lawboy: I am interested in the “duty to rescue” scenario you paint above. Can you provide any statutory or case law to support your position, in any US jurisdiction, that effectuating “even one step” towards a rescue of a drowning victim creates a duty of care with either civil or criminal liability resulting if the rescue is abandoned?
Bicker,
Whoops! Sorry, I misspoke, sorry, when one voluntary accepts a duty to rescue or a duty of care, “taking one step” to rescue isn’t the necessary requirement for finding liability for failure to complete such duty. I was dramaticizing, I apologize. It’s that once that duty is undertaken, one’s actions must exclude others taking similar action (the seclusion priniciple, which I thought was a weird thing to call it).
Oh, and also, an argument could be made, now that I think about it, that the OP could create a dangerous situation by taking all the available food. So, I can perceive a fact scenario where the OP hunts all the available food leaving none for RLC to search for herself.
There may be no duty to rescue but if the demand for sex in exchange for food is coercive, then you might say that the consent for the sex is invalid.
Unless you were the pilot on the plane or one of the stewards, there is no duty of care and one cannot spring unless you get married or something else occurs to change your relationship. You would be the worlds biggest prick for demanding sex in that case, especially considering that sex was gonna come your way sooner or later.
She’s a vegetarian. I don’t think your offer for sex for hunted boar or fish offer is going to work too well.
Works with chimps!
I seem to recall something from high school law class dealing with a couple of castaways on a boat in the 19th century that resorted to cannibalism. They were deemed not guilty in some clever fit of legal sophistry, because they were castaways who, in effect, constituted their own society, to which the British (or Canadian?) criminal code was not applicable.
Now, the difference here would be that the woman seems to not consent to the sex, thus constituting a part of your society. Buuut…you aren’t raping her, and she is free to go and get her own damn food, right? So, the sex is, for all intents and purposes, consensual.
IANAL, but I think you’re in the clear!
I seem to recall that the photographers who were first on the scene at the Paris car crash that killed Diana were arrested on charges of “failing to render assistance”.
Of course this is French law rather than American but I think it’s still worthy of note that some countries require that you lend assistance where possible.
This is a zombie thread from 2003.
Questions:
That’s a picture of a volleyball.
Ok, if she were a zombie, and you had sex with her in exchange for food, could you be charted with desecrating a corpse?
See post #23, it’s actually a rather amusing joke IMO.
It’s a volleyball now, but if you’ve been on a desert island for a year, it passes pretty well for Rachel Lee Cook.
(That’s the longest pause between the joke and the explanation I’ve ever seen!)
Why, thank you. 
I’m more into situational stuff now, but I’m still fond of my early material.
You too!
Towards the end of the movie I started feeling naughty stirrings during the Rach, I mean, volleyball scenes.
My eyes dampened as she, I mean it, slowly floated away. 
Peace,
Anonymous.
If he actively prevented her from hunting for herself, I think a charge of rape would be entirely reasonable. Outside of that, I’d agree that prostitution is the greatest charge you could bring.
I suspect that most vegetarians, in a situation like this, would see fit to relax their principles.
How about this? Suppose the fellow stranded with Ms. Cook were a lawyer, and on the first day on the island, sat down with her and explained, “I have no legal duty to provide food for you. I would only have such a duty if there were a special relationship between us, such as marriage. Of course, a valid marriage presupposes conjugal relations between the couple.” Now, he’s not actually making any threats or offers, just stating as fact a principle of law. Of course, Ms. Cook could see the logical implications of that principle of law, and offer to marry him.
Her egg-cooking skills leave a lot to be desired… She’s pretty good w/ a frying pan though. (YouTube link, SFW)
That raises a question (again, assuming we’re still in the US). Presumably that would not be a valid marriage unless perhaps some common law statute allows that. But it would be a contract. If they were to be returned to dry land, would they be required to make it an official marriage? Cole might say that since they agreed to ‘marry’, they just weren’t able due to circumstances to obtain a license. Rachel might say that the contract was only good for what was described in it, and calling it ‘marriage’ doesn’t make it one.
I suspect it’s all moot anyway. After all these years it turns out that they were dead all along.
It may not be relevant as the OP is from 2003, but she got married in 2004.
EDIT: I loved her in She’s All That, but didn’t realize she was born in 1979, which makes her 30 today. I always thought she was about my age.