Man has consensual sex with '17' year old, now a crime

[Chessmistress]

My final thoughts about that.
The girl is not criminally liable, nor even a judge can rule her behavior is "rape by deception" because if someone is unable to express consent is also unable to understand consent and by so also unable to "stole" consent through rape by deception.
So said, the girl is not technically and legally guilty of "rape by deception" but, morally, she is guilty.
And that's a very important mitigating circumstance for the unwillingly rapist.
Also, the words of the judge disgusted me: he's a conservative, he's not siding with women's rights.
The punishment of the unwillingly rapist seems to, in that special case, excessively harsh.
Also, that's likely to hurt women, because, due social exclusion this unwillingly rapist will suffer, he's even likely to become a willingly rapist in future.
It's really a shame that some judges are so obsessed with punishments and there's so little about rehabilitation.
I have to admit that I have even some problems to fully define that thing "rape": rape is dominance. There's little dominance here, also it's unwillingly.
Still, I understand it's rape, but also that no law can be perfect.

[New Benian Republic]

My final thoughts about that.
The girl is not criminally liable, nor even a judge can rule her behavior is "rape by deception" because if someone is unable to express consent is also unable to understand consent and by so also unable to "stole" consent through rape by deception.
So said, the girl is not technically and legally guilty of "rape by deception" but, morally, she is guilty.
And that's a very important mitigating circumstance for the unwillingly rapist.
Also, the words of the judge disgusted me: he's a conservative, he's not siding with women's rights.
The punishment of the unwillingly rapist seems to, in that special case, excessively harsh.
Also, that's likely to hurt women, because, due social exclusion this unwillingly rapist will suffer, he's even likely to become a willingly rapist in future.
It's really a shame that some judges are so obsessed with punishments and there's so little about rehabilitation.
I have to admit that I have even some problems to fully define that thing "rape": rape is dominance. There's little dominance here, also it's unwillingly.
Still, I understand it's rape, but also that no law can be perfect.

I thought rape meant to take by force.

[Imperializt Russia]

My final thoughts about that.
The girl is not criminally liable, nor even a judge can rule her behavior is "rape by deception" because if someone is unable to express consent is also unable to understand consent and by so also unable to "stole" consent through rape by deception.
So said, the girl is not technically and legally guilty of "rape by deception" but, morally, she is guilty.
And that's a very important mitigating circumstance for the unwillingly rapist.
Also, the words of the judge disgusted me: he's a conservative, he's not siding with women's rights.
The punishment of the unwillingly rapist seems to, in that special case, excessively harsh.
Also, that's likely to hurt women, because, due social exclusion this unwillingly rapist will suffer, he's even likely to become a willingly rapist in future.
It's really a shame that some judges are so obsessed with punishments and there's so little about rehabilitation.
I have to admit that I have even some problems to fully define that thing "rape": rape is dominance. There's little dominance here, also it's unwillingly.
Still, I understand it's rape, but also that no law can be perfect.

I thought rape meant to take by force.

Rape is any form of non-consensual sex. Which is why statutory rape exists at all (because those underage cannot legally consent) and why our society is apparently shit enough to have to run ads stating "if she can't consent, it's rape".

[Chessmistress]

My final thoughts about that.
The girl is not criminally liable, nor even a judge can rule her behavior is "rape by deception" because if someone is unable to express consent is also unable to understand consent and by so also unable to "stole" consent through rape by deception.
So said, the girl is not technically and legally guilty of "rape by deception" but, morally, she is guilty.
And that's a very important mitigating circumstance for the unwillingly rapist.
Also, the words of the judge disgusted me: he's a conservative, he's not siding with women's rights.
The punishment of the unwillingly rapist seems to, in that special case, excessively harsh.
Also, that's likely to hurt women, because, due social exclusion this unwillingly rapist will suffer, he's even likely to become a willingly rapist in future.
It's really a shame that some judges are so obsessed with punishments and there's so little about rehabilitation.
I have to admit that I have even some problems to fully define that thing "rape": rape is dominance. There's little dominance here, also it's unwillingly.
Still, I understand it's rape, but also that no law can be perfect.

