Can't we all just get along?

[PhantomWolf]

implied consent n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered. Examples: a) a "contract" based on the fact that one person has been doing a particular thing and the other person expects him/her to continue; b) the defense in "date rape" cases in which there is a claim of assumed consent due to absence of protest or a belief that "no" really meant "yes," "maybe" or "later." (See: implied)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent

To be noted that Fiona did not even say "No".

"a "contract" based on the fact that one person has been doing a particular thing and the other person expects him/her to continue;"

This doesn't apply since this was not something that was on going with previous sex between them.

"b) the defense in "date rape" cases in which there is a claim of assumed consent due to absence of protest or a belief that "no" really meant "yes," "maybe" or "later.""

Which totally flies in a court case.... like a brick.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Lack of action can be seen as implied consent.

Only in situations where there are other reasons to believe consent is there, such as being in an relationship.

Not in the cases of being underage, under drugs, coerced, paralyzed, etc.

No, in those cases consent is never considered to be given whether it is or not.

And they enumerate the cases in which lack of resistance is not consent.
Underage, being under drugs, etc. etc.

Total Balony. How does:

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

mean anything other than what it says? Where does it say:

"Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender only where the victim is Underage, being under drugs, etc. etc?

It doesn't. Stop making things up.

So, please, provide me one serious link of law which states that a person in a condition similar to Fiona, would have been considered as being raped. Please!!

You have been given them, you just redefine them to suit your twisted world view and refuse to accept them. Florida laws states that "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender. The section this is in says nothing about the reasons for that lack of resistance, it simply says that lack of it is not to be deemed consent. This is very simple. Even you have agreed that Fiona did not give consent. She was not in a relationship with the offender so he had no reason other then the lack of response to believe she wanted sex, and the law specifically says that a lack of response is NOT consent. If you can't figure that out, well I suspect one day you'll be trying to tell a Judge he's wrong while he's sentencing you.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

So let's look at Matteo's argument. (Who is suddendly, despite a male avatar, a she... amazing)

1) sex without consent is rape
2) lack of resistance does not necessarily qualify as consent (it does not, for example, in case of duress)
3) lack of explicit consent also does not necessarily qualify as lack of consent
4) in order to have lack of explicit consent to qualify as lack of consent you need to have duress or coercion
5) there was no duress nor coercion in Fiona` case
6) therefore, there was not lack of consent
7) therefore, she was not raped

Okay.

1) True
2) True
3) True
4) True
5) False
6) By extension, false

C (7)) False

5 is false becuase freezing up is in duress. Secondly, as body language can just as easily project duress (that is, male penetrating sex is very dominant body language)... well, that can easily put someone in duress.

So.

Matteo Martini, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[PhantomWolf]

One thing I have found is that, assuming the location in Matteo's profile is correct, Japanese courts have a rather different understanding about Rape, in fact often courts will consider threats etc to be insufficent or declarations of love. It would also seem that in Japanese courts that showing no physical resistance, even when showing verbal resistance, is enough to be considered consent. I have to wonder if we are dealing partially with a cultural difference here.

 

[gumboot]

Is there any jurisdiction where having sex with a woman who does not say no, does not object sex, is not under drugs, is not underage, etc.. is rape? Evidence.

Are you on drugs? I just cited three jurisdictions in which this is the case.

 

[gumboot]

She was not non-consensual

Is that like "un-dead"?

 

[Elaedith]

So let's look at Matteo's argument. (Who is suddendly, despite a male avatar, a she... amazing)

1) sex without consent is rape
2) lack of resistance does not necessarily qualify as consent (it does not, for example, in case of duress)
3) lack of explicit consent also does not necessarily qualify as lack of consent
4) in order to have lack of explicit consent to qualify as lack of consent you need to have duress or coercion
5) there was no duress nor coercion in Fiona` case
6) therefore, there was not lack of consent
7) therefore, she was not raped

Okay.

1) True
2) True
3) True
4) True
5) False
6) By extension, false

C (7)) False
..

No, 4 is not true, this is a misinterpretation by Matteo.
Matteo is misinterpreting the statement 'lack of resistance does not constitute consent when caused by duress or coercion' to mean 'when there is no duress or coercion, lack of resistance does constitute consent'.

 

[Fiona]

Matteo let me ask you something: on the basis of what you have said. You believe that it is perfectly ok for a man to come into any woman's bed without invitation and intiate sex without a word. So: let us suppose that you stay the night with a friend and that friend happens to live with a sister. Let us further suppose that the three of you have a pleasant evening together and then they make you up a bed on the couch and all go to their respective beds to sleep. In the middle of the night you wake. On the basis of what you have said I assume you now rise and go to the woman's room, enter and climb into her bed. Given that her brother is at home perhaps she will explicitly tell you she does not want you in her bed: perhaps she will be shocked and freeze (though maybe less likely when help is at hand) or maybe she will scream and her brother will come running. What do you think your friend will make of your behaviour? Do you imagine he will accept your own view that this was not attempted rape? that he will be quite happy with your assurance that you were not going to persist if she just calmly told you she was not happy with the idea?

 

[gumboot]

Lack of action can be seen as implied consent.
Not in the cases of being underage, under drugs, coerced, paralyzed, etc.

Those are cited as situations in which a person cannot give consent.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Matteo Martini; you are aware of the Freeze Response, I assume. You are aware that lack of resistance does not automatically qualify as lack of response.

