Is it rape?

[Esternial]

not to bump my own posts for self-service, but i'd love a response or answer to this previous post simply because i'm interested in what other people's opinions are on the matter:

I'm still curious as to why intoxication is the only valid change to one's mental state that results in a rape occurring on accounts of the person being unable to make rational decisions regarding consent. In scenario B, the girl being 'really heated' is a change to her mental state as she has a fixation on 'releasing her heat' (so to put it), and in turn results in the girl being unable to make rational decisions. Therefore, how can a rape have occurred if the girl providing forced oral sex on her boyfriend is unable to make the rational decision of whether or not it is right to force oral sex, because of the effects on her mental state due to her 'being in heat' (i.e. racing hormones).

I suppose another point is that why is it that only the victim of a rape can use the fact that they were in a mental state unable to make rational decisions as a result of alcohol consumption (or even changes caused by chemical reactions in the body) as evidence of rape, whereas the perpetrator of a rape can't use it as evidence of a rape not occurring - afterall, the perpetrator was not in a mental state of which they could rationally make the decision not to have forced sex with someone as a direct result of these chemical influences.

Under this logic, either you have to allow all changes to mental states to count as evidence for rape and the lack of rape, or no changes to mental states can count as evidence for rape or the lack of rape. I think the real distinctions need to be made as to how these mental states came about, as opposed to what these mental states are. For example, a man forcing or coercing a woman into taking an intoxicant and then having sex with her would be guilty of rape as he is forcing a mental state on the woman which would impede her ability to make rational decisions regarding consent. However, if that same woman voluntarily took the intoxicant provided by the man and then had sex with the man, then the man would not be guilty of rape as the woman voluntarily submitted herself to the changed mental state that would impede her ability to make ration decisions regarding consent - in effect, she consented to not being able to consent (as absurd as this sounds on its own).

You're categorising all changes in mental states, of any types and magnitude, under the same group. That's a gross generalisation. I genuinely hope you're not seriously comparing intoxication and "being in heat" as being fundamentally the same thing.

Duration of the altered mental state, difference to the "standard" mental state, nature of the mind-altering substance and magnitude of the influence are all factors that are relevant.

Alcohol results in a serious and acute mental impairment and loss of control. I'm fairly hard pressed to think of any physiological phenomena that accomplish the same.

[Bressen]

not to bump my own posts for self-service, but i'd love a response or answer to this previous post simply because i'm interested in what other people's opinions are on the matter:

I'm still curious as to why intoxication is the only valid change to one's mental state that results in a rape occurring on accounts of the person being unable to make rational decisions regarding consent. In scenario B, the girl being 'really heated' is a change to her mental state as she has a fixation on 'releasing her heat' (so to put it), and in turn results in the girl being unable to make rational decisions. Therefore, how can a rape have occurred if the girl providing forced oral sex on her boyfriend is unable to make the rational decision of whether or not it is right to force oral sex, because of the effects on her mental state due to her 'being in heat' (i.e. racing hormones).

I suppose another point is that why is it that only the victim of a rape can use the fact that they were in a mental state unable to make rational decisions as a result of alcohol consumption (or even changes caused by chemical reactions in the body) as evidence of rape, whereas the perpetrator of a rape can't use it as evidence of a rape not occurring - afterall, the perpetrator was not in a mental state of which they could rationally make the decision not to have forced sex with someone as a direct result of these chemical influences.

Under this logic, either you have to allow all changes to mental states to count as evidence for rape and the lack of rape, or no changes to mental states can count as evidence for rape or the lack of rape. I think the real distinctions need to be made as to how these mental states came about, as opposed to what these mental states are. For example, a man forcing or coercing a woman into taking an intoxicant and then having sex with her would be guilty of rape as he is forcing a mental state on the woman which would impede her ability to make rational decisions regarding consent. However, if that same woman voluntarily took the intoxicant provided by the man and then had sex with the man, then the man would not be guilty of rape as the woman voluntarily submitted herself to the changed mental state that would impede her ability to make ration decisions regarding consent - in effect, she consented to not being able to consent (as absurd as this sounds on its own).

You're categorising all changes in mental states, of any types and magnitude, under the same group. That's a gross generalisation. I genuinely hope you're not seriously comparing intoxication and "being in heat" as being fundamentally the same thing.