I thought rape meant to take by force.

Dominance often doesn't need physical force: a very clear example is "rape by deception".
Suppose a man rent a Ferrari and a rich mansion and a 1000 $ dress, for a weekend. Then he went around in nightclubs or something, boasting he's rich, in order to have sex with women.
That's a typical scenario of rape by deception: she doesn't consented to the person he really is, she consented to another, fictional, person.
So, there wasn't consent, and, by so, that's rape.

Even more typical: when the woman is drunk. Maybe she seems happy to have sex with him, but she cannot express consent.

[BK117B2]

My final thoughts about that.
The girl is not criminally liable, nor even a judge can rule her behavior is "rape by deception" because if someone is unable to express consent is also unable to understand consent and by so also unable to "stole" consent through rape by deception.
So said, the girl is not technically and legally guilty of "rape by deception" but, morally, she is guilty.
And that's a very important mitigating circumstance for the unwillingly rapist.
Also, the words of the judge disgusted me: he's a conservative, he's not siding with women's rights.
The punishment of the unwillingly rapist seems to, in that special case, excessively harsh.
Also, that's likely to hurt women, because, due social exclusion this unwillingly rapist will suffer, he's even likely to become a willingly rapist in future.
It's really a shame that some judges are so obsessed with punishments and there's so little about rehabilitation.
I have to admit that I have even some problems to fully define that thing "rape": rape is dominance. There's little dominance here, also it's unwillingly.
Still, I understand it's rape, but also that no law can be perfect.

One doesn't need to be of legal age of consent in order to commit rape. A ten-year-old can commit rape. A drunk person cannot legally consent, but they can still commit rape.

Now, LEGALLY, rape by fraud/deception often doesn't come up since it is still legal in many cases.

[Chessmistress]

My final thoughts about that.
The girl is not criminally liable, nor even a judge can rule her behavior is "rape by deception" because if someone is unable to express consent is also unable to understand consent and by so also unable to "stole" consent through rape by deception.
So said, the girl is not technically and legally guilty of "rape by deception" but, morally, she is guilty.
And that's a very important mitigating circumstance for the unwillingly rapist.
Also, the words of the judge disgusted me: he's a conservative, he's not siding with women's rights.
The punishment of the unwillingly rapist seems to, in that special case, excessively harsh.
Also, that's likely to hurt women, because, due social exclusion this unwillingly rapist will suffer, he's even likely to become a willingly rapist in future.
It's really a shame that some judges are so obsessed with punishments and there's so little about rehabilitation.
I have to admit that I have even some problems to fully define that thing "rape": rape is dominance. There's little dominance here, also it's unwillingly.
Still, I understand it's rape, but also that no law can be perfect.

One doesn't need to be of legal age of consent in order to commit rape. A ten-year-old can commit rape. A drunk person cannot legally consent, but they can still commit rape.

Now, LEGALLY, rape by fraud/deception often doesn't come up since it is still legal in many cases.

That's clearly illogical and a fault of the law: if a person cannot give consent due age = cannot understand consent = cannot commit rape.
It's different for drunk criminals, because their temporary incapacitation doesn't absolve them: they can understand what consent is when they're sober.
I mean: a drunk adult male raping a woman IS a rapist, no excuses.
A 13 yo boy having sex with a 13 yo girl is NOT a rapist, I think.

[AiliailiA]

My final thoughts about that.
...

I thought rape meant to take by force.

Not a very good definition, as it gives lesser weight to other sexual abuse as though it is always less harmful. It isn't always necessary to use physical force, or even "force" in the sense of threats or exercise of authority, to commit a serious infraction of another's sexual rights.

A better definition is a sexual activity without consent. Thus it isn't necessary that someone said No for it to be rape, only that they didn't say Yes.

I thought rape meant to take by force.

