responda esta pergunta

debate Pergunta

French beijar without consent is rape!

Ok, so I recently starting studying law and we were discussing a case which I think is interesting to discuss here.

This verdict upheld in the highest court in the Netherlands, 'De Hoge Raad' (High Counsel), so it is not something to be taken lightly. Jurisprudence is an important fonte of law in the Netherlands.

The case:

Person A kisses person B, against B's wishes. Person A is then charged with rape.

According to our law, any form of entering the body sexually is rape (with force and/or without consent), so the court rules that por french beijar person A had indeed sexually entered person B's body and was thus guilty of rape. He was sentenced to 24 months in prison.

What are your thoughts? Justified? Or going a bit too far?
 Sappp posted over a year ago
next question »

debate Respostas

Cinders said:
I don't know anything about Dutch or New Zeleand law, and can only speak for the United States, but... is there no distinction in these countries between rape and generalized sexual assault? Because I see this as the latter mais than the former.

In American law, sexual assault pretty much covers anything short of penetration. This includes everything from a man groping a woman on the subway, to forcing a woman's hand down your pants. Also, french beijar without consent.

Our laws are very specific and gender ambiguous (most of the time). They vary from state to state, but for the most part they define rape as unwanted penetration of or por genitals - which means anything inserted into the rectum or vagina, or the unwanted insertion of a penis into... something. This last law covers a male rapist forceably inserting his penis into his victim's mouth. The first one - forceable insertion into genitals - doesn't always specify who is doing the insertion, which covers cases in which men are coerced or drugged into having sex against their will (yes, it does happen). All your bases.

But, as I said, anything less than that is, legally speaking, considered sexual assault. Though still a highly serious crime, it is not as severe a charge as rape. So if this were in the jurisdiction of the United States, that's how it would have been classified. If a DA tried to persecute it as rape, he would have lost.

And I think it should be like that. Rape is serious. So is sexual assault. But let's not muddy the waters. Or else, the girl who cried rape will replace the "cry wolf" parable.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
In the Netherlands there is a distinction between rape and sexual assault, but in this case the court rules that since the body of person B was 'entered' it fell under rape, not sexual assault.
Sappp posted over a year ago
*
The court interpreted the law 'grammatically'- exactly what was put in the law. They also could've said: the law was put like this to include rape with things like dildo's, not so that french beijar will fall under rape and acquited the guy.
Sappp posted over a year ago
*
@Sapp, indeed there are quirks in many laws
coriann posted over a year ago
*
@Cinders XD i agree with you
coriann posted over a year ago
misanthrope86 said:
Given the way NZ law is written, I'm pretty sure a rape charge wouldn't stick. We do have charges for oral rape, but the wording is such that it describes mouths/tongues in contact with genitals specifically. I'm not sure if you would successfully be able to argue for this under NZ law. But I don't know enough about the specifics of the legal system to make a proper guess.

I don't, however, disagree with this case. The act was still a sexual violation. I think this kind of thing (unwanted kissing) is actually much mais common than we think because women probably just wouldn't think to denunciar it. Almost like it is an accepted part of being a woman that you will at some point be kissed in way you do not want. So I think the charge is justified.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
i disagree, the men who kiss women may not always wish harm, and indeed men are also subject to unexpected kissing! what do you have to say about that? i think NZ laws are written well and specified in order not to cause silly accidents like these! XD because that's what i think it was, an accident, he should have been charged for sexual assault rather than rape :)
coriann posted over a year ago
*
The same law applies to men so not sure what you are getting at. Violation is violation no matter what sex the parties involved are. I also never said that I think NZ law should be changed. I said that NZ is worded in a way that this case would never have happened. Then I said I don't have a problem with someone being punished for a crime. Nowhere in my comment do I argue for the things you just accused me of.
misanthrope86 posted over a year ago
coriann said:
wtf? i laughed when i read this and considered it a funny joke, emphasize on the word funny :P i think that the idea of putting french beijar as rape is absurd, there are many cases in which people innocently (not meaning the person any harm) steal a kiss, either to see if the person likes them or to start up sexual arousal in the other person, if mais people got carried to jail for this i think it would be both unfair and ridiculous, i mean of course there are those times when someone does it as a sexual assault to the other person and therefore it should be viewed as sexual assault rather than rape
and yes, i do think they took it a little too far that time as they have done many times! i've once heard about a guy who got sent to prison for stealing a pen! indeed this man entered this woman, but i think the law was unclear, there is a big difference between sexually and sexually stimulating, the mouth cannot cause sexual stimulation, arousal sure but it cannot physically create sexual feelings, the law was unclear! *entering a persons body sexually* (obviously as you can see in the outcome* was too vague -_- there, i placed my point ^ ^

select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
youngtraveler said:
rape is sexual intercourse while the victim is unconscious. look up the meaning. is beijar sexual intercourse?
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
That is not any definition of rape I've ever heard...
misanthrope86 posted over a year ago
*
That's certainly *A* definition, but not the only one. I think you may need to look up the meaning yourself.
Cinders posted over a year ago
*
@youngtraveler, Cinders is right
coriann posted over a year ago
next question »