Can't we all just get along?

[Matteo Martini]

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.

OK
Enough is enough
I have tried to be polite, so far.
Did not offend anyone, and tried to argue with people with ideas different from mine, always trying to understand the counter-part`s point of view.
As in echange, I got insulted heavily and personally, like in this case.
And I got suspended twice, just for making a very short off-topic.
I know about people who went off-thread for pages, and not got suspended.
None of the people who insulted me got suspended, like I assume you will not for the things you are now writing about me.
I got.
I do not want to be suspended again, nor be insulted again, if you guys have your opinions, and to stick with them, fine for me.
I have already said my opinion on the topic

 

[Wudang]

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

This has been shown to be wrong and without foundation in several legal systems now by a number of posters and from primary sources rather than the amatuers domain of wikipedia. For you to persist in this shows you are either a fool or a liar.

 

[Matteo Martini]

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?

Fiona,
there is a difference from being impolite and being a raper.
The guy who "assaulted" you was very impolite and not a good guy, but I doubt he would have been considered as a raper in any court (do not believe what the other people say here).
The real problem here, is: why you said nothing?
Pardon me for being straight, but I can not understand how being frozen blocks you to just say "I do not want to have sex with you".
Let alone, not to react.
The normal reaction in this case, which would have been my reaction, and the reaction of any person I know for what I know them, would have been to kick off the guy off the bed.
You did not even try to do that.
You did not even say "no".
I fear that it might be difficult to address in court that you have been raped, but you did not even say no, when you were in your own house and with a person you knew and with no apparent threat.
That is the problem.
Why you did not say "no"?
I can only see that there is a problem with that, and I suggest you should have a look at this problem.
People can take advantage of other people` s weaknesses, and the mis-adventure that happened to you in that occasion, may happen again, if you do not even have the strenght to say "no".
At cost to be impolite, but, I am trying to be as respectful as I can, please consider the possibility of get professional help.

 

[gumboot]

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

No it can't. A lack of response, by itself, is not consent. As you yourself said in the post immediately before this one.

Sexual intercourse is seen in law as a contract between two people, and one of the fundamental principles of contract law is that assent must be communicated. Assent cannot be assumed unless the offeree says otherwise.

This was established by the landmark case Felthouse v Bindley (1862) in which it was enshrined in English Common Law that an offeror cannot require an offeree to actively reject an offer - "silence does not amount to acceptance".

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What does the statement:

"You're in the wrong room"

mean to you, Matteo?

 

[gumboot]

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

They are requirements for claiming duress as a justified defense for committing a crime. Since a rape victim has not committed a crime, and is not invoking duress as a form of defense, these factors are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. C'mon! At least try and think. this is a woeful effort.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Was I Raped?

The exact definition of “rape,” “sexual assault,” “sexual abuse” and similar terms differs by state. The wording can get confusing, since states often use different words to mean the same thing or use the same words to describe different things. So, for a precise legal definition, you need to check the law in your state. But here are some general guidelines based on the definitions used by the U.S. Justice Department. Please note that these definitions are a bit graphic, which is inevitable when describing crimes this violent.

...snip...
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape

Edited by Darat: 

Edited for Rule 4 breach.

 

[Flo]

Fiona,
there is a difference from being impolite and being a raper.
The guy who "assaulted" you was very impolite and not a good guy, but I doubt he would have been considered as a raper in any court (do not believe what the other people say here).

Why should she believe you and not the other participants to this thread ? So far none of the arguments, links or information you have brought into the discussion supports your contention that what happened to her wouldn't be considered rape in most courts the world over.

The real problem here, is: why you said nothing?
Pardon me for being straight, but I can not understand how being frozen blocks you to just say "I do not want to have sex with you".
Let alone, not to react.

Your personal incredulity is worth absolutely nothing, and is based mostly on your ignorance of the actual circumstances, and apparently of a lot about psychology.

The normal reaction in this case, which would have been my reaction, and the reaction of any person I know for what I know them, would have been to kick off the guy off the bed.

Easier said than done, and unless you've been "submitted to the test", you don't know what you would actually do in such circumstances. Besides, I'd like you to justify, with actual references to academic studies in the matter, not with fantasies drawn from your self-image as brave and undauted, what a "normal" reaction is under a threat from unwanted sex from an unknown man in the dead of the night.

Years ago, I clobbered a guy who didn't want to leave my house when I told him so with a frying pan, but I was lucky to be sober, fully awake in the kitchen and of having practiced martial arts (mostly judo and kendo) all my life. I wouldn' however dare insult someone who didn't know how, or didn't have the reflex/strength to defend herself, the way you're doing to Fiona. Had I been in her situation, I cannot pretend I'm sure I would have reacted "better" than she did. If you really believe you would, chances are that you're deluded and I hope for you you will never have to find out.

At cost to be impolite, but, I am trying to be as respectful as I can, please consider the possibility of get professional help.

Not only impolite, but totally disrespectful and utterly idiotic comments !