Duration of the altered mental state, difference to the "standard" mental state, nature of the mind-altering substance and magnitude of the influence are all factors that are relevant.

Alcohol results in a serious and acute mental impairment and loss of control. I'm fairly hard pressed to think of any physiological phenomena that accomplish the same.

Well, by necessity, all changes to mental states are to be categorised into changes to mental states. There's definitely a spectrum of the degrees of which stimuli can change one's mental state, and I'm specifically curious as to where we draw the line on that spectrum that indicates ''any changes to mental states beyond this degree are changes to mental states that result in people being unable to provide consent to sexual activity''.

Or, indeed, can we even conceivably or realistically draw a spectrum that accurately reflects the degrees to which different stimuli can change one's mental state, and can we then, from this spectrum, accurately choose a point to which we declare all things beyond it to be indicative of people being incapable of consent. In order to realistically and practically do this, you cannot lump a stimuli together as one that has variations from it in terms of it's differing magnitudes (i.e. you have to differentiate between low intoxication and high intoxication, severe autism and high-functioning autism), because the variations of that stimuli can have profoundly different effects on one's mental state, when compared with the other variations of that stimuli and the variations existing within other stimuli - how do we compare the changes in mental state caused by severe autism to the changes in mental state caused by high intoxication, or the changes in mental state caused by low intoxication and the changes in mental state caused by high-functioning autism.

I don't think it's possible to draw a line, which is why I don't understand what makes intoxication such a special phenomenon that it's widely regarded as the one stimuli that determines whether or not consent is valid.

[Esternial]

You're categorising all changes in mental states, of any types and magnitude, under the same group. That's a gross generalisation. I genuinely hope you're not seriously comparing intoxication and "being in heat" as being fundamentally the same thing.

Duration of the altered mental state, difference to the "standard" mental state, nature of the mind-altering substance and magnitude of the influence are all factors that are relevant.

Alcohol results in a serious and acute mental impairment and loss of control. I'm fairly hard pressed to think of any physiological phenomena that accomplish the same.

Well, by necessity, all changes to mental states are to be categorised into changes to mental states. There's definitely a spectrum of the degrees of which stimuli can change one's mental state, and I'm specifically curious as to where we draw the line on that spectrum that indicates ''any changes to mental states beyond this degree are changes to mental states that result in people being unable to provide consent to sexual activity''.

Or, indeed, can we even conceivably or realistically draw a spectrum that accurately reflects the degrees to which different stimuli can change one's mental state, and can we then, from this spectrum, accurately choose a point to which we declare all things beyond it to be indicative of people being incapable of consent. In order to realistically and practically do this, you cannot lump a stimuli together as one that has variations from it in terms of it's differing magnitudes (i.e. you have to differentiate between low intoxication and high intoxication, severe autism and high-functioning autism), because the variations of that stimuli can have profoundly different effects on one's mental state, when compared with the other variations of that stimuli and the variations existing within other stimuli - how do we compare the changes in mental state caused by severe autism to the changes in mental state caused by high intoxication, or the changes in mental state caused by low intoxication and the changes in mental state caused by high-functioning autism.

I don't think it's possible to draw a line, which is why I don't understand what makes intoxication such a special phenomenon that it's widely regarded as the one stimuli that determines whether or not consent is valid.

The most apparent distinction is that alcohol is a drug-induced alteration in mental function, but physiologically there are differences as well. A line can be drawn...unless you feel absolutely justified comparing autistic people to someone who has had too much to drink. People with autism can still understand and apply the concept of consent. Try to do the same to a person too much to drink.

I think you don't want to look at the distinctions as it upsets your narrative. Again, I doubt there's any instance that you can compare to an alcohol-induced stupor in terms of the type and degree of impact on decision making. If you really don't understand what I'm getting at I might look for some papers tomorrow to help you understand but I don't think it's quite that difficult tbh...

[New Edom]

Let's try with me.

Still not convinced.

First: the clothes thing. I don't know why this is so hard to explain so I'm going to explain it simply.
a) I do NOT NOT NOT think that because you dressed sexy it means you want to have sex.
b) What I do think is that it means that you are more LIKELY to want to provoke sexual INTEREST, which is not the same thing. It means that you might want to be flirted with. Let me emphasize that again--MIGHT.
c) It can mean you are far more likely to want to be flirted with than someone in a nun's habit.

