Rape?

[MysticSang'ha]

So.....does a woman's sexuality have a price tag on it? Is considering this a crime in the same category as robbery or fraud mean that there is an inherent monetary value to sexuality?

I know I brought up the comparison earlier, but in reality I don't think this is a crime based on protecting a woman's sexuality and deciding on it's value. Why should it be? A lot of women have been known to lie, too, in order to seduce a man.

 

[Mister Emu]

So.....does a woman's sexuality have a price tag on it? Is considering this a crime in the same category as robbery or fraud mean that there is an inherent monetary value to sexuality?

I've never said or tried to imply that... What I've said is that our sexual freedom is more valuable than financial transactions. If we protect our financial transactions from deceit, how can we not protect our sexual freedom from it too?

I know I brought up the comparison earlier, but in reality I don't think this is a crime based on protecting a woman's sexuality and deciding on it's value. Why should it be? A lot of women have been known to lie, too, in order to seduce a man.

True, which is why I've tried to use gender neutral terms.

 

[Magic Man]

Granted, I am certainly unsure of those laws... but that I find people responsible for their actions, even when intoxicated, does not undermine the reasoning behind the law. Just because one party is responsible for being intoxicated and the decisions made in the state, does not mean the other party is not responsible for abusing the intoxicated state of the first party.

Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means. If you get drunk and give consent to someone having sex with you, then you're at fault, not them. Otherwise, you're saying the drunk person is not responsible for their actions when they're drunk, which would make drinking and driving legal.

No, it is not. That is why theft by deception exists as a crime. If you consent to give away money based on a deception, you have been robbed...

Yeah, and? Your first line is still incorrect.

You compared being deceived into sex with being deceived into losing a few dollars...

And?

His statement was under guarantee of the law. Unfortunately for her was dishonest, and unfortunately for him he faced said law.

That's a little circular. But no. If she valued her sex that much, then she shouldn't have slept with some random guy just because he said he was Jewish, even if it's against the law for him to lie about that.

In other words, I want a person's freedom to freely choose their sexual partners to be protected by the law.

Take one: In other words, you want the guy who tells the girl he loves her or that she's the hottest girl he's ever seen to go to jail, right?

Take two: A person's freedom to freely choose their sexual partners is protected by the law. You can freely choose anyone you want to have sex with, which is why you have to be careful.

The difference exists in what is gained. Sex or property... the one that is more valuable is the one that is not protected.

Yes, you keep trying this, and you keep being wrong. Sex is protected. You can't steal sex. That's why there are rape laws. You can't steal property. That's why there are stealing laws. But you're still (intentionally) missing the obvious differences between the situations. You should brush up on them before trying to assert that they're equivalent. (hint: it's not that one is more valuable than the other.)

I honestly cannot believe you demand a specific statute saying fraud is illegal... but alright.

Kentucky law:
KRS 514.040
(1) A person is guilty of theft by deception when the person obtains the property or services of another by deception with the intent to deprive the person thereof.

Whether they be friend or investment broker, if they deceive you into giving them your money, or property, for one purpose(such as an investment) and they then go and use it for personal gain(such as buying a car) they are criminals. If the value of the theft was more than $500 they are felons.

That doesn't actually say what you want it to. That doesn't cover giving a friend money to pay his mortgage payment, and then him using it to buy crack instead. That's why I was asking for specifics. I thought you might have something that you assumed supported your point, but didn't do it in reality.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means. If you get drunk and give consent to someone having sex with you, then you're at fault, not them.

If you are so intoxicated that you do not understand it could be that one is responsible, and the other at fault... as long as you got that way voluntarily of course.

Yeah, and? Your first line is still incorrect.

Consent in financial matters is invalid when obtained through deceit. That consent in sexual matters is not legally deemed so is an inconsistency. If you believe consent to be valid even when obtained through deceit, you must also reject theft by deception as a crime.

And?

You asked me to show where you placed a low value on sex. You compared being deceived into sex with being deceived out of a few dollars. Ergo sex is comparable in value to a few dollars, which does not have much value.

That's a little circular. But no. If she valued her sex that much, then she shouldn't have slept with some random guy just because he said he was Jewish, even if it's against the law for him to lie about that.

