Is there any such thing as “civil sexual assault” as opposed to criminal sexual assault?
This is interesting information–it would sound like a civil assault is even more plausible than a criminal sexual assault in the situation as described, and so to call it a “sexual assault” could be understood, in non-legal terms, in more everyday speech, as “a civil assault with a sexual component.”
That’s probably where I got my “crazy idea” that assault is unwanted touching–I was probably confused about or just had never been aware of a difference in meaning between the terms in civil and criminal contexts.
What are the implications, legally, of someone committing civil assault? Does that mean they can be sued for damages but not sent to jail?
You can sue anybody for anything. She can sue Ansari for her non-existent damages.
Right but normally we often ask ‘can you sue y for x’ to mean ‘does x give a basis for winning a suit against y’.
That’s not a useful way to ask. Any X is a basis for winning a tort suit if you have proof of X and the damages X caused. She has absolutely no proof, it’s just her word, the word of a stalker and false accuser. He is in a much better position to sue her and win.
Let’s figure out what “explicit” means.
Where do you guys see her giving explicit consent for him to ram his penis into her ass?
I am not sure that can be true. If “damages” is just “loss of something of value,” well, we’re all causing people to lose things of value all the time, just in the course of everyday life. Surely only certain ways of doing that can be the basis for a lawsuit.
Like, why is there a civil definition of “assault” at all? Why would it matter, in a civil case, whether X assaulted Y or not, if the issue is only “WHATEVER X did, did it damage Y”?
Then execute your Torts Professor. That’s the definition of battery ('the slightest unwanted touch). The common law definition of assault is putting a person in fear of imminent harm.
And that’s the thing. He may have made a mistake in thinking that this woman that was coming on to him was in to him, but he is not a bad dude, and he didn’t get caught doing anything “bad”.
He is not a terrible and hypocritical person because he turned out to not be as romantic as she thought he would be.
WTF? Where, even in her accounts, is this accusation made? If you think that that is what he did, then sure, you have reason to think tht he did something terrible and bad, but he didn’t do that, so where are you coming up with this?
From the article:
Edit: I did say “into” rather than “against”* but anyway, this is “sexual contact or behavior,” unwanted, so the question is, where are you guys seeing the explicit consent?
*Somehow I had in mind him jamming his penis into a butt cheek–I knew he almost certainly didn’t actually ramm it into her anal sphincter as I am sure that would have been said more explicitly–but now seeing “against” rather than “into” I see it makes more sense, he was rubbing back and forth. Same difference as far as sexual assault is concerned.
Explicit consent isn’t a requirement, that’s your fantasy. She consented to a long line of sexual contact and didn’t tell him it was unwanted. So now we’re back to Ansari being a bad dude because he’s not a mind reader.
Sexual assault is sexual contact or behavior in the absence of explicit consent. I have linked to the DoJ definition twice now.
I don’t always see everything eye to eye with you.
… but I’ve had trouble, as a man, saying no. I don’t blame the woman. So, you might have a good point here.
I apologize, I thought you meant something else. The DoJ definition I have found doesn’t define explicit consent, and there are other elements required for a sexual assault. So how about providing complete definitions and telling us how this conforms to a sexual assault legally. One of the key elements of consent is the opportunity to say no and she had plenty of those opportunities.
Here is waht I’m saying.
Sexual assault is sexual contact or behavior in the absence of explicit consent.
Ramming his dick against her ass was sexal contact or behavior.
She did not give explicit consent for him to ram his dick against her ass.
Therefore he committed sexual assault.
The first and second premise seem to be agreed to by all. The dispute is over the third. The question I asked above is, "let’s get clear on what ‘explicit’ means. As a way to start off that discussion, I asked for you guys to show me where you are seeing the explicit consent.
So… can you tell me about that? Where are you seeing the explicit consent?
Does this mean one has to ask the other party, "Is this ok? " every second?
I wouldn’t think so.
I’m just asking, I want to know what people think.
Where are you guys seeing explicit consent for him to ram his dick against her ass?
You said putting your hand on your friend’s leg was assault, right?
I mean… Wow.
And a woman once complained to me that I wasn’t aggressive enough and I didn’t act “like a man.” I was just being careful. I hate all these rules and people act as if it’s soooo simple
Again, define explicit consent.
Forehead slap.
I am trying to discuss what your understanding of the concept is, by asking about your understanding of what indicates it was given in the Ansari case.