Dominance often doesn't need physical force: a very clear example is "rape by deception".
Suppose a man rent a Ferrari and a rich mansion and a 1000 $ dress, for a weekend. Then he went around in nightclubs or something, boasting he's rich, in order to have sex with women.
That's a typical scenario of rape by deception: she doesn't consented to the person he really is, she consented to another, fictional, person.
So, there wasn't consent, and, by so, that's rape.

Even more typical: when the woman is drunk. Maybe she seems happy to have sex with him, but she cannot express consent.

The first is a strange example for a feminist to use. This woman who only has sex with a man because she thinks he's a man with a Ferrari and a mansion ... I find that very strange, because money is power. You say it is rape by deception for the man to pretend to have that power, but NOT rape at all if he really does have that power?

The second is fair enough. Consent should be expressed and if she's too drunk to express it then the presumption is that she's too drunk to consent.

I wonder if maybe the word "consent" itself is too passive. As if sex is something that one person does to another, and the other allows by "consenting". Perhaps a standard of intent would be better: both partners should intend to have sex with each other.

[AiliailiA]

I mean: a drunk adult male raping a woman IS a rapist, no excuses.

And a drunk adult male (too drunk to give consent) who gets up a boner and pokes it in a consenting woman? What's happening there?

For the sake of argument, let's say the woman is completely sober and for some reason still wants to have sex with the drunk guy.

Someone in that situation is having sex without being able to give consent. Someone's getting raped don't you think?

[Imperializt Russia]

I mean: a drunk adult male raping a woman IS a rapist, no excuses.

And a drunk adult male (too drunk to give consent) who gets up a boner and pokes it in a consenting woman? What's happening there?

For the sake of argument, let's say the woman is completely sober and for some reason still wants to have sex with the drunk guy.

Someone in that situation is having sex without being able to give consent. Someone's getting raped don't you think?

It's how my friend lost his virginity, interestingly enough.
It's how I almost lost mine, actually, until I fell down the stairs and started throwing up.

[Chessmistress]

I thought rape meant to take by force.

Not a very good definition, as it gives lesser weight to other sexual abuse as though it is always less harmful. It isn't always necessary to use physical force, or even "force" in the sense of threats or exercise of authority, to commit a serious infraction of another's sexual rights.

A better definition is a sexual activity without consent. Thus it isn't necessary that someone said No for it to be rape, only that they didn't say Yes.

Dominance often doesn't need physical force: a very clear example is "rape by deception".
Suppose a man rent a Ferrari and a rich mansion and a 1000 $ dress, for a weekend. Then he went around in nightclubs or something, boasting he's rich, in order to have sex with women.
That's a typical scenario of rape by deception: she doesn't consented to the person he really is, she consented to another, fictional, person.
So, there wasn't consent, and, by so, that's rape.

Even more typical: when the woman is drunk. Maybe she seems happy to have sex with him, but she cannot express consent.

The first is a strange example for a feminist to use. This woman who only has sex with a man because she thinks he's a man with a Ferrari and a mansion ... I find that very strange, because money is power. You say it is rape by deception for the man to pretend to have that power, but NOT rape at all if he really does have that power?

The second is fair enough. Consent should be expressed and if she's too drunk to express it then the presumption is that she's too drunk to consent.

I wonder if maybe the word "consent" itself is too passive. As if sex is something that one person does to another, and the other allows by "consenting". Perhaps a standard of intent would be better: both partners should intend to have sex with each other.

Pretending to be someone or something you aren't is rape by deception.
Using real power to coerce a woman is rape, too, and I would say it's even worse.
I'm using this example, quite uncommon, for two reasons: first, we were talking about rape by deception, second: it really happened to me - and, no, I hadn't sex with him just only because he had a Ferrari and a mansion (actually, he was in an hotel, suite, but he rented exactly a Ferrari), still, it was fraud and it maked me feel violated: lies are an evil thing. That should be punished, because it happens to many women.

I agree with you that "intent" would be an even better word than "consent".