It really wasn't circular. Circular arguments are arguments based on each other.

I don't think that it was just because he was a Jew. It seems reasonable to presume she found other traits attractive as well. But, being Jewish was a requirement, and yes, regardless of the law if she wanted to ensure that person she was with was Jewish she should have done more than take him at his word... just as even though there are other situations where the law protects you from deceit, if you want to ensure you are getting what you want, you need to do more than take someone at their word. In an ideal world you would not need to, but apparently the protection of the law made her feel secure in the honesty of her potential partners...

Take one: In other words, you want the guy who tells the girl he loves her or that she's the hottest girl he's ever seen to go to jail, right?

Are those things required for him to have sex with her? Is it reasonable to know that if he did not say he loved her that she would not have agreed? Can it be proven that he in fact never considered himself as loving her? Then I would have no problem.

Take two: A person's freedom to freely choose their sexual partners is protected by the law. You can freely choose anyone you want to have sex with, which is why you have to be careful.

And the law can protect you from deception.

Yes, you keep trying this, and you keep being wrong.

No, I am not. Granted, the relative value of sex and money are opinions. Financial transactions are protected from deception. Sexual encounters are not(that I know of) protected from deception.

Sex is protected. You can't steal sex. That's why there are rape laws. You can't steal property. That's why there are stealing laws.

Sex is not as protected as property, and I believe it should be.

But you're still (intentionally) missing the obvious differences between the situations. You should brush up on them before trying to assert that they're equivalent. (hint: it's not that one is more valuable than the other.)

Perhaps you'd like to present an argument that shows how the nature of consent changes between situations. This would presumably explain why consent in less important matters would be protected from deceit, and consent in more important matters is not?

That doesn't actually say what you want it to.

Actually it does.

That doesn't cover giving a friend money to pay his mortgage payment, and then him using it to buy crack instead.

Considering I never proposed that scenario I would not expect it to.

That's why I was asking for specifics. I thought you might have something that you assumed supported your point, but didn't do it in reality.

No, apparently you grossly misunderstood my point.

 

[Magic Man]

If you are so intoxicated that you do not understand it could be that one is responsible, and the other at fault

No. See, the way it works is if you're responsible, then you're at fault.

... as long as you got that way voluntarily of course.

Obviously. If you're forced to get drunk, then that's someone using force.

Consent in financial matters is invalid when obtained through deceit. That consent in sexual matters is not legally deemed so is an inconsistency. If you believe consent to be valid even when obtained through deceit, you must also reject theft by deception as a crime.

Sorry, but no. Again, you keep refusing to acknowledge the major differences between a sexual encounter and a financial matter.

You asked me to show where you placed a low value on sex. You compared being deceived into sex with being deceived out of a few dollars. Ergo sex is comparable in value to a few dollars, which does not have much value.

It really wasn't circular. Circular arguments are arguments based on each other.

Yes, which is why I called it circular.

I don't think that it was just because he was a Jew. It seems reasonable to presume she found other traits attractive as well. But, being Jewish was a requirement, and yes, regardless of the law if she wanted to ensure that person she was with was Jewish she should have done more than take him at his word... just as even though there are other situations where the law protects you from deceit, if you want to ensure you are getting what you want, you need to do more than take someone at their word. In an ideal world you would not need to, but apparently the protection of the law made her feel secure in the honesty of her potential partners...

I have my doubts that she was counting on the law beforehand. I'd wager she only found out about that after the fact, and then used it because she felt wronged.

Are those things required for him to have sex with her? Is it reasonable to know that if he did not say he loved her that she would not have agreed? Can it be proven that he in fact never considered himself as loving her? Then I would have no problem.

That indicates to me that you do, in fact, have a problem. That is an entirely unreasonable view of the situation.

And the law can protect you from deception.

Sure, in certain matters. Not in this case, though. That idea is just crazy.

No, I am not. Granted, the relative value of sex and money are opinions. Financial transactions are protected from deception. Sexual encounters are not(that I know of) protected from deception.

Maybe that's because they're different situations, and you still refuse to acknowledge the differences.

Sex is not as protected as property, and I believe it should be.

Actually, it is.