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I thought “no,” but didn’t say it. Is it still rape?
It depends on the circumstances. If you didn’t say no because you were legitimately scared for your life or safety, then it may be rape. Sometimes it isn’t safe to resist, physically or verbally — for example, when someone has a knife or gun to your head, or threatens you or your family if you say anything.

<snip>

So in your opinion a woman trapped in a corner and alone in her flat except for a verbally unresponsive man intent on having sex with her has no reason to be legitimately scared for her life or safety?

 

[tyr_13]

Please, provide a link to the law that states that you need to express consent at some point, otherwise it will be assumed that there is lack of it

Well ceramic pot 'lover', and I do assume you have consented to being called a ceramic pot 'lover' from your actions so far on this thread, consent has to be expressed to be of any use.

It is kind of assumed ceramic pot 'lover', that the only way to give consent is to communicate it. As in, you have to give consent to give consent. I really didn't know your English language skills were that bad ceramic pot 'lover', to not understand what 'give' means. Even if the consent was given non-verbally, it is still consent. Just like I assume you have given consent to being called ceramic pot 'lover', because so far you haven't objected in any way shape or form.

Perhaps you would understand it better this way; by your own words I can punch you square in the stomach. You've given consent. All your actions imply that you want to be punched in the stomach. You haven't said that you don't want to be punched in the stomach. It is perfectly legal to for one consenting adult to punch another consenting adult in the stomach, so that is what you want right? (Note to everyone, like calling him 'ceramic pot lover'', I'm not actually threatening violence, but pointing out the 'small' problem with his reasoning.)

 

[Flo]

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

Curiously, "the client didn't explicitly say "no, I don't want to switch to another internet provider / have my belly opened for non vital surgery / receive 5 books a month for the rest of my life", aren't considered valid excuses in most courts the civilized world over ! Why should it be otherwise when it comes to sexual relationships ? Because there's a clause about a raped woman not screaming in Leviticus ?

 

[Darth Rotor]

She. I am a woman.

Not that it matters, but, I thought Matteo was a man's name. ????

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

From her OP, Fiona expressed some mixed feelings as to just what the hell had happened, and should she call it rape?

I did not see it as rape. I had offered no real resistance and since he did not threaten me I could not be sure he would not have stopped if I had: so I felt responsible. At the same time I knew I had been raped. I cannot explain that any better: part of me was seeing it as I had been raised to see it: and part of me knew better. I know that is not very clear but I can do no better

I am not sure what he thought it was: I was conscious that he might have thought I had allowed him to come home with me for sex; and he might have thought he had reneged on his part of the bargain when he fell asleep. I had not had the "ground rules" conversation you see: and it is possible he saw things quite differently

The italics bit is all that supports your assertion. Fiona's after the event analysis of what happened.

Since she did not report a rape to the police, no rape "legally occurred" for the crime stats bureau to add to its data base. However, that isn't what we are discussing in that sub thread of this thread. What is being considered is "Was what happened to Fiona a rape?" She also says that it was a rape. See the bolded bit after the italics bit.

You contend that rape is only the correct characterization if someone is "forcefully submitted." A number of laws have been cited for you that show rape as being a chargeable offense even if all that is lacking is consent, force or not. Since a number of US laws have been cited, I will state that they are irrelevant. Fiona is from the UK.

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!!

A Summary
Scots Law
English Law

Laws in the UK and Scotland state:
Scot's law:

In Scotland, rape is defined as "a crime at common law and consists of the carnal knowledge of a female by a male person without her consent". Under Scots law, rape can only be carried out by a male who penetrates a female's vagina. There need not be any excretion of semen and the female's hymen does not have to be ruptured for it to be deemed rape. If a man's anus is penetrated by another man's penis, this is called sodomy and is tried under indecent assault, a form of aggravated assault. Likewise, if a male penetrates a female's anus by his penis without her consent, he would also be charged with indecent assault.

English Law:

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act"), which came into force on May 1, 2004, rape in England and Wales was redefined from non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse, and is now defined as non-consensual penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth. The forcing of a penis into a vagina by a female is criminalised, as it appears to be covered by section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.

It also altered the requirements of the defence of mistaken belief in consent so that one's belief must be now both genuine and reasonable (see above under common law).

Presumptions against that belief being reasonably held also now apply when violence is used or feared, the complainant is unconscious, unlawfully detained, drugged, or is by reason of disability unable to communicate a lack of consent.

Note from her account that zero communication went on between Fiona and the man she tells us about pro or con sex. Her being awakened, and thus unconscious before the act began, supports a lack of positive negotiations regarding the act. The man in question would have a very, very hard time convincing a jury that he had received consent from Fiona. She was asleep when he began the process of penile penetration of a vagina, see the law, and no communication was exchanged (per Fiona's account, which I will assume as true) about that penile penetration, pro or con. Therefore, by English Law well as by Scot's Law, rape due penile penetration of a vagina coupled with a lack of consent.

The change in this belief test from the old subjective test (what the defendant thought, reasonably or unreasonably) to an objective test was the subject of some debate (see [1] and [2]), as it permits a man to be convicted of rape if he thought a person was consenting, were the circumstances thought by a jury to be unreasonable.

