Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[halfwise]

Without evidence to the contrary, since she had claimed to be 'half asleep' I would assume he would start up the normal way, with nuzzling and foreplay, and if no objection is heard assume he still has consent. She was conscious enough to ask about a condom.

[Pettytyrant101]

I agree Halfwise- noone is saying its ok to have sex with unconcious women- but the circumstances as we have them do not to me constituet rape.

On another note entriely I Just watched a fox Geraldo segment on white supremacists.
I think my favourite line from the KKK guy was "America was founded by Americans."

The other thing which struck me is these groups are proceding from a patently false premise- they talk of their people being attacked (meaning whites) and that other peoples (everyone not white) should stay in their own countries (the irony of an American saying this seems lost on them). But there are no other people on earth- theres just people. Us. It makes no sense.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1795365177001/

[halfwise]

The best commentary on American race relations is Blazing Saddles. Like most Mel Brooks movies you have to ignore the parts when he's on screen, but I would dearly love to be in the same room with white supremacists when that movie is playing. I think it would mainly confuse them.

[David H]

She had texted a friend that she was 'half-asleep'. Shades of grey here.

Wait, that's not the movie Mrs Figg was wanting me to make is it?

[The Archet Bugle]

I guess my view is old fashioned, you don't make love to a woman until says you can. No, it does not mean signing an agreement (especially a marriage agreement which generally works the other way, methinks! ); it means thinking more of her (however temporarily) than yourself, and reading the signs.

The ladies let you know when they're ready - you just need to be on the alert - and maybe clean the dishes and hang out the washing without being asked to when you first sense a certain something in her demeanour and manner... i.e. she is being awfully nice to you, and for no apparent reason.

Oh yes, listening to what they did at work doesn't go astray either - even if it's a bit time consuming. I guess it boils down to how keen you are to lay in her arms. If you're not prepared to put in the time, it's your own fault.

Yes, sometimes they are clearly unavailable - but if you still show consideration to their thoughts (and, yes, their feelings ) then your boat will surely come in soon enough!

What I'm saying is, if you want to be given a Prize you must first earn it - and a bit of consideration never goes astray.

If you Lads need more advice on the Ladies, just let me know!

Anonymous Sex Expert

[Ally]

I'm not sure the archet bugle is the kind of thing the "lads" read

[odo banks]

You certainly don't get that sound kind of advice in NotP, Ally, so I think they should!

[Pettytyrant101]

What if its a lady you just met who takes you back to her place and then proceeds to do very naughty things to you without you having to do any of the dishes or even talk to her?

(I agree with you, Im just saying sometimes some women dont want wine and dined and listened to and go out to get what they do want and do so directly. You said a woman will 'let you know when they're ready'- well a lady doing what I describe could be seen as doing just that)


"You certainly don't get that sound kind of advice in NotP"- Odo

You dont get a Hobbit Lass of the Day with her insightful poiltcal views in the Bugle either- thats the decider.

[Ally]

Woah, sorry there anonymous sex expert

[Ally]

For clarification, that was to Odo Banks

[Orwell]

What if its a lady you just met who takes you back to her place and then proceeds to do very naughty things to you without you having to do any of the dishes or even talk to her?

The key is the Lass showing - one way or another - that she is interested. And, of course, some Lasses are less coy during the preliminaries than others! Eru bless them!

[Pettytyrant101]

The BBC news site has included a list of different definitions of rape under varies countries laws- warning this talks in no nonsense terms.

In Sweden where Mr Assange would be tired the law defines rape as;
Forced vaginal intercourse or a comparable sexual act, which is carried out by assault or threat of violence.

They define consent as;
Determined by whether force or threat of force was used.


From the info we have so far onthe Assange case I dont see how it could be classed as rape under Swedish law by those definitions.


England/Wales
Sexual Offences Act 2003 says defendant is guilty if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of the complainant with his penis, the complainant does not consent and the defendant does not reasonably believe consent has been given. The separate offence of sexual assault by penetration, which carries the same maximum sentence, covers attacks involving other objects.

Definition of consent;
Consent exists where someone "agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice". However, criminal barrister Felicity Gerry, author of the Sexual Offences Handbook, says: "If someone has a reasonable and genuine belief their partner gave consent they shouldn't be convicted."


Again it would seem to me the Assange case could make a strong case that he was under the reasonable and genuine belief consent had been given.

USA
Every state has its own statutes. In about half, the term rape has been replaced with the wider term sexual assault, says Prof Paul Robinson at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Where rape is still used, it is reserved for forcible sexual intercourse, he says.