<snip>

Just a small nit-pick: the freeze response is usually refers to a hyper-vigilant state (think of the heroine in a film hearing a noise and the camera cutting to show her frozen on the spot, eyes flicking from side to side).

What Fiona and other rape victims experience is the fright response (aka tonic immobility), which is akin to playing dead in the face of insurmountable odds of winning a fight and having little chance of escape.

http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/45/5/448

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

No, 4 is not true, this is a misinterpretation by Matteo.
Matteo is misinterpreting the statement 'lack of resistance does not constitute consent when caused by duress or coercion' to mean 'when there is no duress or coercion, lack of resistance does constitute consent'.

Aha. I would still point out that assuming 4 is true, her following argument is STILL wrong.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Is that like "un-dead"?

I am glad I am receiving so much attention, hoping that will not result in another suspension.
I have no time to reply to you all, I apologize for this, but I can reply to you, the legal term, I guess, is "implied consent"

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I am glad I am receiving so much attention...

<snip>

I'm thinking this is your only reason for being in the thread.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

"Implied Consent"

Well.

In any allegation of rape, the absence of consent to sexual intercourse on the part of the victim is critical. Consent need not be express, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties, but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.

Duress, in which the victim may be subject to or threatened by overwhelming force or violence, and which may result in absence of objection to intercourse, leads to the presumption of lack of consent. Duress may be actual or threatened force or violence against the victim or somebody else close to the victim. Even blackmail may constitute duress. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in its landmark 1998 judgment used a definition of rape which did not use the word consent. It defined rape as: "a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive."[7]

Okay.
Relationship: None
Context: She told him to get out. Errr...


There is no implied consent.

However. She was under duress as has been explained ad nasueum.

So you know? You're still wrong and this doesn't apply. Just.. give up.

 

[gumboot]

I am glad I am receiving so much attention, hoping that will not result in another suspension.
I have no time to reply to you all, I apologize for this, but I can reply to you, the legal term, I guess, is "implied consent"

Implied consent is still consent (assuming it's recognised in a given jurisdiction at all). Again, you have two choices. Either Fiona gave consent, or she did not. There is no such thing as "not non-consensual" except as a grammatically incorrect and long-winded way of saying "consenting".

You cannot weasel out of this one. Fiona consented, and was not raped, or did not consent, and was raped. There are no other options.

If Fiona consented, you should be able to cite, from her account, when it was that she consented. You continually fail to do this basic thing.

So, again, please cite the passage from Fiona's account that, in your opinion, constitutes her consent. If you are unable to do this, alternatively admit that she was raped and apologise to her for your previous statements.

 

[Matteo Martini]

The advice for teens is based on the laws and explains how to keep them.

Please, lets speak about law

You refuse to believe how it's defined by law.

How about because having a guy in your bed does not mean "I want to have sex with you" except perhaps on Planet X.

[quite]Please, bring me one example of law where it is required to having the woman "really [is] saying yes". Using your own words.

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

From information about Canada's Law:

Consent is an agreement. How can there be an agreement when one party doesn't say anything that indicates agreement, nor responds in any way to indicate agreement?[/QUOTE]

Not saying no can be seen as an implicit agreement

 

[Matteo Martini]

Only in situations where there are other reasons to believe consent is there, such as being in an relationship.

Evidence of this?

No, in those cases consent is never considered to be given whether it is or not.

BS.
A paralyzed person can legally have sex if he/she consents

Total Balony. How does:

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

mean anything other than what it says? Where does it say:

"Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender only where the victim is Underage, being under drugs, etc. etc?

It doesn't. Stop making things up.

Please, provide evidence of other cases in which lack of objection means refusal of consent

She was not in a relationship with the offender so he had no reason other then the lack of response to believe she wanted sex, and the law specifically says that a lack of response is NOT consent.

Wrong.
Says that a lack of response is, by itself, NOT consent.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Implied consent is still consent (assuming it's recognised in a given jurisdiction at all). Again, you have two choices. Either Fiona gave consent, or she did not. There is no such thing as "not non-consensual" except as a grammatically incorrect and long-winded way of saying "consenting".

You cannot weasel out of this one. Fiona consented, and was not raped, or did not consent, and was raped. There are no other options.

If Fiona consented, you should be able to cite, from her account, when it was that she consented. You continually fail to do this basic thing.

So, again, please cite the passage from Fiona's account that, in your opinion, constitutes her consent. If you are unable to do this, alternatively admit that she was raped and apologise to her for your previous statements.

Very simply.
Not saying "no" can be seen as implicit consent

 

[Matteo Martini]

So let's look at Matteo's argument. (Who is suddendly, despite a male avatar, a she... amazing)

1) sex without consent is rape
2) lack of resistance does not necessarily qualify as consent (it does not, for example, in case of duress)
3) lack of explicit consent also does not necessarily qualify as lack of consent
4) in order to have lack of explicit consent to qualify as lack of consent you need to have duress or coercion
5) there was no duress nor coercion in Fiona` case
6) therefore, there was not lack of consent
7) therefore, she was not raped

Okay.

1) True
2) True
3) True
4) True
5) False
6) By extension, false

C (7)) False

5 is false becuase freezing up is in duress. Secondly, as body language can just as easily project duress (that is, male penetrating sex is very dominant body language)... well, that can easily put someone in duress.

Wrong.

In order for duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:[1]

1.Threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
2.Harm threatened must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
3.Threat must be immediate and inescapable
4.The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Matteo,

In your opinion should physicians be allowed to perform pelvic exams on unconcious patients without getting prior explicit consent?

ETA: I have another question after this one.