[New Benian Republic]

Not a very good definition, as it gives lesser weight to other sexual abuse as though it is always less harmful. It isn't always necessary to use physical force, or even "force" in the sense of threats or exercise of authority, to commit a serious infraction of another's sexual rights.

A better definition is a sexual activity without consent. Thus it isn't necessary that someone said No for it to be rape, only that they didn't say Yes.



The first is a strange example for a feminist to use. This woman who only has sex with a man because she thinks he's a man with a Ferrari and a mansion ... I find that very strange, because money is power. You say it is rape by deception for the man to pretend to have that power, but NOT rape at all if he really does have that power?

The second is fair enough. Consent should be expressed and if she's too drunk to express it then the presumption is that she's too drunk to consent.

I wonder if maybe the word "consent" itself is too passive. As if sex is something that one person does to another, and the other allows by "consenting". Perhaps a standard of intent would be better: both partners should intend to have sex with each other.

Pretending to be someone or something you aren't is rape by deception.
Using your real power to coerce a woman is rape, too, and I would say it's even worse.
I'm using this example, quite uncommon, for two reasons: first, we were talking about rape by deception, second: it really happened to me - and, no, I hadn't sex with him just only because he had a Ferrari and a mansion (actually, he was in an hotel, suite, but he rented exactly a Ferrari), still, it was fraud and it maked me feel violated: lies are an evil thing. That should be punished, because it happens to many women.

So it would be rape y coercion if I was going to have sex with a woman who was supposed to e beautiful but had a mask over her head and I removed it and was disgusted? I mean afterall I consented to a sexy person.

[Chessmistress]

And a drunk adult male (too drunk to give consent) who gets up a boner and pokes it in a consenting woman? What's happening there?

For the sake of argument, let's say the woman is completely sober and for some reason still wants to have sex with the drunk guy.

Someone in that situation is having sex without being able to give consent. Someone's getting raped don't you think?

It's how my friend lost his virginity, interestingly enough.
It's how I almost lost mine, actually, until I fell down the stairs and started throwing up.

Answering to both: personally I never heard of a similar thing. Drunk males aren't interesting, I think.
But, since it seems it can happen: yes, technically, it would be rape, of course.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's how my friend lost his virginity, interestingly enough.
It's how I almost lost mine, actually, until I fell down the stairs and started throwing up.

Answering to both: personally I never heard of a similar thing. Drunk males aren't interesting, I think.
But, since it seems it can happen: yes, technically, it would be rape, of course.

Why do you feel to use the qualifier "technically"?

My friend was bagged because of a "challenge" that a third year student had to get off with a fresher (this was like, five days into being at uni) and he doesn't even remember it, but I was propositioned before I became paralytic. She came with me in the ambulance though.

Aside from our attitudes, the circumstances leave little doubt that it would have been, unarguably, instances of rape. Rape with no real ill will that wouldn't have been regarded with concern by the recipients, but rape nonetheless.
This is why one-size-fits-all justice for sexual offences don't really work.

[Veceria]

It's how my friend lost his virginity, interestingly enough.
It's how I almost lost mine, actually, until I fell down the stairs and started throwing up.

Answering to both: personally I never heard of a similar thing. Drunk males aren't interesting, I think.
But, since it seems it can happen: yes, technically, it would be rape, of course.

A female coworker of mine even boasts about bedding drunk males every weekend.

[Fartsniffage]

Not a very good definition, as it gives lesser weight to other sexual abuse as though it is always less harmful. It isn't always necessary to use physical force, or even "force" in the sense of threats or exercise of authority, to commit a serious infraction of another's sexual rights.

A better definition is a sexual activity without consent. Thus it isn't necessary that someone said No for it to be rape, only that they didn't say Yes.



The first is a strange example for a feminist to use. This woman who only has sex with a man because she thinks he's a man with a Ferrari and a mansion ... I find that very strange, because money is power. You say it is rape by deception for the man to pretend to have that power, but NOT rape at all if he really does have that power?