Consent;
Main difference between states is whether "forcible compulsion" is required to show rape has taken place, says law lecturer Dr Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos, of London's Brunel University. Eight states require evidence of victim resistance, six others use similar terminology, and resistance is relevant to definitions of force and consent in another 16, say US legal experts John F Decker and Peter G Baroni. Some states do not distinguish between submission and genuine consent, Giannoulopoulos argues. The question for courts is whether the defendant could reasonably assume the victim has consented, says Robinson.


Americas laws seem a bit disparate state to state and more vague than European laws to me.

[David H]

Americas laws seem a bit disparate state to state and more vague than European laws to me.

That's because our constitution was written to be a union of independent nation-states, much like the EU, and over time as states were added they each passed through a period of being a Territory, during which time they wrote their own constitution and petitioned for admission.

To this day, I can't think of another issue that will unite the Left and the Right across our nation as quickly as suggesting that legislating at the federal level is better than passing laws at the state level. It's fundamental to the American understanding of freedom.

[Pettytyrant101]

But things like defence are at a federal level arent they?

[David H]

Mostly, but the State National Guards are still actually individual state militias. That's one of the reasons it aroused so much local anger when Bush called them up for national defense and then sent them off to Iraq.

But when federal law is crafted, there is input from the Attorneys General of all 50 states, and then most states adopt a version of the law (usually slightly tweaked) that are enforced at the state level.

If there's a difference of opinion on these tweaks or on any state's interpretation of federal law, it can be challenged in the Federal Circuit Court for that area (and each of the Circuit Courts has a different regional bias).

From there, if necessary, it's appealed to the Supreme Court who makes a ruling.

Then the State in question rewrites its law and tries again. Over and over and over.....

[Pettytyrant101]

So in theory you could be breaking the law, cross into another state with a different law and not be? Even though its all America?

[David H]

Oh not just in theory. This is the source of many major industries. The classic example is the taverns that are built straddling state or county lines so that you can walk to one side of the room and buy booze that would be illegal to buy on the other side. Gambling laws are also much exploited this way. Marriage and divorce laws, most recently with the same sex marriage, but also with different ages, tax laws, environmental laws..... the list is endless!

[Pettytyrant101]

Is that not a bit chaotic?

[David H]

In Chaos Lives Freedom

[Pettytyrant101]

But order always emerges from chaos, in theory. And order is never free.

[David H]

which is exactly the point that the more articulate members of both the Tea Party and the Occupy movements are making.

[Pettytyrant101]

That of course leads into the wider philosphical debate about can you have freedom in an ordered society?- and the answer is no, only freedom within agreed bounds or its not ordered.
And who wants to live in chaos really?

[halfwise]

People want to have much of the law making under local control, but the loopholes that ensue due to the presence of boundaries really do get ridiculous. Dave's example of a tavern having a bar at one end of the room across the state border really has happened, though rare.

The more common one I see all the time concerns fireworks, and is perhaps even more ridiculous. There are state laws about owning certain types of rocket fireworks, but not about selling them (I think the internet has something to do with this loophole). So all along many state borders you see firework shops set up where you can buy anything you want so long as you have an out of state ID, you simply transport your purchases across the border. Meanwhile, people from the other state are crossing in the opposite direction to do the same thing!

I buy all my fireworks this way. Apparently things are more uniform in Australia, for I once had a great time when some Aussies were visiting New York: I took them across the river to fire off in New Jersey fireworks that were purchased in pennsylvania. If the police had come after us and I got a good lawyer I'm sure I could have tied things up in court for years.

[David H]

And then of course Indian Reservations are in many was considered sovereign nations, and as such are exempt from the laws of the states in which they lay. A tribe my choose not to require drivers licenses for tribal members, for example. They can sell fireworks, untaxed gas, alcohol, cigarettes, run casinos, etc. without legal interference. But they're still administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the federal level, which is within the Department of Interior, and all of the officials are appointed rather than elected, which is hardly democratic.

Also, there are towns and even small cities which lay wholly on federal lands, like the Tongas National Forest in Alaska. Then instead of county or state law, you often fall under federal law, enforced by the rangers of the National Forest Service. Again, not an elected government.

And we've only just scratched the surface!

[Eldorion]

Careful guys, you might cause Petty to over-exert his buckie-d brain thinking about the all the overlapping layers of the American government.

I think it works pretty well all-in-all though, especially considering that it's the third-largest country in the world both in terms of size and population. There's not really any way to have a simple government of that size.