Perhaps you'd like to present an argument that shows how the nature of consent changes between situations. This would presumably explain why consent in less important matters would be protected from deceit, and consent in more important matters is not?

First, you're already assuming sex is more important. That's your value, not necessarily a general one, and there's no reason for it to be a general one.

Second, the main thing is when talking about money, you're giving your money to someone for something, a car, a house, an investment to be given back later, etc. If you don't get that car or house or investment money in return, then you have a legal problem. In the case of sex, you each agree to have sex. You both get sex out of it. If you consent to have sex with a man or woman, you're consenting to have sex with that particular person. If you wouldn't want to have sex with them because they're not Jewish, you should be careful to make sure that they are not Jewish (which would mean doing more than asking them whether or not they're Jewish).

Anyway, the point is with money, if you don't get your return, then you have a case. In the case of sex, you get your return, and that is sex.

Actually it does.

You're welcome to make that claim again, but it's not going to make it true.

Considering I never proposed that scenario I would not expect it to.

Considering I did pose that scenario, I would have expected it to, since you were giving that in response to my scenario.

No, apparently you grossly misunderstood my point.

Apparently, it's not I who has misunderstood. I asked for your reasoning as to why my scenarios would be criminals, and you gave me this. Then, when I reiterate my scenarios to which it doesn't apply, you claim it was never meant to apply to them. If that's true, then you shouldn't have brought it up, and I'll keep waiting for your answer as to why the scenarios I did bring up would be considered criminals.

 

[Mister Emu]

No. See, the way it works is if you're responsible, then you're at fault.

One's responsibility does not diminish that of another.

Sorry, but no. Again, you keep refusing to acknowledge the major differences between a sexual encounter and a financial matter.

They are acts of a different nature, but the nature of consent does not change.

I agree with the sentiment... the logical implications of your statement do make one want to do that.

Yes, which is why I called it circular.

There is some basic misunderstanding you have with the idea of argument basis then.
The statements:
'His honesty was under guarantee of law'
'Unfortunately for her, he lied'
and
'Unfortunately for him, he had to face said law'
Are not circularly based on each other in any conceivable way.

I have my doubts that she was counting on the law beforehand. I'd wager she only found out about that after the fact, and then used it because she felt wronged.

That is possible.

That indicates to me that you do, in fact, have a problem. That is an entirely unreasonable view of the situation.

We've disagreed on a great number of things, why stop now

Sure, in certain matters. Not in this case, though. That idea is just crazy.

" "

Maybe that's because they're different situations, and you still refuse to acknowledge the differences.

No, I've acknowledged, several times I believe, but at least once quite clearly, that they are different situations. It is you who refuse to look upon the similarities, namely the concept of consent.

Actually, it is.

No. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. If you cannot gain one thing through deception, and you can another, the first is more protected than the second.

First, you're already assuming sex is more important. That's your value, not necessarily a general one, and there's no reason for it to be a general one.

I've admitted that it is a subjective value judgment... are you disagreeing with it?

Second, the main thing is when talking about money, you're giving your money to someone for something, a car, a house, an investment to be given back later, etc. If you don't get that car or house or investment money in return, then you have a legal problem.

Indeed.

In the case of sex, you each agree to have sex.

Indeed.

If you consent to have sex with a man or woman, you're consenting to have sex with that particular person. If you wouldn't want to have sex with them because they're not Jewish, you should be careful to make sure that they are not Jewish (which would mean doing more than asking them whether or not they're Jewish).

Here is where the differences blend together. When you consent to "X" and get "Y", you have not gotten what you consented to. If you consent to buy a car and get a cactus, that is not valid consent for them to obtain your money. If you consent to sex with a single person who desires a long relationship and you have sex with a married person who is looking for a one night stand, that is not valid consent for sex. Consent by its nature cannot be freely given when based on deception.

Anyway, the point is with money, if you don't get your return, then you have a case. In the case of sex, you get your return, and that is sex.

But you did not get the return you sought, because the sex you got was with an identity that does not exist, and you consented to sex with that identity.

You're welcome to make that claim again, but it's not going to make it true.

It is not the claim, but the facts that make it true.

Considering I did pose that scenario, I would have expected it to, since you were giving that in response to my scenario.