Your affirmation is correct.
A sexy outfit MIGHT mean I wish to know interesting persons. Even flirting, if it's the case.

My other point was this: If you cannot use clothing as an indicator at all (which many feminists do in fact say) then you can't use body language which you have said varies from person to person. short of being in a relationship already, you have no idea, according to that, of what it means. So it cannot be used according to the feminist ethos. So body language remains ambiguous.

Indeed.
You have to ask VERBALLY.
And check again her consent during the act.

Frankly, I find adherents of afirmative consent to be like people who want you to sign up for a pyramid scheme. I find that generally they give a lot f hype and virtually no examples. They undermine a simple formula for one that is actually far more complicated, and substitute a legal approach for one that is really about trying to change how people feel about sex. I find it dishonest, weak and manipuilative. I've even watched classes on it online and been baffled as to what people got out of it. The hype is the enthusiasm of people who want to be seen as good, not thoughtful people who have made relationships easier to navigate. The best example of this is the nonsensical phrase "affirmative consent is sexy". Who cares if it's sexy or not?

We already had this discussion.
Affirmative consent can work just only VERBALLY asking.
And checking her again, possibly multiple times, during the whole act.
It's "sexy"? Not necessarly, you have to enter in the right attitude to find it sexy.

As you already should know I suspect that people being ambiguos are deliberately doing so because they're just afraid that telling all the truth could drop their chances of having guys hitting on them.
By doing so they aren't taking seriously the problem of rape, and they're actually destroying the effectiveness of affirmative consent.
To put it in an even more clear form: I don't think that such people are really worried about the widespread problem of rape.

So in other words, if afirmative consent is to be applied at all, it MUST be verbal, the other person must be legally capable of verbally consenting and how they actually feel about it is irrelevant. what matters is that they must be able to make an un-coerced choice and have made that un-coerced choice, right?

[Bressen]

Well, by necessity, all changes to mental states are to be categorised into changes to mental states. There's definitely a spectrum of the degrees of which stimuli can change one's mental state, and I'm specifically curious as to where we draw the line on that spectrum that indicates ''any changes to mental states beyond this degree are changes to mental states that result in people being unable to provide consent to sexual activity''.

Or, indeed, can we even conceivably or realistically draw a spectrum that accurately reflects the degrees to which different stimuli can change one's mental state, and can we then, from this spectrum, accurately choose a point to which we declare all things beyond it to be indicative of people being incapable of consent. In order to realistically and practically do this, you cannot lump a stimuli together as one that has variations from it in terms of it's differing magnitudes (i.e. you have to differentiate between low intoxication and high intoxication, severe autism and high-functioning autism), because the variations of that stimuli can have profoundly different effects on one's mental state, when compared with the other variations of that stimuli and the variations existing within other stimuli - how do we compare the changes in mental state caused by severe autism to the changes in mental state caused by high intoxication, or the changes in mental state caused by low intoxication and the changes in mental state caused by high-functioning autism.

I don't think it's possible to draw a line, which is why I don't understand what makes intoxication such a special phenomenon that it's widely regarded as the one stimuli that determines whether or not consent is valid.

The most apparent distinction is that alcohol is a drug-induced alteration in mental function, but physiologically there are differences as well. A line can be drawn...unless you feel absolutely justified comparing autistic people to someone who has had too much to drink. People with autism can still understand and apply the concept of consent. Try to do the same to a person too much to drink.

I think you don't want to look at the distinctions as it upsets your narrative. Again, I doubt there's any instance that you can compare to an alcohol-induced stupor in terms of the type and degree of impact on decision making. If you really don't understand what I'm getting at I might look for some papers tomorrow to help you understand but I don't think it's quite that difficult tbh...

The principle underpinning the statement that the presence of intoxicants is indicative to consent not being valid is that intoxicants make changes to decision-making and cognitive processes to a degree that the person under the influence of said intoxicants that hampers their ability to provide consent. Stripping this down, the principle is that changes to mental states that hamper decision-making and cognitive processes to a certain (currently quantified) degree result in consent not being valid.

