This was my reply to it.
I just read "The blue haired girl" and that wasn't reluctant that was rape pure and simple. While you had the Coercion tag you didn't have the NonConsensual tag as at no time was she enjoying it. Just because it didn't meet this sites definition of rape because there was no violence many readers would still think that a rape based on the law. Try learning what real rape means. Just because there is no violence doesn't make it not a rape.
I read the blog entry and checked out the story. I agree with you that story is not tagged correctly, but I don't necessarily agree with you about how it should be tagged.
That is not reluctance. To me reluctance would mean you didn't want to do it going in but are at least okay with it having happened after.
That is certainly not how that story reads.
I think there is good reason for the site to distinguish violent rape from sexual assault by drugs, blackmail or other coercion.
However, to me, coercion and NonConsensual are somewhat redundant as coercion implies no consent.
You bring up the law on rape, well in the law, in general, not just for purposes of sexual assault, coercion negates any apparent consent.
many readers would still think that a rape based on the law
Sorry, but consensual, loving sex with someone underage is rape under the law. You can't apply the legal terms to story codes.
The only reason I mention the law was his main complaint were people voting low because he didn't add the rape tag even though many would feel it was rape. If he had used the NonConsensual tag that would have negated that issue.
The Reluctant tag was not right either as the definition is Start as non Consensual and then the non consenting party participates willingly. At no time wa she willing.
If he is going to bitch about people not understanding the meaning of tags then he is guilty of the same thing.
One of the problems with the definition of the Rape code is it uses the word rape in the definition - you should never use the word being defined in the definition. It also has Violence as a requirement and there are forms of rape that are not what I would consider violent.
A better definition might be: The use of some form of force in order to have sex with a second person.
Just got a reply from De Von where he says he didn't use the non Consensual tag because in the end she had a orgasm so she must have enjoyed it.
Just got a reply from De Von where he says he didn't use the non Consensual tag because in the end she had a orgasm so she must have enjoyed it
Whut? Is he a southern Republican lawmaker?
Whut? Is he a southern Republican lawmaker?
Not even our reps are THAT stupid or callous.
It's well accepted that orgasm during rape happens.
Republican
A publican is a person who owns a tavern, bar or other establishment that serves liquor, or at least beer. It is sort of a Britishism where those kinds of establishments are called pubs. If the publican owns more than one pub, they did it over and is a Re-Publican. There is a theory that they don't sell beer, they just lease it, you go to the restroom urinal and return it to them. Hense the other name for the Republicans is Go Pee. Sometimes the o is capitalized and the letters run together, GOP.
in the end she had a orgasm so she must have enjoyed it.
Well, that's sort of true in a hyper-technical bass ackwards way. However even if true, it doesn't by itself get you to the retroactive consent needed for reluctance vs non-consensual.
Just got a reply from De Von where he says he didn't use the non Consensual tag because in the end she had a orgasm so she must have enjoyed it.
So if I trap his balls in a vice and squeeze until semen escapes, he must have enjoyed it...?
So if I trap his balls in a vice and squeeze until semen escapes, he must have enjoyed it...
Only if it escapes from the right hole. leaks directly from a ruptured scrotum don't count.
It's a bit of a mess, isn't it, with rape having different legal definitions, dictionary definitions and SOL definition.
As an author I'd prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to squick-avoidance tags, but I'd also put a warning in the story blurb if I thought it warranted.
AJ
Or a forced milking of his prostate.
Sorry, I believe this discussion has gotten beneath us.
Sorry, I believe this discussion has gotten beneath us.
I tried to make the point before. "Enjoyed it" does not equal consent, it doesn't vacate rape.
And yet almost every defence lawyer uses that argument along with "It can't be because she wore sexy clothes" or "I can't rape my wife because it says it in the Bible." Judges even accept these arguments.
Judges even accept these arguments.
Not in the US. There might have been a time when such arguments were accepted, but today, the courts in every jurisdiction in the US have rejected both.
Not always.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/us/new-jersey-rape-minor-teen-judge-case-trnd/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-judge-who-let-rapist-walk-free-sentences-man-in-sex-assault-case-to-no-jail-time
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/01/judge-rape-sentence-backlash-new-york-james-mclusky-shane-piche
Sorry, none of those links actually support your prior statement.
None of the cases involve acquittals.
The New Jersey case is about whether or not to try a minor defendant in juvenile or adult court. And the reason was because the defendant was from a "good family" and had nothing to do with anything about the victim.
The other two cases involve convictions with low sentences involving no jail time.
The New York case article give no reason for the low sentence and no indication that the defense presented any arguments of the sort you mentioned.
The Virgina case is a statutory rape case. An under age victim. Here the defense did try to make a case for consent, but that case was based on prior communications between the defendant and the victim, not on the basis of her "promescuity" or how she dressed. This would have been a potentially valid defense against conviction if the victim hadn't been under age.
Are there judges that don't take rape cases seriously and hand out overly light sentences? Yes, but that has nothing to do with the defense making the kinds of arguments you described above.
Where did I say anything about acquittals? So just because they don't match exactly the point that there are judges that make outrageous rulings is not valid?
In the NJ case "In his denial, Judge James Troiano of Monmouth County Superior Court said the boy's actions were not predatory and not necessarily rape because "traditional" rape cases involve "two or more generally males involved, either at gunpoint or weapon, clearly manhandling a person."
He said the boy shouldn't be tried as an adult because he "comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school," because he was an Eagle Scout, because he was probably headed for a "good college" and because his "scores for college entry were very high."
In the Virginia case a 10 year old pled guilty to statutory rape of a 14 year old, The judge ordered no jail time.
At Wednesday's hearing, Judge Hauler said he "need[ed] to hear some positive things" about Osborn. James Trent, a foreman at an electrical company, commended Osborn's work ethic and performance, saying the "sky's the limit" with his future, according to the Times-Dispatch.
However, prosecutors noted this isn't the first time Osborn has been accused of sexual misconduct. In all, he's been accused seven times, including once when he was 12 years old and charged with grabbing the genitals of another student, the Times-Dispatch reported. Osborn's stepfather said he saw a child psychologist after that incident.
In the NY case a 25 year old school bus driver lured a 14 year old to his home. He pled guilty to 3d degree rape and got no jail time.
I guess to these judges boys will be boys.
Where did I say anything about acquittals?
You talked about the defense teams making particular kinds of arguments that used to be commonly made to juries as a defense against rape charges. Arguments you specifically formatted as something on the order of "it couldn't have been rape because...". Those are defenses against conviction, not arguments for a lenient sentence.
So just because they don't match exactly the point that there are judges that make outrageous rulings is not valid?
Ah, but your original point wasn't that general. It wasn't just that there are judges that hand out outrageously low sentences in rape cases. Your original comment was about judges accepting certain very specific types of arguments from the defense lawyer.
None of the cases you cited involved those types of arguments.