4 ms·
It's the definition in California. See penal code 243.4 By blurring the lines you contribute to the problem - the author's entire goal in reliving and bloggin
by siliconc0w 9y ago
It's the definition in California. See penal code 243.4 By blurring the lines you contribute to the problem - the author's entire goal in reliving and blogging her experience is that the details matter and we need a sensible framework to define and understand these issues or we can't address them.
- rectang 9y agoThanks for the statutory reference. I decided to research this more closely, and looked into several specific definitions. The most widely known (and the one I'd already seen) is the Justice Department's: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. However, the DOJ reference is not a statute. The other state statutes I looked at (New York, Washington, Delaware, Texas) seem to define "[aggravated/unlawful] [sexual/intimate] [assault/abuse/contact] similarly to California, with "intimate parts" enumerated. So, backing someone into a corner and forcibly attempting to kiss them might not bring a sexual assault charge unless accompanied by groping. Nevertheless, such actions can still result in charges of battery or false imprisonment. I agree that we need clearer collective understanding of the issues involved. However, the main concern remains consent. It's not "kisses OK, groping not OK" -- coerced intimacy is always problematic because it is coerced, no matter which statutory lines are crossed.