Regardless of however you want to phrase it, autism makes changes to ones decision-making and cognitive processes. I am not suggesting that under this spectrum/degree-based system people with high-functioning autism should be unable to consent, as the stimuli (which is autism) does not affect their decision-making and cognitive processes to a degree that they are unable to consent. However, when it comes to severe autism (we're talking severe behavioural and social disabilities to the point where communication is difficult), there is no doubt a significant change to one's decision-making and cognitive processes to a degree that would hamper their ability to provide consent and is higher than the changes to mental faculties caused by temporary intoxication. Why is it then, that severe autism is not a criteria for which people are unable to provide valid consent, yet intoxication which influences mental faculties to a much lesser degree than severe autism is?

I'm seeking clarification on why we have this very specific exemption to intoxication as making someone unable to provide consent, yet other changes to one's mental faculties (using autism as a mere example among many) aren't, when those mental changes may be more severe than the effects of the intoxicants. I want consistency, and I want an object reason why intoxicants are the exemption whereas other changes to mental faculties aren't other than the arbitrary fact that the effects of intoxicants are drug-induced.

Also, don't accuse me of refusing to change my mind based on my narrative being upset by evidence. I'm not trying to push an agenda here, I'm just trying to understand the methodology behind the practice of intoxicants being the only exemption.

[Chessmistress]

So in other words, if afirmative consent is to be applied at all, it MUST be verbal, the other person must be legally capable of verbally consenting and how they actually feel about it is irrelevant. what matters is that they must be able to make an un-coerced choice and have made that un-coerced choice, right?

The meaning of affirmative consent is EXACTLY that since you get her verbal consent then you don't have to care about other things (unless you're coercing her to say "yes").
There's no such thing as an un-coerced "yes" that can be a rape.
If you don't threatened/blackmailed her and you did get a clear "yes" (or words with comparable meaning) before and even during the sexual act, then the fact that she could (theoretically, almost impossible to happen) lie it's absolutely irrelevant.
I hope it's clear.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

If there's no consent, it's rape. It's that fucking simple. The fact that "many people have different views on the subject," and that this is even a topic of discussion, is sickening to me.

[Torrocca]

If there's no consent, it's rape. It's that fucking simple. The fact that "many people have different views on the subject," and that this is even a topic of discussion, is sickening to me.

The most agreeable statement in this thread. Adding on, forced consent isn't actual consent.

[Bressen]

If there's no consent, it's rape. It's that fucking simple. The fact that "many people have different views on the subject," and that this is even a topic of discussion, is sickening to me.

that would be a very salient point if you weren't merely pointing out the obvious. by definition, for a rape to occur consent cannot have been given. the dispute therefore is not on whether or not consent not being given is rape, but rather it is on what qualifies as consent being given or not given, and on that topic the fact that many people have different views is not sickening but conducive to a productive discussion.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

However, there's no such thing as emergency sex. I think.

Get Nana a nurse outfit and find out.

You assume we don't have one already...

[Chessmistress]

If there's no consent, it's rape. It's that fucking simple. The fact that "many people have different views on the subject," and that this is even a topic of discussion, is sickening to me.

Scenario B is theoretically a sexual assault but since she didn't want to harm him then it lacks the intention to harm, the mens rea, therefore it's not sexual assault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#United_States

Since its publication in 1957, the formulation of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout North America in clarifying the discussion of the different modes of culpability.[13] The following levels of mens rea are found in the MPC:

Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant. Under Model Penal Code Section 2.05, this mens rea may only be applied where the forbidden conduct is a mere violation, i.e. a civil infraction.
Negligently: a "reasonable person" would be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is under prohibited attendant circumstances, and the actor was not so aware but should have been.
Recklessly: the actor consciously disregards a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is of a prohibited nature.
Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.
Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

Except for strict liability, these classes of mens rea are defined in Section 2.02(2) of the MPC.

The only kind of mens rea that could be attribuited to her is "Negligently", but I don't think it applies due the common beliefs about how heterosexual sex works.

[Galloism]

If there's no consent, it's rape. It's that fucking simple. The fact that "many people have different views on the subject," and that this is even a topic of discussion, is sickening to me.