Considering it was I who proposed the scenario, and that is not the scenario, neither of us should have expected it to be talking about that.

The scenario was first proposed in post #107, which is one of mine:

I did not consent to you spending my money on a car, I consented to it being used in the investment I agreed to.

you followed up in #109:

It depends. Who am I? Am I your investment broker? That's a much different situation than the OP. Am I your friend with no professional ties? Then it's your fault for trusting me.

#110:

Either way, friend or investment broker, you are a criminal if we agree to invest my money and you use it to buy a car.

#115:

A criminal? According to what laws?

#117

Fraud laws.

#118

Thanks for the vague, unhelpful. I'll try again, though. A criminal? Under what laws?

#120

I honestly cannot believe you demand a specific statute saying fraud is illegal... but alright.

Kentucky law:
KRS 514.040
(1) A person is guilty of theft by deception when the person obtains the property or services of another by deception with the intent to deprive the person thereof.

Whether they be friend or investment broker, if they deceive you into giving them your money, or property, for one purpose(such as an investment) and they then go and use it for personal gain(such as buying a car) they are criminals. If the value of the theft was more than $500 they are felons.

#123

That doesn't actually say what you want it to. That doesn't cover giving a friend money to pay his mortgage payment, and then him using it to buy crack instead. That's why I was asking for specifics. I thought you might have something that you assumed supported your point, but didn't do it in reality.

The scenario was investment money used for personal gain. And yes, it says what I think it does. If you lie to me and say my money is going to an investment and you use it for personal gain, you are a criminal whether you are a broker or my "friend"(I use quotations, because clearly a real friend would not do that)

Apparently, it's not I who has misunderstood. I asked for your reasoning as to why my scenarios would be criminals, and you gave me this. Then, when I reiterate my scenarios to which it doesn't apply, you claim it was never meant to apply to them.

Considering your scenario never appeared before post #123, and that all along we had been discussing quite another scenario, one that I had proposed, no. It is you who has misunderstood.

 

[Magic Man]

One's responsibility does not diminish that of another.

Yes, it does. That's exactly what it does. If you're responsible for your actions, then you're responsible for your actions, not someone else. If you get drunk and are still held accountable when you do other things like drive or commit a crime, then you're still solely responsible for who you have sex with.

There is some basic misunderstanding you have with the idea of argument basis then.
The statements:
'His honesty was under guarantee of law'
'Unfortunately for her, he lied'
and
'Unfortunately for him, he had to face said law'
Are not circularly based on each other in any conceivable way.

I didn't say they were circular based on each other. I said the argument was circular, meaning it was based on another idea that you were assuming which was then supported by this, and this was supported by it.

No, I've acknowledged, several times I believe, but at least once quite clearly, that they are different situations. It is you who refuse to look upon the similarities, namely the concept of consent.

If you had acknowledged the differences, you wouldn't be saying the same arguments you are now. I understand the similarities, but they are not enough to treat the situations the same way.

No. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. If you cannot gain one thing through deception, and you can another, the first is more protected than the second.

Not quite.

I've admitted that it is a subjective value judgment... are you disagreeing with it?

It depends. Sex can just be a fun thing to do.

Here is where the differences blend together. When you consent to "X" and get "Y", you have not gotten what you consented to. If you consent to buy a car and get a cactus, that is not valid consent for them to obtain your money.

Except that you're not getting a cactus; you're getting a car.

If you consent to sex with a single person who desires a long relationship and you have sex with a married person who is looking for a one night stand, that is not valid consent for sex. Consent by its nature cannot be freely given when based on deception.

Actually, that is consent. You consented to have sex, and you had sex. You could see the person, and you consented to sex with him/her.

It is not the claim, but the facts that make it true.

Actually, neither make it true.

Considering your scenario never appeared before post #123, and that all along we had been discussing quite another scenario, one that I had proposed, no. It is you who has misunderstood.

So, you went back and got the numbers of each post, and still failed to understand what happened? I proposed a scenario, and you said the people in it would be considered criminals. Directly in response to that claim, I asked for a source. You then provided a source that you're now admitting wasn't a source related to that scenario for which I asked for a source. If you're not even going to be honest about our dialogue, what's the point in continuing it?