See again the standard for judging the event to be rape.

Any consent of the complainant is of no relevance if he or she is under the age of thirteen.

Fiona being over 13, not an issue.

Now do you understand, Matteo, why the statement "Fiona was raped during this event" is true?

Now, if you believe Fiona is lying about consent, then I'll ask you to look at her narrative and tell us: what else is she lying about, in your eyes?

DR

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,
there is a difference from being impolite and being a raper.
The guy who "assaulted" you was very impolite and not a good guy, but I doubt he would have been considered as a raper in any court (do not believe what the other people say here).
The real problem here, is: why you said nothing?
Pardon me for being straight, but I can not understand how being frozen blocks you to just say "I do not want to have sex with you".
Let alone, not to react.
The normal reaction in this case, which would have been my reaction, and the reaction of any person I know for what I know them, would have been to kick off the guy off the bed.
You did not even try to do that.
You did not even say "no".
I fear that it might be difficult to address in court that you have been raped, but you did not even say no, when you were in your own house and with a person you knew and with no apparent threat.
That is the problem.
Why you did not say "no"?
I can only see that there is a problem with that, and I suggest you should have a look at this problem.
People can take advantage of other people` s weaknesses, and the mis-adventure that happened to you in that occasion, may happen again, if you do not even have the strenght to say "no".
At cost to be impolite, but, I am trying to be as respectful as I can, please consider the possibility of get professional help.

Evasion noted

 

[Darth Rotor]

Evasion noted

That was an incredibly nice way of putting that. The thinly veiled assertion that you need professional help because you didn't "just say no" was mildly offensive to me, and I am not the one it was directed to!

*tips cap*

Fiona, you are a class act.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

A concerning thought is of Matteo, at some point in the future, on a jury judging what "the normal reaction" should be for a particular victim of rape.

 

[Lonewulf]

That was an incredibly nice way of putting that. The thinly veiled assertion that you need professional help because you didn't "just say no" was mildly offensive to me, and I am not the one it was directed to!

*tips cap*

Fiona, you are a class act.

Agreed.

It was more than a little mildly offensive to me. In fact, I've pretty much been rendered speechless at many of Matteo's posts... or rather, I'd rather not say what I want to say.

I will say this, though: Matteo is no woman.

 

[Darth Rotor]

A concerning thought is of Matteo, at some point in the future, on a jury judging what "the normal reaction" should be for a particular victim of rape.

Rather than be too hard on Matteo, I'll try to get at the core point in Matteo's series of posts that I can grasp.

Like me, seems to be having difficult time understanding how one does not positively and actively resist, say no, etc. Might, like me, be having trouble putting self in shoes and imagining the response Fiona had: the freeze, versus the fight / flight standard.

I think that disbelief or difficulty in empathy might be underlying the entire conversation from that end.

Also the language difficulty.

The rest is a mystery to me.

That is why I provided the links, and once again walked through the reasoning and linkage to show that under English and Scots law, both, the events as described were rape if that word has a useful meaning in the UK.

DR

 

[gumboot]

That was an incredibly nice way of putting that. The thinly veiled assertion that you need professional help because you didn't "just say no" was mildly offensive to me, and I am not the one it was directed to!

*tips cap*

Fiona, you are a class act.

Agreed.

It was more than a little mildly offensive to me. In fact, I've pretty much been rendered speechless at many of Matteo's posts... or rather, I'd rather not say what I want to say.

I will say this, though: Matteo is no woman.

Seconded, and thirded.

 

[LashL]

In Canada, the specific crime of rape was subsumed into the crime of sexual assault back in 1983; sexual assault is intentional, non-consensual touching that violates the complainant's sexual integrity, and includes all manner of sexual assaults, including rape.

The concept of "implied consent" does not apply in Canadian sexual assault law. Rather, the onus is on the person who initiates sexual contact to take all reasonable steps to ascertain that the other party actively consents to the sexual activity, and a lack of resistance to sexual advances is NOT to be equated to consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada has specifically rejected "implied consent" in relation to sexual assault law in Canada (see R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330 and R. v. M.(M.L.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 3) and has held that neither the accused at the time of the offence or a court at the time of trial is permitted to infer consent from a lack of resistance.

Moreover, an accused cannot claim that he honestly and mistakenly believed in the complainant's consent unless the complainant had actively communicated her consent to him, any such consent was not vitiated by any of the statutory factors that vitiate consent, and the "honest but mistaken belief" defence cannot even be raised unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain consent in the circumstances known to him at the time of the alleged offence.

All other courts in Canada are bound by the decisions of the SCC.

In short, under Canadian law, Fiona was sexually assaulted (in this case, raped).

Frankly, I find Matteo's posts arguing the contrary to be quite disturbing, not to mention disingenuous, wilfully ignorant, and bereft of any evidence of logical, rational or critical thinking.

And I fourth the assertion that Fiona is, indeed, a class act.

 

[Wudang]

Indeed. Fiona,