Scenario B is theoretically a sexual assault but since she didn't want to harm him then it lacks the intention to harm, the mens rea, therefore it's not sexual assault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#United_States

Since its publication in 1957, the formulation of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout North America in clarifying the discussion of the different modes of culpability.[13] The following levels of mens rea are found in the MPC:

Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant. Under Model Penal Code Section 2.05, this mens rea may only be applied where the forbidden conduct is a mere violation, i.e. a civil infraction.
Negligently: a "reasonable person" would be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is under prohibited attendant circumstances, and the actor was not so aware but should have been.
Recklessly: the actor consciously disregards a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is of a prohibited nature.
Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.
Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

Except for strict liability, these classes of mens rea are defined in Section 2.02(2) of the MPC.

The only kind of mens rea that could be attribuited to her is "Negligently", but I don't think it applies due the common beliefs about how heterosexual sex works.

So, you would argue a man who rapes a lesbian woman to help cure her of her lesbianism didn't commit rape because he didn't mean any harm?

[Chessmistress]

So, you would argue a man who rapes a lesbian woman to help cure her of her lesbianism didn't commit rape because he didn't mean any harm?

If you read the definition of mens rea then you'll understand that it doesn't apply.
The problem could arise just only if the man is from another culture and the court is extremely moronic...
This hypothesis is one of the reasons why I'm not intersectionalist...

[Humppa]

According to most of the posters in this thread looking at boobs on the internet is rape... this board has a serious SJW problem.

[Galloism]

So, you would argue a man who rapes a lesbian woman to help cure her of her lesbianism didn't commit rape because he didn't mean any harm?

If you read the definition of mens rea then you'll understand that it doesn't apply.
The problem could arise just only if the man is from another culture and the court is extremely moronic...
This hypothesis is one of the reasons why I'm not intersectionalist...

I'm pointing out obviously that your summation "means no harm" is ludicrous. If "means no harm" were the standard, the man raping a lesbian woman to make her straight because "he knew she would enjoy it" would be as not guilty as the woman in the OP.

She purposefully committed rape. She purposefully enveloped his penis while she knew she did not have consent. That's rape.

Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

She had the conscious object to envelop a man's penis when she knowingly did not have consent.

Once again Chessmistress, and its sad I have to say this, stop defending rapists.

[Romanum Dominium]

If there's no consent, it's rape. It's that fucking simple. The fact that "many people have different views on the subject," and that this is even a topic of discussion, is sickening to me.

Scenario B is theoretically a sexual assault but since she didn't want to harm him then it lacks the intention to harm, the mens rea, therefore it's not sexual assault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#United_States

Since its publication in 1957, the formulation of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout North America in clarifying the discussion of the different modes of culpability.[13] The following levels of mens rea are found in the MPC:

Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant. Under Model Penal Code Section 2.05, this mens rea may only be applied where the forbidden conduct is a mere violation, i.e. a civil infraction.
Negligently: a "reasonable person" would be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is under prohibited attendant circumstances, and the actor was not so aware but should have been.
Recklessly: the actor consciously disregards a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is of a prohibited nature.
Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.
Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

Except for strict liability, these classes of mens rea are defined in Section 2.02(2) of the MPC.

The only kind of mens rea that could be attribuited to her is "Negligently", but I don't think it applies due the common beliefs about how heterosexual sex works.

Scenario B: A young couple who have been going out for awhile, and they’re both in love. The guy is new to dating and wants to take things slow, and they have had explicit conversations about what is and isn’t okay at this point. In spite of that, his girlfriend, who has much more experience, gets really heated while they're fooling around and ends up holding down her boyfriend and performing oral sex on him until he orgasms, though her boyfriend has said this is past his comfort zone and tells her to stop. The boyfriend refrains from hitting her to get her to stop because he doesn't want to hurt her. Afterward, the girlfriend apologizes but says she was “caught up in the moment” and she knew that it would make him feel good if he’d just loosen up and let her do it. Is it rape?

Emphasis mine.
She used physical force to have sex with her boyfriend against his clear, previously communicated will. This is quite clearly beyond negligence and moves into the territory of willful harm.

[Chessmistress]

If you read the definition of mens rea then you'll understand that it doesn't apply.
The problem could arise just only if the man is from another culture and the court is extremely moronic...
This hypothesis is one of the reasons why I'm not intersectionalist...