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, it does. That's exactly what it does. If you're responsible for your actions, then you're responsible for your actions, not someone else. If you get drunk and are still held accountable when you do other things like drive or commit a crime, then you're still solely responsible for who you have sex with.

Then we shouldn't have date rape laws. Nice reasoning.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes, it does.

No, it does not.

That you are responsible for getting drunk, and thereby all actions taken when drunk, does not mean that it cannot be a crime to abuse someone's drunken state.

I said the argument was circular, meaning it was based on another idea that you were assuming which was then supported by this, and this was supported by it.

What idea is that?

If you had acknowledged the differences, you wouldn't be saying the same arguments you are now.

I've acknowledged that they are different, I don't be so different as you do, especially with the concept of consent.

Not quite.

Yes, it really is that simple. If one thing is protected from x and another is not, the first has protection the second does not.

It depends. Sex can just be a fun thing to do.

Therefore? Its value diminishes?

Except that you're not getting a cactus; you're getting a car.

Unless I get a cactus... then I am not.

Actually, that is consent. You consented to have sex, and you had sex. You could see the person, and you consented to sex with him/her.

You did not have sex with the identity you consented to. Thus consent was invalid. If you buy a car that someone says has new leather interior and a smooth running engine under the hood, and you get the car, but it has ratty, ripped up cloth interior and no engine at all, that is not what you consented to buy, even though the outside is the same.

Actually, neither make it true.

Thankfully, we've both agreed claims do not make things true.

So, you went back and got the numbers of each post, and still failed to understand what happened?

No, I understand exactly what happened... I'm beginning to think you're being intentionally obtuse.

I proposed a scenario, and you said the people in it would be considered criminals

Look again, you did no such thing. I proposed the scenario of investment money being used for personal gain.

You responded to my scenario by asking whether it was a broker or a friend who stole the money.

Then I told it does not matter whether an investment broker or friend stole investment money, both would be criminals. Not how the claim in post
Again from post #110

Either way, friend or investment broker, you are a criminal if we agree to invest my money and you use it to buy a car.

This statement is what your question for laws was in response to. You are a criminal if we agree to invest my money and you use it to buy a car. And that is what the law says. You are in fact a criminal if that plays out.

If you're not even going to be honest about our dialogue, what's the point in continuing it?

If you will not be honest, and go so far as this to refrain from just admitting you were wrong about what the line of discussion was, there is no point.

I've shown, comprehensively, how it was I who proposed the scenario, and that the scenario was stolen investment money.

You could prove me dishonest if you went back and found where we were discussing some other scenario other than investment... My quotes would have to be blatant falsifications were that the case...

 

[Magic Man]

Then we shouldn't have date rape laws. Nice reasoning.

Hey, you're back for another drive-by! Thanks for stopping by! Next time, please add something useful to the conversation, though (or don't waste your and our time). Maybe when you stop back, you could explain how in one case you can be fully responsible for your actions while drunk while in another you can't be held responsible.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it does not.

That you are responsible for getting drunk, and thereby all actions taken when drunk, does not mean that it cannot be a crime to abuse someone's drunken state.

Yes, that's exactly what it means. It means that you're responsible for your actions. If you don't refuse sex to someone while drunk, then you're responsible for having sex with them.

Yes, it really is that simple. If one thing is protected from x and another is not, the first has protection the second does not.

Sure, but that's not what you said.

Therefore? Its value diminishes?

Therefore it depends on how you view sex. If it's just a fun thing to do, it's no different than watching a movie.

No, I understand exactly what happened... I'm beginning to think you're being intentionally obtuse.

Look again, you did no such thing. I proposed the scenario of investment money being used for personal gain.

You responded to my scenario by asking whether it was a broker or a friend who stole the money.

Then I told it does not matter whether an investment broker or friend stole investment money, both would be criminals. Not how the claim in post
Again from post #110

This statement is what your question for laws was in response to. You are a criminal if we agree to invest my money and you use it to buy a car. And that is what the law says. You are in fact a criminal if that plays out.


If you will not be honest, and go so far as this to refrain from just admitting you were wrong about what the line of discussion was, there is no point.

I've shown, comprehensively, how it was I who proposed the scenario, and that the scenario was stolen investment money.

