victim doesn't complain then they consent, the law specifically says this is not true.

Not complain, but reject the person verbally and/or phisically.
The law specifically says it is not true if the victim is coerced, underage, disabled, drugged, etc.
And I agree with the law.

 

[69dodge]

I was soundly asleep. I did not hear the door open. I knew he was there when he climbed into my bed. I was half awake: I remember asking what he was doing and saying he was in the wrong room. [...] But he did not speak to me.

Really, now. Does that sound like consent?

"What are you doing? You're in the wrong room" means "I'd like to have sex with you" ?!

I don't think so.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Another would be:

State v. Wilkens, 1980 Ohio App. LEXIS 13745

Please, post the relevant passages here.
Thanks

Really, now. Does that sound like consent?

"What are you doing? You're in the wrong room" means "I'd like to have sex with you" ?!

I don't think so.

No, it means that initially Fiona thought that the guy went in the room by mistake.
Please, post what you believe would have been a legally binding consent attitude

 

[gumboot]

Not complain, but reject the person verbally and/or phisically.
The law specifically says it is not true if the victim is coerced, underage, disabled, drugged, etc.
And I agree with the law.

Wikipedia is the law?

 

[gumboot]

Please, post the relevant passages here.
Thanks

I'm not going to do your research for you. Go look it up. The appeals court ruled that the complainant's actions and previous behaviour constituted implied consent, thus no crime had been committed.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Another would be:

State v. Wilkens, 1980 Ohio App. LEXIS 13745

Since I have no time to look after the detail of each trial, please provide me evidence of what you have quoted