The second is fair enough. Consent should be expressed and if she's too drunk to express it then the presumption is that she's too drunk to consent.

I wonder if maybe the word "consent" itself is too passive. As if sex is something that one person does to another, and the other allows by "consenting". Perhaps a standard of intent would be better: both partners should intend to have sex with each other.

Pretending to be someone or something you aren't is rape by deception.
Using real power to coerce a woman is rape, too, and I would say it's even worse.
I'm using this example, quite uncommon, for two reasons: first, we were talking about rape by deception, second: it really happened to me - and, no, I hadn't sex with him just only because he had a Ferrari and a mansion (actually, he was in an hotel, suite, but he rented exactly a Ferrari), still, it was fraud and it maked me feel violated: lies are an evil thing. That should be punished, because it happens to many women.

I agree with you that "intent" would be an even better word than "consent".

And there goes Wonderbra and the entire cosmetics industry....

[BK117B2]

One doesn't need to be of legal age of consent in order to commit rape. A ten-year-old can commit rape. A drunk person cannot legally consent, but they can still commit rape.

Now, LEGALLY, rape by fraud/deception often doesn't come up since it is still legal in many cases.

That's clearly illogical and a fault of the law: if a person cannot give consent due age = cannot understand consent = cannot commit rape.
It's different for drunk criminals, because their temporary incapacitation doesn't absolve them: they can understand what consent is when they're sober.
I mean: a drunk adult male raping a woman IS a rapist, no excuses.
A 13 yo boy having sex with a 13 yo girl is NOT a rapist, I think.

So if a fifteen-year-old choked you into near unconscious and had sex with you without your consent, then according to you, no rape has occurred.

Of course, that flies directly in the face of the actual meaning of rape. Sex, without consent, is rape.

[Grave_n_idle]

And, again - no, it's not.

You have yet to show any evidence at all that it has ever been interpreted that way.

Yes, it is. Look up the bleeding concept if you are really don't know anything about it.

I really do, and you - apparently - really don't.

Maybe you should look it up?

[Grave_n_idle]

So you're still confused by the difference between a concept and current laws.

Nope.

I notice that you still refuse to describe how it could not be considered rape by deception.

It wouldn't be considered rape by deception because it's not.

I made my case...

You haven't made a case.

[Wisconsin9]

What is the age of criminal responsibility in the US? I'm pretty sure it'd just be the girl in trouble here, or that's how I think it should be.

It varies by state and level of crime. North Carolina is at 6, but most states apparently don't have one defined, in which case under common law it defaults to 7. It's 11 for federal crimes. Technically speaking juveniles are supposed to be tried or punished or something differently than adults, but something like a quarter million minors are tried as adults every year.

[Chessmistress]

That's clearly illogical and a fault of the law: if a person cannot give consent due age = cannot understand consent = cannot commit rape.
It's different for drunk criminals, because their temporary incapacitation doesn't absolve them: they can understand what consent is when they're sober.
I mean: a drunk adult male raping a woman IS a rapist, no excuses.
A 13 yo boy having sex with a 13 yo girl is NOT a rapist, I think.

So if a fifteen-year-old choked you into near unconscious and had sex with you without your consent, then according to you, no rape has occurred.

Of course, that flies directly in the face of the actual meaning of rape. Sex, without consent, is rape.

I admit I never thought about it in such terms.
Yes, it would be rape, without doubts.

[Cenetra]

Pretending to be someone or something you aren't is rape by deception.
Using real power to coerce a woman is rape, too, and I would say it's even worse.
I'm using this example, quite uncommon, for two reasons: first, we were talking about rape by deception, second: it really happened to me - and, no, I hadn't sex with him just only because he had a Ferrari and a mansion (actually, he was in an hotel, suite, but he rented exactly a Ferrari), still, it was fraud and it maked me feel violated: lies are an evil thing. That should be punished, because it happens to many women.

I agree with you that "intent" would be an even better word than "consent".