You could prove me dishonest if you went back and found where we were discussing some other scenario other than investment... My quotes would have to be blatant falsifications were that the case...

Actually, this is my fault. I didn't realize you had changed my scenario to one that better suits your point. I should have realized that earlier. Now, if we can go back to my scenario, and you can show why that would be criminal, I'd love to see it.

 

[Mister Emu]

If you don't refuse sex to someone while drunk, then you're responsible for having sex with them.

And if you are too drunk to understand what's going on, it can mean that the other person illegally abused your drunken state, no matter how you got there.

Sure, but that's not what you said.

Can you point out a situation where consent in sexual matters is protected and in financial matters not that produces a relatively equal gap in protection between the two?

Therefore it depends on how you view sex.

I asked how you view its value.

Actually, this is my fault. I didn't realize you had changed my scenario to one that better suits your point. I should have realized that earlier. Now, if we can go back to my scenario, and you can show why that would be criminal, I'd love to see it.

No, I changed nothing. Perhaps you did, in your mind as you never signified this change in text. If you can show me where we were discussing your scenario(before #123), I'll address it.

 

[Magic Man]

And if you are too drunk to understand what's going on, it can mean that the other person illegally abused your drunken state, no matter how you got there.

If you're too drunk to know what's going on, it's your fault for getting that bad. Hence why you are arrested for driving like that. Unless I force you to be drunk or high or whatever, it's not up to me to determine whether your decision to have sex voluntarily with me is valid or invalid. That's up to you.

Can you point out a situation where consent in sexual matters is protected and in financial matters not that produces a relatively equal gap in protection between the two?

I can point out the penalties for each as a way of balancing it out.

I asked how you view its value.

Why? What does my personal view of it matter?

No, I changed nothing. Perhaps you did, in your mind as you never signified this change in text. If you can show me where we were discussing your scenario(before #123), I'll address it.

It all started with my scenario.

 

[linwood]

All of a sudden I feel so ..violated!

I`m a multiple rape victim under Israeli law.

Hell..I`m a serial rape victim.

Utter ********.

 

[Mister Emu]

If you're too drunk to know what's going on, it's your fault for getting that bad. Hence why you are arrested for driving like that. Unless I force you to be drunk or high or whatever, it's not up to me to determine whether your decision to have sex voluntarily with me is valid or invalid. That's up to you.

I just don't agree that being responsible for the state you are(and therefore actions resulting from that state necessarily means that that state can not be illegally abused.

I can point out the penalties for each as a way of balancing it out.

I spoke of legal protection, not level of punishment.

Why? What does my personal view of it matter?

Because I am discussing it with you?

It all started with my scenario.

Show it.

 

[Magic Man]

I just don't agree that being responsible for the state you are(and therefore actions resulting from that state necessarily means that that state can not be illegally abused.

Well, you can disagree, but then you're wrong. It's just simple logic. If you get drunk and drive, you are held responsible for that action while drunk. If you get drunk and consent to have sex with someone, you're responsible for that action while drunk, not the other person you had sex with.

Because I am discussing it with you?

But my personal view of it isn't what's important. What's important is a general view of it.

Show it.

You already did.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

All of a sudden I feel so ..violated!

I`m a multiple rape victim under Israeli law.

Hell..I`m a serial rape victim.

Utter ********.

Exactly. It's ridiculous to legislate this.

 

[Mister Emu]

Well, you can disagree, but then you're wrong. It's just simple logic. If you get drunk and drive, you are held responsible for that action while drunk. If you get drunk and consent to have sex with someone, you're responsible for that action while drunk, not the other person you had sex with.

So be it... we won't come to an agreement here...

You already did.

No, what I showed was a scenario that I proposed.

If you believe what I quoted supports your view of things, please point out where.

 

[Magic Man]

Exactly. It's ridiculous to legislate this.

:yes:

 

[Watchmen]

Hey, you're back for another drive-by! Thanks for stopping by! Next time, please add something useful to the conversation, though (or don't waste your and our time). Maybe when you stop back, you could explain how in one case you can be fully responsible for your actions while drunk while in another you can't be held responsible.

You can't give consent when you're drunk.

http://teenadvice.about.com/od/daterape/a/daterapeguysfyi_2.htm