> I wonder when is something is legally considered rape.
Its kind of weird that this hairsplitting curiosity about consent always comes up exclusively in the context of rape and not other crimes with the same “without consent” rule, like battery (particularly since rape is, ina sense, just battery where the “harmful or offensive touching” element involves specific configurations of genital contact.)
But its actually pretty simple: if the other party didn’t actively intend for the specific interaction to occur, there was no consent. All the other things people ask about (except to the extent that they involve factors that legally either negate consent if known to or caused by the other party or which create a legal incapacity to consent independent of knowledge of the other party, which can include intoxication , youth, threats of violence, and other factors) tend to be things that play more of a role in the practical ability to convince a jury one way or the other than the ground truth of whether the offense occurred.
TBF, I think a lot of people don't actually know what battery is. Internet definition:
the crime or tort of unconsented physical contact with another person, even where the contact is not violent but merely menacing or offensive.
Most people hear of that only in the form of assault and battery. I always have to look it up because my mind wants to say "That phrase repeats itself. Surely, battery means being battered."
As for when is it legally rape? That depends a lot on the jurisdiction. Different places have different laws and there is lots of debate about the merits of some of those laws.
I downvoted you (I've reversed that now). I'm having trouble taking your questions seriously as good faith engagement. It sounds rather like you are asking "How much can I get away with?"
If you really want to know how to reach meaningful consent with a sexual partner, investigating the details of "exactly where does the law draw that line" isn't especially useful and it's hard to try to reply to such a question in a constructive fashion that doesn't implicitly suggest ugly things about the motive of the asker, so trying to reply seemed like an unwise choice.
Thank you for responding. I'm sorry I gave you the wrong impression about my question, I personally never had any issues with this.
My wife is a relationship and dating coach, and so it sparks my interest where the law draws the line.
I know from my wife, that nowadays men can approach women (on dates etc.) is to first ask for interactions, like "Can I place my hand on your leg", or "Is it OK if I kiss you". That way to have an explicit consent in all interactions. But there is this other aspect, where most women prefer a "real man that takes initiative", and so the spontaneous kiss might become dangerous if the man is very bad at reading the woman.
My question is basically where the law draws the line, in interactions that can be very complex. But as others responded, it seems up to the jury to decide if something was wrong or not.
P.S.: By the way thank you for giving the best comment in this threat at the top. I'm the father of 1 boy and 3 girls, and your advice is very clear and actionable.
The law is something you turn to when things go extremely wrong. I spend very little time worried about the law.
I worry much more about how to ensure that things go right.
The problem with wondering where the law draws the line is that if you look for guilt, it's easy to find it. It's easy to take offense, to escalate offense, to dig your grave deeper.
I worry much more about cultural trends. Laws are written by people and interpreted by people. The same law that twenty years ago was used one way can morph into something else. What was once a protection can become a cudgel.
The law is certainly needed. But this problem won't be solved with laws and court cases.
It will be solved with mutual respect and civil discourse, which is why I chose to reply to you.
Thank you for pleasantly surprising me with this comment. I was about 90 percent certain I was making a terrible mistake and would regret replying.
I chose to bet a certain way, knowing the odds were long against it going well but it was the only bet with some hope of furthering civility rather than deepening the yawning chasm that so often stands between us and a better world.
> Its kind of weird that this hairsplitting curiosity about consent always comes up exclusively in the context of rape and not other crimes with the same “without consent” rule, like battery
It isn't weird at all. There is no reasonable expectations of getting consent for battery outside of very specific scenarios.
Its kind of weird that this hairsplitting curiosity about consent always comes up exclusively in the context of rape and not other crimes with the same “without consent” rule, like battery (particularly since rape is, ina sense, just battery where the “harmful or offensive touching” element involves specific configurations of genital contact.)
But its actually pretty simple: if the other party didn’t actively intend for the specific interaction to occur, there was no consent. All the other things people ask about (except to the extent that they involve factors that legally either negate consent if known to or caused by the other party or which create a legal incapacity to consent independent of knowledge of the other party, which can include intoxication , youth, threats of violence, and other factors) tend to be things that play more of a role in the practical ability to convince a jury one way or the other than the ground truth of whether the offense occurred.