Strive to not trip over in your own flailing attempts at confused analogies and slippery redefinitions. Just spit it out without trying to get clever.
Really?
If you think that a person taking money out of someone’s wallet and refusing to give it back is not an actual crime, that calling that a crime is “jumping to a conclusion”, well you are simply wrong.
I don’t have to cover the fact that you are changing your story. Or that a gift given, even if ill advised has no equivalence to taking someone’s money without permission. What is wrong with your post is that I never believed or said that just because a woman voluntarily consented to some sex acts that she intends to consent to others.
Now which sex act did ‘Grace’ not consent to?
Note: I’m going to ignore the idea that “sexual assault” has a meaningful non-criminal definition, since I think that idea is pernicious.
Given the tone of the piece–intending to show how awful Ansari’s behavior is, and based almost entirely on the account of the person who hated the encounter–I read it assuming that they’re not leaving out incriminating information, that every bad thing he did is in the article. Is that a fair assumption?
If so, if she said, “I don’t want to get on the counter,” and he threatened her, or if he picked her up and put her on the counter, I think that would’ve appeared in the article. The fact that it didn’t–that it simply fast-forwarded to her being on the counter–leads me strongly to believe that she wasn’t forced onto that counter.
Same with all those other details. I wouldn’t call putting his hand on her breast “assault” unless she said, “No,” and he kept doing it. I would call it bad behavior on his part.
Yup. In fact, that sort of misunderstanding happens all the time. One person thinks an item is a gift while the supposed “giver” thinks it’s not.
Mostly that sort of situation is easily resolved because both parties quickly agree to abide by the preferred interpretation of one of them. And if they don’t agree, then the “recipient” usually (but not always) will have a much harder time convincing the authorities that it’s still reasonable for them to believe that they’re not depriving the other party of property against their will.
But while you honestly and reasonably believe that the other party wanted you to have what you took, you’re not legally a thief. (Insert repeated IANAL disclaimer here, but I haven’t seen anything yet that contradicts it.)
I’m not, though. I never said anything about what the woman in the story actually believed about the man’s intentions concerning giving her his money.
I do think it’s interesting that so many people found it so easy to jump to the conclusion that they could be sure her intention was deliberately dishonest. Contrast that, as I said, with the widespread readiness to believe that men who are trying to coax sex from reluctant or resistant partners are just “misreading cues” or “being awkward” while honestly believing that she likes what they’re doing.
You’re evading. Yes, I know it’s not by a reasonable standard of “know.” She is an adult woman capable of expressing her desires. They were kissing, then he began fondling her breast, and then he began undressing her and then undressing himself. It’s clear from her story that at no time did she feel like if she didn’t comply her safety would be a concern. That’s typically the way sexual encounters go as far as how consent is applied.
You didn’t give a legal definition of sexual assault. Legal definitions are defined by statute. In my state:
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-jersey-law/new-jersey-sexual-assault-laws.html
She doesn’t have to say no, I don’t want to, by the statue. She just has to fail to say yes she does.
I need to get to a keyboard to flesh out all of this. The legal definition is way broader than I realized.
I don’t think it’s a clearly fair assumption that all incriminating info would be included because I don’t know that Grace wants him jailed, don’t know that she knows what constitutes incriminating evidence, and don’t know that the journalist in question has that interest or knowledge either.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Which statute? You don’t honestly believe that implied consent is insufficient and that verbal consent must be given, do you?
I’m not evading anything. I don’t think he sexually assaulted her. Not do I think he didn’t. My argument at the moment is that certainty that he didn’t is not well founded.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
I don’t care, it doesn’t matter. You have concluded that I and others have made an assumption that we did not and you’re attempting to point to an analogous situation to the assumption that we didn’t make. So it doesn’t really matter if your analogy is apt or not.
That’s inaccurate. There are ways to use your body to give consent. For example, consenting to climb up on the counter might consist of climbing up on the counter. If she hadn’t climbed up, I’m pretty sure she would’ve mentioned it–she mentioned the damn color of the wine, ferchrissakes.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that if anything was left out of her account that it would be exculpatory information. But I take her account at face value. There’s no need not to.
In you scenario, he never gave her any money in the first place, so the idea that somehow it is over whether he intended to give her “more” is irrelevant.
If that were the case, he would not have expressed clear indications that he did not consent to her stealing.
No, you are trying to elevate a non-criminal act to be analogous to a criminal act.
Before “consent” goes down the same rabbit hole as “assault”, may I draw your attention to Frylock’s extensive thread advocating explicit enthusiastic verbal consent at each sequential stage of a sexual encounter; and his tendency to superimpose the curious notions that are part of his fantasy vision for social justice on his descriptions of current reality.
In the 23 years of my adult life, I have never had that kind of misunderstanding. I have never heard any stories of anyone having that sort of misunderstanding. I did watcha college humor video once where one of the guys thought that someone else bought him an iPad for his birthday, but that was a stupid video, and the entire point of it was to make fun of the guy that so lacked self awareness that he thought that just because his friend had an iPad on his birthday, it was intended for him.
There’s your problem there, “reasonably”. As in, would this be a reasonable action. Do you really consider it to be reasonable to take money out of someone’s wallet, specifically after they have asked you not to and to return the money already taken. If they still honestly thought that consent was given there, well, the legal system does actually have different standards for those with too little mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.
By “say no” I didn’t mean necessarily literally uttering the word.
In other words, I was saying she doesn’t have to indicate non-consent, she simply has to fail to indicate consent explicitly, in order for it to be sexual assault.
The extensive thread in which I have participated maybe three to five times, just to clarify some things?
I intentionally set out a fairly extreme example and simple argument to get a discussion going. It worked.
You need to stop attacking the person here, Riemann.
Her name has been leaked on the 'Net for several days now. As have what seems like every social media post she ever made. I have no intention or desire to share her identity since well, I still have some standards, but just FTR, what the Board rules in cases like this?
Sorry, “statute” was not correct. I was referring to the definition of sexual assault given by the Department of Justice here :
That’s a lot broader than I assumed any legal definition would be.
By that definition, I find it much more plausible that strictly speaking he committed a crime. Much more plausible, I said. I do not say that he committed a crime. Nor do I say he did not. I am saying I find it much more plausible now, than I did before, that whatever happened, it constituted a crime.
Like if he said “why don’t you get up on that counter” and pulled her up there and then started kissing her, during the course of which she basically kept a neutral face or just like, surprised faces, that would, by the definition above, be a sexual assault.
She does not have to actively say no or push away or make “no faces” or whatever for it to count, by the given definition.
And from the description of that part of the date given in the story we have from Grace at Babe, I have no idea what her face or body movements looked like. And it’s absolutely plausible to me that a person would maintain a fairly neutral or carefully not-displeased-but-not-saying-yes surprised face, during an action like that, thereby failing to signal (not to mention feel) explicit consent.