I'm pointing out obviously that your summation "means no harm" is ludicrous. If "means no harm" we're the standard, the man raping a lesbian woman to make her straight because "he knew she would enjoy it" would be as not guilty as the woman in the OP.

She knowingly committed rape. She knowingly enveloped his penis while she knew she did not have consent. That's rape.

Once again Chessmistress, and its sad I have to say this, stop defending rapists.

You're strawmanning, there's a definition of mens rea above you.
No way that a court could accept as a reasonable belief "he knew she would enjoy it" in the case of a man raping a lesbian woman to make her straight.
Unless, as I said, we have the deadly combination of a man coming from another and more retrograde culture and a court that is extremely moronic.
On the other hand, scenario B is totally different: just try to ask to random people if they think that a man could be raped by a woman giving him oral sex. If more than 50% people will answer "no" then even the woman in the scenario B can be supposed to not have the mens rea. If more than 80% people will answer "no", then you can be pretty sure that in the scenario B she'll be acquitted for lacking the mens rea.
That's how things works in the real life, and within a real court.
Regarding me: I said that's "technically sexual assault".
Let's then compare it to the belief that a man raping a lesbian woman could make her straight: how many random people would answer that that's a reasonable belief? Are you really trying to suggest that they could be more than 50%? No, clearly no. That's why there's mens rea in such case.

[Romanum Dominium]

I'm pointing out obviously that your summation "means no harm" is ludicrous. If "means no harm" we're the standard, the man raping a lesbian woman to make her straight because "he knew she would enjoy it" would be as not guilty as the woman in the OP.

She knowingly committed rape. She knowingly enveloped his penis while she knew she did not have consent. That's rape.

Once again Chessmistress, and its sad I have to say this, stop defending rapists.

You're strawmanning, there's a definition of mens rea above you.
No way that a court could accept as a reasonable belief "he knew she would enjoy it" in the case of a man raping a lesbian woman to make her straight.
Unless, as I said, we have the deadly combination of a man coming from another and more retrograde culture and a court that is extremely moronic.
On the other hand, scenario B is totally different: just try to ask to random people if they think that a man could be raped by a woman giving him oral sex. If more than 50% people will answer "no" then even the woman in the scenario B can be supposed to not have the mens rea. If more than 80% people will answer "no", then you can be pretty sure that in the scenario B she'll be acquitted for lacking the mens rea.
That's how things works in the real life, and within a real court.
Regarding me: I said that's "technically sexual assault".
Let's then compare it to the belief that a man raping a lesbian woman could make her straight: how many random people would answer that that's a reasonable belief? Are you really trying to suggest that they could be more than 50%? No, clearly no. That's why there's mens rea in such case.

She held him down. That's clearly stated in the scenario and the victim had previously stated that this was past his comfort zone. She knew that what she was doing was wrong and nonconsesnual by the sheer fact that the HELD HIM DOWN. There is mens rea because she knew what she was doing.

[Galloism]

I'm pointing out obviously that your summation "means no harm" is ludicrous. If "means no harm" we're the standard, the man raping a lesbian woman to make her straight because "he knew she would enjoy it" would be as not guilty as the woman in the OP.

She knowingly committed rape. She knowingly enveloped his penis while she knew she did not have consent. That's rape.

Once again Chessmistress, and its sad I have to say this, stop defending rapists.

You're strawmanning, there's a definition of mens rea above you.

I know. Purposefully and knowingly are both good fits here:

Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.
Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

She purposefully engaged in sexual congress with a nonconsenting person. She knowingly acted despite her knowledge that no consent was given. Sexual congress with nonconsenting persons is against the law.

Boom: Mens Rea

No way that a court could accept as a reasonable belief "he knew she would enjoy it" in the case of a man raping a lesbian woman to make her straight.

Depends what country and locale.

I suggest some research.

Unless, as I said, we have the deadly combination of a man coming from another and more retrograde culture and a court that is extremely moronic.

Like an extremely moronic court that would think a person raping another person "meant no harm because they thought the victim would enjoy it eventually if they just did it"?

