Estwald
3 min readSep 6, 2022

--

Hello again, Amanda.

I enjoy reading your insightful and nuanced thoughts on this topic.

Fear not. My “objective harm” standard only applies to misrepresentations. It does not apply to sex with an unconscious person and certainly not to sexual assault through force or coercion.

I can see where one might draw a line between a deceptive appearance and a deceptive statement. I would consider them subcategories within the main category of misrepresentation. The subcategories would overlap in some instances.

It is not a line that I would consider sharp or firm enough to make one instance prosecutable and one not. Neither should be prosecutable without objective harm occurring. Either should be prosecutable if objective harm occurs, but as fraud rather than rape.

Where objective harm has occurred, intent may be considered. Did he establish an appearance of wealth to procure a sexual opportunity, or was he only trying to fit in with the event’s attendees? (Intent would not be relevant in this case since no objective harm occurred.)

Personally, I consider it inadvisable to use deceptive tactics to gain sexual opportunity but not prosecutable unless objective harm occurs.

The use of force or coercion is itself a form of objective harm and a serious one at that. The use of force or coercion is always a prosecutable offense. Sex with an unconscious individual is also always prosecutable as rape.

Several years ago, I participated in a conversation concerning sex while intoxicated.

In response to this excerpt:

LINK TO POST

I published this comment:

LINK TO COMMENT

In the same comment, I described this incident (using the “car borrowing” analogy):

LINK TO COMMENT

--

--

Estwald
Estwald

Written by Estwald

Good Natured Curmudgeon-Which reality is the real reality?

Responses (1)