Yeah thats fair, it was clumsily written on my part.
But objectively, if you invite someone into your house and feed them a meal thats a friendly gathering. If someone enters your house w/o your consent and eats your food its burglary. The point is that whether all parties consent and enjoy the interaction is a huge part of whats criminal vs what isn’t. But as I mentioned, there are gray areas like battery, prostitution, etc and I’m wondering where the lines are. People can enjoy fighting and enjoy paying for sex and its still criminal in some situations but not in others.
It’s a broad over generalization to say rape has nothing to do with sex. You can say it mostly has nothing to do with sex most of the time. Though I would disagree with you there too, I’m interested how you even arrive at that claim. What is it about Power? Why do people frequently rape unconscious or drugged women then? This is one of those weird claims that gets repeated without evidence, is rape somehow less evil if it’s about sex or something?
On a different topic related to the OP I’m sure we all remember that case in Germany where the guy seemingly consensually killed and ate another guy.
I don’t think that’s the difference- because although it’s possible that professional games are played under those conditions and organized leagues with officials probably exist in most places, I have never heard of a a place where for example, professional ice hockey is perfectly legal , but 15 year-olds playing a pick-up game is not. Or where the licensed officials oversee practices/training.
It’s not playing a game of hockey that would be illegal, but violence associated with it would not be excusable as part of the game. An serious injury as a result of a check in a pickup game of hockey would be an assault and battery, not just part of the game. A more clear example is an unsanctioned boxing match, if a participant were to die the other could be charged with murder as would anyone who promoted such a fight. Playing games is fine, violence that is otherwise criminal is not excusable outside government sanctioning.
Playing games is fine, violence that is otherwise criminal is not excusable outside government sanctioning.
If I check some stranger walking down the sidewalk , I’ve committed an offense and can be arrested/ticketed regardless of whether I’ve injured them at all. And I don’t know much about boxing - but are you really saying that there are officials present when boxers engage in sparring as part of their training?
You haven’t committed a crime by accidentally bumping into someone. Checking them is a deliberate act. Sparring resulting in a serious injury could be charged as a crime, however, you would have to look at the locality and licensing of a boxing gym.
I’ll be as clear as I can, you cannot excuse criminal behavior by claiming to be participating in an unsanctioned game or sporting event.
Where did I say accidental? - I used the word “check” because I meant a deliberate act.
I’ll be as clear as I can, you cannot excuse criminal behavior by claiming to be participating in an unsanctioned game or sporting event.
For particular definitions of “criminal behavior” , yes . My issue isn’t that I think you can commit murder and get away with it because it’s in a boxing ring. My point is that you keep mentioning serious injury - for example,
Sparring resulting in a serious injury could be charged as a crime
An serious injury as a result of a check in a pickup game of hockey would be an assault and battery, not just part of the game. A more clear example is an unsanctioned boxing match, if a participant were to die the other could be charged with murder as would anyone who promoted such a fight.
What I’m saying is that if I punch a stranger on the street, I have committed a crime, even if no injury was involved. If I check a stranger on the sidewalk ( not accidentally bump into ) , I have committed an offense. If I do those things at a hockey rink or in a boxing ring without seriously injuring someone, with a person or people who has agree to play hockey or box with me and within the accepted bounds of the sport, I will not have committed a crime ( at least in my state) whether there are officials present or not…
All of those things are correct because you didn’t engage in criminal activity. I never said anything to the contrary.
However, if you are engaged in a sanctioned sporting event you can commit acts which would otherwise be crimes. And they will still be crimes if the event is not state sanctioned.
This is obviously true. You couldn’t pull out a gun during a hockey game and shoot someone. But courts have ruled that playing violent sports involves an assumption of risk of injury. Getting checked violently against the boards, even a check that is a penalty in the game, is typically covered under that assumption of risk.
There are rare exceptions where a player has gone so far afield of the rules of the game that they are no longer covered under the assumption of risk. Clubbing a player over the head with your stick is an example, and there have been at least a handful of cases in the NHL where players have been charged and convicted of offenses; Todd Bertuzzi and Marty McSorley for example. But violent acts during a game or even during practice are held to a much higher standard than acts that take place outside of the sports context.
I’ve sometimes wondered why prostitution is illegal in most of the U.S. but making porn is legal. In both cases it’s a pretty straightforward transaction of engaging in sex for money. I suppose the distinction is that the porn video can be claimed as making ‘art’, however spurious the claim.
Yup, freedom of expression. Prostitution doesn’t follow along quite the same as the other laws listed in the OP, it’s payment for services that makes it illegal. Yet still legal, as you say, when done as ‘art’.
My state has a real screwy law regarding that.
Under our law anyone under 18 years of age is legally a child.
A 16 year old child cannot consent to anything sexual, not even with another 16 year old.
But, a 16 year old child can legally get married to anyone 16 and older and then is able to consent to all the sex they want. But only with their spouse. If a married 16 year old has sex with someone other than their spouse then that someone would be guilty of sexual assault of a child.
But the childs spouse could have all the consensual sex they wanted with the child and be guilty of nothing. Even if the spouse is over 18, an adult.
Either having sex with a 16 year old child is amoral and disgusting or it is not amoral and disgusting. How does having a piece of paper from the state change that equation? How does that piece of paper give the child the mentality to be able to decide to consent to sex that they do not have without that piece of paper?
Consent is the default state, because consent is the basis of a society. Civilization itself is predicated on consent, the social order that allows large numbers of people to live in close proximity and intermingle in a thousand ways.
Because people are people there are always laws. The laws may be imposed by a divine monarch or a set of elected representatives, but the structure of laws limiting activities always exists. They define what happens if the basic tenets of consent are breached, ignored, or flagrantly disobeyed.
The limits are not bright lines. They can never be. Even in as small a community as the Dope, gray areas and fuzzy lines appear every day. People can argue the application in any particular case, but those who insist that the Dope be run under a series of red lines to never cross are dismissed out of hand, as they must be. Lines are drawn here and there about some people and some topics and some applications, but they are always narrowly construed and arbitrary. Why they are here rather than there is always answerable by “because there has to be a here.” It’s an adult telling a child “because I said so” writ large, and a society’s legal code in miniature.
Few things are more futile than asking why gray areas exist. They exist because people exist. QED.
It’s obvious you are offended but I think the OP was referring to consensual sex. For example, a woman could ask her husband to “rape” her tomorrow night. It isn’t actual rape of course, but fantasy-play involving loss of control and consensual rough sex.
Yes, calling sex “consentual rape” is deliberately provocative. It’s an oxymoron, so trying to extrapolate some banal point from that is going to lead nowhere.
A good point. If you meet a young lady in the bar and she agrees to have “free” sex with you that’s quite legal. If she agrees to have sex with you but only on the condition that you give her $100 if you agree, now it’s a crime even if both have “agreed”.
I interpreted the OP to be making the point that it’s the non-consensuality that makes rape, rape. If it isn’t non-consensual (i.e. if it is consensual) it’s not rape; it’s just sex.