What you are asking others to post-no more, no less.
Assume some law which could be strictly interpreted to consider this an assault. Do you think it should be prosecuted under that law in that jurisdiction?
You started the thread. Which government statute would have satisfied you? I would guess something applying to civilians in Norway. But it’s your thread.
No. But since I’m coming at the entire episode from the viewpoint that this isn’t and shouldn’t be considered sexual assault, my response to your question is not shocking.
To clarify, do you think this is considered a criminal assault or battery, sexual or otherwise, under strict construction of some law?
ETA: Some US law that you are aware of.
It is.
As I said in the OP, there has been a fair amount of discussion lately about sexual assault. Here is an event that some might consider sexual assault. I’m suggesting it isn’t, and suggesting that answers to the contrary arise from vague, generalized definitions of the term.
How would it help me to post definitions? The onus is on someone else to say, “By this definition, it is sexual assault.”
Czarcasm tried to do this, but chose a vague, contradictory definition which collapses upon careful inquiry.
Maybe this would have better for you if I had said, rhetorically, “Under what solid, workable real-life definition of ‘sexual assault’ does this qualify?”
Yes, absolutely.
I think we agree on this subject. That kind of ruins a good argument.
The discussion up to this point was based on the premise that this event was not arranged by both parties in advance. At this point, I can no longer take this premise as a given. If this event was not pre-arranged and agreed to, then I maintain that it was sexual assault, but neither I nor the relevant justice system can confidently assume that. Therefore, I would say that the relevant justice system should pursue this case if and only if Braekhaus presses charges, as that would be enough to render the notion that this was a mere publicity stunt implausible.
As to the V-J Day kiss, I would judge it on the same merits as this one: Was it intended to cause sexual arousal or gratification in any person, was it non-consensual, and did the perpetrator know, or should he have reasonably known, that it was non-consensual. The second point is clear: The lady has since been identified and has stated that it was not her intent, her expectation, nor her action. The first point I would probably give a “yes”, though the emotional state of all involved is difficult to compartmentalize as “sexual” or “non-sexual”. The third point is not clear at all: The sailor could well have believed, given the highly-charged emotional state he was in, that others present were in a similar emotional state, and that others in such an emotional state would be welcoming of a kiss. Therefore, I would say that that was probably not sexual assault, and should not be prosecuted.
You’re right. I missed that this was boxing not wrestling.
But that doesn’t change my belief that this should be regarded as sexual assault.
I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t be legally classified as assault in New York. In NY, there has to be either physical injury or the intent to cause physical injury for it to be an assault. I don’t see how kissing a person, even against their will, would meet this standard.
I think the relevant crime in New York would be Forcible Touching: “A person is guilty of forcible touching when such person intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose forcibly touches the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire.” I’ll admit I don’t know if kissing somebody on the mouth without their consent qualifies as a violation of this law but I think it would be a reasonable interpretation of the law.
There is probably some wiggle room here because “it’s entertainment”, and they were in the process of psyching each other out. So, in terms of us, as an audience, making a judgement… yeah, it’s hard to say for sure.
But if the kissee wanted to press charges agains the kisser, then I say she has a case.
No? How can you answer “no” when you haven’t told us what law and what jurisdiction? Read again what TriPolar asked for.
So, answers to the contrary are based on “vague, generalized definitions of the term.” What definitions is your answer based on?
And no onus for you to back up that it isn’t based on a definition? Huh?
Either works for me. But your OP was regarding: “Was this sexual assault?”
A thread looking for a definition that fits an act wouldn’t interest me much. This could be an interesting thread if, for instance, it started with copying and pasting laws applicable in Oslo or asking would it be sexual assault according to the laws in the state of “fill in the blank” or even this US federal law. But a few dozen posts with things like “I think the term “sexual assault,” shouldn’t be applied to this sort of incidental contact” and “I have no problem calling it sexual assault” seem useless to me in a thread asking if something was a violation of a specific kind of criminal act. In every other thread like this, that involves looking at actual laws pretty early on in the thread. Especially when you claim that anyone that doesn’t agree with your assessment should back up why with a definition for sexual assault.
You even stated:
“this thread is intended to debate the more precise contours between simple and sexual assault.”
Yet, you have countered me with:
*"There are fifty states, one federal government, and one Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Which should I have posted?*
You can spend all day trying to nail him down on the details. He’s a lawyer, he can’t help being that way.
Sure, I “countered,” because you wailed about my not posting a statute in the first place. I think you’re asking me to argue the side of the case I don’t support.I don’t say it’s sexual assault.
In post four, I gave a detailed list of what I personally consider it to be.
That’s the post that appears between 3 and 5.
I haven’t posted any “official” definitions, because there are too many to post, and that move makes no sense, since I am arguing that it doesn’t fit them. Do you imagine I’m going to post Alabama’s law, say, “Nope, not under this one,” and then move on to Alaska’s?
Should I start on the Canadian provinces next?
I’d recommend starting with the lower 48, then Canada, followed by Alaska, and then the island states and territories. You might have to do my island state twice though since it’s in the lower 48.
Again, yet you posted this:
“this thread is intended to debate the more precise contours between simple and sexual assault.”
How can that be done without posting statutes?
Where did I do that?
Nice try, btw. You didn’t not say something. You said “I say it was not.”
Which means the questions I asked you deserve to be answered. Here’s all of them:
*No? How can you answer “no” when you haven’t told us what law and what jurisdiction? Read again what TriPolar asked for.
So, answers to the contrary are based on “vague, generalized definitions of the term.” What definitions is your answer based on?
And no onus for you to back up that it isn’t based on a definition? Huh?*
I don’t understand the point of your sarcasm here. Czarcasm brings up that we’re not discussing what you personally consider it to be. So you post where he can find a post by you, doing what he just acknowledged he knows you’ve posted, and you sarcastically tell him it’s post four, the post between 3 and 5, as if he is too stupid to find something he’s aware of and deems is besides the point. Why?
The person to claim the necessity of “official definitions,” was Czarcasm. He (and perhaps you) seem to have conflated “official” with “detailed.”
I am asking to explore the precise contours of what makes an assault “sexual.” This doesn’t require statutes, or officialdom, but merely specificity.