On the other hand, scenario B is totally different: just try to ask to random people if they think that a man could be raped by a woman giving him oral sex. If more than 50% people will answer "no" then even the woman in the scenario B can be supposed to not have the mens rea. If more than 80% people will answer "no", then you can be pretty sure that in the scenario B she'll be acquitted for lacking the mens rea.

That is NOT what mens rea means. Mens rea has nothing to do with public perception. It has everything to do with intent to take an action that's in violation of the law. That's what it MEANS. Seriously. Read.

That's how things works in the real life, and within a real court.
Regarding me: I said that's "technically sexual assault".
Let's then compare it to the belief that a man raping a lesbian woman could make her straight: how many random people would answer that that's a reasonable belief? Are you really trying to suggest that they could be more than 50%? No, clearly no. That's why there's mens rea in such case.

That's NOT what mens rea means. Mens rea means intent to take an action which is a crime. Since having sex with a man without his consent is a crime, and she INTENDED to have sex with a man without his consent, she has mens rea. Mens rea is about the easiest thing in the world to prove in this rape case - it's even easier than Scenario A and Scenario C. She quite literally expressed intent to rape someone until he enjoyed it.

[Galloism]

You're strawmanning, there's a definition of mens rea above you.
No way that a court could accept as a reasonable belief "he knew she would enjoy it" in the case of a man raping a lesbian woman to make her straight.
Unless, as I said, we have the deadly combination of a man coming from another and more retrograde culture and a court that is extremely moronic.
On the other hand, scenario B is totally different: just try to ask to random people if they think that a man could be raped by a woman giving him oral sex. If more than 50% people will answer "no" then even the woman in the scenario B can be supposed to not have the mens rea. If more than 80% people will answer "no", then you can be pretty sure that in the scenario B she'll be acquitted for lacking the mens rea.
That's how things works in the real life, and within a real court.
Regarding me: I said that's "technically sexual assault".
Let's then compare it to the belief that a man raping a lesbian woman could make her straight: how many random people would answer that that's a reasonable belief? Are you really trying to suggest that they could be more than 50%? No, clearly no. That's why there's mens rea in such case.

She held him down. That's clearly stated in the scenario and the victim had previously stated that this was past his comfort zone. She knew that what she was doing was wrong and nonconsesnual by the sheer fact that the HELD HIM DOWN. There is mens rea because she knew what she was doing.

First rule of Chessmistress: Defend the woman in literally any conflict with a man in any situation ever. No exceptions.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I'm saying that how people feel about giving consent is irrelevant,

See, it's this kind of comment I find terrifying. Consent isn't a matter of convenience, and it's never irrelevant.

...because people lie about how they feel all the time. We have no way of judging how someone feels about sex, not really, unless they are consistently honest. So if it's someone you recently met, yuou have no means of judging whether they're happy or not. All you can judge is whether they said yes or no and whether their actions back that up.

Indeed. You notice in your example they either say yes or no? If they didn't say yes - it's a rape. If they said yes, then said no - it's a rape. If you're unclear if it's a yes - then it's a rape.

It's actually quite easy - don't rape people - ask them.

[Grave_n_idle]

On the other hand, scenario B is totally different: just try to ask to random people if they think that a man could be raped by a woman giving him oral sex. If more than 50% people will answer "no" then even the woman in the scenario B can be supposed to not have the mens rea.

Popularity has never been a reliable arbiter of truth.

If it was, I assume I'd see you arguing that there's no such thing as marital rape, and that it's okay to beat your woman so long as the rod is no thicker than your thumb. Yes?

[Romanum Dominium]

She held him down. That's clearly stated in the scenario and the victim had previously stated that this was past his comfort zone. She knew that what she was doing was wrong and nonconsesnual by the sheer fact that the HELD HIM DOWN. There is mens rea because she knew what she was doing.

First rule of Chessmistress: Defend the woman in literally any conflict with a man in any situation ever. No exceptions.

That's the opposite of gender equality though. Isn't she a feminist?

[Galloism]

First rule of Chessmistress: Defend the woman in literally any conflict with a man in any situation ever. No exceptions.

That's the opposite of gender equality though. Isn't she a feminist?

Yes and yes.

[Izandai]

That's the opposite of gender equality though. Isn't she a feminist?

Yes and yes.

Clearly not, if that's her perspective on the world. Radical feminist, maybe.