>>935813821
>SA and rape are two different things, and if the words don't contain threats? Good luck
Rape is a form of sexual assault.
I said SA to be more encompassing.
>It's multiple components. You need the duress and you need to the physical force of sex.
You don't need overt threats for something to be rape.
Also, simply a person who is much stronger than an another person not taking no for an answer is inherently threatening.
Let's imagine you and a guy build like a pro NFL player cross paths in an alley in shitty part of town. He asks you to "lend him" the $50 he saw in your wallet. You realize noone else is around, and he just won't take no for an answer. Rationally, if you have any street smarts, you would think that he may eventually get frustrated and hit you, and even if you try to run he might be faster than you and grab you anyway. So you might give him what he wants to avoid escalation.
He'll argue that he never never threatened you, and so you gave the $50 to him without duress. Were you under duress or not?
In the face of a perception of threat, human beings can respond in; fight, flight, freeze, collapse (faint), and fawn (e.g. acquiescence /capitulation).
>You don't know what you're talking about.
What did the Lawyer say about the topic of convictions for rape and SA by non-violent coercion? They told you that doesn't exist? If they told you it doesn't exist, what country are you in?
Regardless, our debate isn't just about legality, it's about ethics.
Rape is about consent, and consent isn't just negated by violence or the threat of violence.
I'm glad you take no for an answer. Why do you take no for an answer?
