@hawkeye10,
Quote:Penetration in spite of demonstrated non consent should be the standard, using force should get an additional penalty.
That is already the definition of sexual assault/rape in my state--including her simply saying ,"NO" or "Stop" as a verbal indicator of non-consent, as are behavioral indicators, of trying to push the attacker off, or trying to get out from under him.
Of course, she has to be physically able and capable of doing such things--not too incapacitated, by any factors, to do such things.
You are complaining of laws you actually agree with, you jerk.

A good part of what you complain about is due to sheer ignorance of actual laws.
Quote:
I also demand that all cases where the state forbids the citizen from consenting be called something else. And these incursions into the rights of the citizens must be severely limited.
There are no laws that forbid competent adults from consenting.
The developmentally delayed can consent, 96 year olds can consent, those who have taken drugs or alcohol can consent, etc.
People in those groups are all free to consent to, and enjoy sex, if they want to.
However, when an individual in any of those groups experiences
unwanted sexual contacts, and/or the individual could not demonstrate non-consent, or indicate these contacts were unwanted, at the time of the contact, because of impairment, they can bring charges of sexual assault/rape--and the impaired condition is asserted as indicating no consent was given. In those instances, the victim is asserting there was no consent, they are asserting that they were in a condition where their consent could not legally be given.
Quote:In general, sexual assault is involuntary sexual contact that occurs through the actors use of force, coercion or the victim's incapacitation. The law will consider the victim incapacitated if they do not have the mental ability to understand the nature of the sexual acts, or if they are physically incapable of indicating their unwillingness to participate in the sexual conduct. Common examples of these charges may arise from the use of alcohol or date rape drugs, both of which can make it impossible for a victim to legally consent to sexual conduct.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/sexual-assault-overview.html#sthash.UeC7rcL5.dpuf
So, in case of the 9 women accusing Darren Sharper of sexual assault/rape, they are asserting he drugged them, which rendered them unconscious, and unable to consent, making his acts rape.
The 89 year old woman in that nursing home could have consented to sex, if she wanted to, and was competent to understand the situation. In fact, the nursing home claimed she was competent, very "flirtatious" and did "want it". But, she, in fact, didn't want that sexual contact, which is why she reported it to her daughter, which is what led to the conviction of her rapist, a staff worker in her nursing home.
Again, you are ignorant of the actual laws. They do not remove the right to consent, for competent adults.
Children and young teens are not allowed to consent.
I can't believe that, after 4 years of this thread, you are so damn ignorant of actual laws.
Quote:
Touching a womans ass or tit should not be called sexual assault, as the sexual motivation is assumed not demonstrated ...
No motivation is assumed in the law. Laws don't deal with motivations, they describe
criminal acts. Again, this is ignorance on your part.
Just touching, of that sort, is not actually called "sexual assault". Unwanted groping, of breasts, genital areas, on the other hand, is covered under the general area of sexual assault laws, although it's not specifically called "sexual assault". Again, the laws are much more specific than you think they are.
Quote:
I further demand that all cases of confused consent, which is the majority of what we now call sexual assualt, be dealt with through education and counselling, at least for the first few events...
"Confused consent" is a half-ass defense offered by someone who violated the law.
If consent is at all "confused" or unclear, sexual contact should just stop, until consent is clear and no longer "confused"--that's how you avoid violating the law.
Sorry, counseling, as the punishment for several instances of rape, is absurd. We are talking about serious crimes.
Do you want burglars, who enter your house and steal your property, and claim that, because you left a window open, they had "confused content" about whether you were inviting them in, and offering them your property, to receive counseling too?

Just how ridiculous do you want to get?
You're not only abysmally ignorant of the actual laws you continually attack and bitch about, your perceptions of these crimes are seriously out of whack.
Your ignorance is truly stunning. And, in your case, the dunce cap should be made out of tin foil.