French besar without consent is rape!

I don't know anything about Dutch o 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 más 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 besar 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 o por genitals - which means anything inserted into the rectum o vagina, o 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 o 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. o else, the girl who cried rape will replace the "cry wolf" parable.

dado 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 tu 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 más common than we think because women probably just wouldn't think to reportar it. Almost like it is an accepted part of being a woman that tu will at some point be kissed in way tu do not want. So I think the charge is justified.

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 besar 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 o to start up sexual arousal in the other person, if más 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 tu can see in the outcome* was too vague -_- there, i placed my point ^ ^

rape is sexual intercourse while the victim is unconscious. look up the meaning. is besar sexual intercourse?