>>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 Tyson Fury were in a broken elevator and he asked you to "lend him" the $50 he saw in your wallet. Noone else around and he just wont' take no for an answer. Rationally, if you have any street smarts, you would think that he may eventually get frustrated and hit you. You don't don't want to be hit Tyson Fury (I promise you), so you might give him what he wants to avoid violence.

Were you under duress or not? He'll argue that he never never threatened you, and so you gave the $50 to him without duress.

Do you agree?

>You don't know what you're talking about.

What did your Lawyer say about the topic of non violent coercion? They told you it doesn't exist?


However, our debate isn't just about legality, it's
about ethics. You can dismiss other's views as "bullshit" but that just shows me you can't have a discussion with people who don't agree with you without getting overly emotional.

You don't seem to be able to talk about this topic without getting overly emotional. And I know from experience when people get emotional like you they aren't really going to talk rationally about the subject.

I pretty much know where this is going to go. Your next post is probably going to be descend more "bullshit! Fucking moron" type language, based on experience people in control of their emotions don't talk like that.

I'm glad you take no for an answer.