All right, let's say you meet a charming, attractive guy, and you go home and have sex. You're both sober, by the way. He says he'll call you, but he doesn't. He lied to you, which made you felt violated, and by your logic he's therefore a rapist.

Does that sound reasonable?

Why do you feel to use the qualifier "technically"?

My guess is weasel words. She's been shown a situation where the woman would very obviously be a rapist, but that goes against the narrative of "men are rapists, women are victims." So she describes it as technically rape and implies it never actually happens. I also suspect ChessMistress is being disingenuous when she claims she's never heard of a case like this given there was a pretty prominent one in the news a couple months ago: http://college.usatoday.com/2015/06/01/ ... onviction/
tl;dr a male college student was raped by a female college student while blackout drunk. Two years later, she accused him of rape and got him expelled, he sued the school for doing a crappy job of handling the case. I would think someone involved in feminist circles would have heard about this case.

Thus, taking advantage of someone who's blacked out or unconscious, which is, you know, pretty much the textbook case of date rape, is only "technically" rape if the victim is male, but renting a fancy car to impress girls is rape without any qualifiers.

[BK117B2]

Yes, it is. Look up the bleeding concept if you are really don't know anything about it.

I really do, and you - apparently - really don't.

Maybe you should look it up?

So you're in denial as well. I notice you still do not attempt to even make an actual case

[Chessmistress]

Pretending to be someone or something you aren't is rape by deception.
Using real power to coerce a woman is rape, too, and I would say it's even worse.
I'm using this example, quite uncommon, for two reasons: first, we were talking about rape by deception, second: it really happened to me - and, no, I hadn't sex with him just only because he had a Ferrari and a mansion (actually, he was in an hotel, suite, but he rented exactly a Ferrari), still, it was fraud and it maked me feel violated: lies are an evil thing. That should be punished, because it happens to many women.

I agree with you that "intent" would be an even better word than "consent".

All right, let's say you meet a charming, attractive guy, and you go home and have sex. You're both sober, by the way. He says he'll call you, but he doesn't. He lied to you, which made you felt violated, and by your logic he's therefore a rapist.

Does that sound reasonable?

No, because it's not what happened.
It happened that the next day the jerk bumped the rented Ferrari and he went in panic, because the car wasn't of him, was rented. That's how I discovered he was mocking me.

Why do you feel to use the qualifier "technically"?

My guess is weasel words. She's been shown a situation where the woman would very obviously be a rapist, but that goes against the narrative of "men are rapists, women are victims." So she describes it as technically rape and implies it never actually happens. I also suspect ChessMistress is being disingenuous when she claims she's never heard of a case like this given there was a pretty prominent one in the news a couple months ago: http://college.usatoday.com/2015/06/01/ ... onviction/
tl;dr a male college student was raped by a female college student while blackout drunk. Two years later, she accused him of rape and got him expelled, he sued the school for doing a crappy job of handling the case. I would think someone involved in feminist circles would have heard about this case.

Thus, taking advantage of someone who's blacked out or unconscious, which is, you know, pretty much the textbook case of date rape, is only "technically" rape if the victim is male, but renting a fancy car to impress girls is rape without any qualifiers.

There's a chance that, just due because he was expelled (that means: judged GUILTY), he was REALLY a rapist? Eh?
Your link do NOT prove he isn't a rapist, nor that she raped him.
The only PROVED thing is that he was JUDGED GUILTY by the university.

[BK117B2]

So you're still confused by the difference between a concept and current laws.

Nope.

I notice that you still refuse to describe how it could not be considered rape by deception.

It wouldn't be considered rape by deception because it's not.

I made my case...

You haven't made a case.

Actually, I DID explain how it would qualify as rape by deception. You still refuse to explain how it could not be rape by deception.

Let me know if you'd ever like to actually address my case or present your own instead of this boring, repetitive 'nuh uh' you've been going with so far

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So is Michigan's age of consent 17, or is there a close in age exception that a 17 and 19 year old would fit into?

There is a Romeo and Juliet law in Michigan. Generally you have to be 4 years in between each other's ages.