In a med situation, it’s still grey if the patient consents- or dissents- when they aren’t fully rational. It can be a bit more complicated.
Btw, oral contacts or hand-shake deals can be enforceable. that’s a different context, though.
It is interesting how you always rework your hypotheticals in an effort to massage them to fit whatever you are trying to say, when shown to be initially erroneous. It is like playing musical chairs with your hypotheticals.
But, here again in your new example you are wrong. And I note the change of your walking in your friend’s house to now rummaging as well. However, rummaging through his stuff is not the same as trespassing, as rummaging is a different act, so I will ignore that added piece and stick with the original hypothetical.
And where your example is wrong again is for the reason I said before - in the normal transaction of business. For example, if a home owner has a leaking pipe and calls his regular plumber and reports it, then if the homeowner is not home, there is an implied permission that the plumber can enter the home and go to the specific area and fix the problem without ever getting actual permission to enter home. The same goes for pest control and others who operate in areas where the home owners are not at home during the day. Roofers have that implied permission as well. The home owner may not even know the person the company is sending or when they will be arriving, but there is implied permission to enter the environs to conduct the business transacted for.
Additionally, there are neighborhoods where packages cannot be left out front. In those neighborhoods, the Fedex and other delivery people have implied permission to open a side door to a mud room, a sliding garage door, or something like that to put the package in a legal non-visible place.
And there is even a more general, yet important use. In the case a person, any person, thinks there is an urgent need to contact you, i.e., there is smoke coming from the rear of your house of which you may not be aware. Any person can enter your home trying to find you. That is an implied permission because of a reason deemed extremely important to get your attention. And the person may be mistaken and there is no fire. However, this activity would not be classified as trespassing. And the home owner potentially saved from a fire would not see it that way either.
I already addressed those by writing this:
There are many types of enforceable contracts, but I did not see the need to break down each category.
I am more than a little bemused that when this idea women should have privacy rights to their own bodies is pointed out, that the rest of the world shouldn’t have access without explicit permission, others want to argue the point instead of just saying, “wow, of course that is right” I just assumed after reading Cardinal Fang’s posts before bed last night that this particular issue had been settled here. : (
"What if this were your straight son and a male who wanted sex? Your kid had been drinking and was impaired, physically and mentally. Would you say, well he didn’t clearly say No? Would you settle for, “Well he seemed to want it?”
Would you be so quick to say, these things happen, get over it? You shouldn’t have had that last drink?"
This is a GREAT hypothetical.
"
For example, if a home owner has a leaking pipe and calls his regular plumber and reports it, then if the homeowner is not home, there is an implied permission that the plumber can enter the home and go to the specific area and fix the problem without ever getting actual permission to enter home. The same goes for pest control and others who operate in areas where the home owners are not at home during the day. "
No, there isn’t. Concidentally I’m dealing with a family member’s condo which has been ruined due to a leaking pipe. The condo association has the right to enter the house even without the person there because that’s specifically in the contract and they have a master key - not because there is some inalienable right that they can enter the premises. The clean-up crew, plumbers, etc. have the right to enter the house - but the permission is because we provided a key and they provided a lockbox. They couldn’t just walk on in. The act of providing the key is the act of granting permission.
Although I really liked LF’s hypothetical as well, it seems like a good time (and a good idea) to point out that when one male rapes another male, usually the rapist identifies as straight.
This topic isn’t about business, awc.
Your examples keep forcing us to go check. Perhaps you can just go ahead and cite the law or regulations. We’re not just taking you on your word.
My doorbell only rings downstairs and I’ve missed it plenty of times. Not once in 20+ years has a service person gone ahead and entered my home simply because they had a job order. They shout, they use the brass knocker, they phone. And/or, they go away. I’ve had times when I said, if I’m not home yet go in and get started- and they tell me, No. They don’t want the liability. Fed Ex leaves a slip you can mark and sign, giving them alternate directions how to leave the package. For heaven’s sake, some people have alarms.
Maybe you’re confusing documents one signs with, eg, apt situations. Eg, in every apt lease I ever signed there was a box informing us the property manager could enter for certain reasons.
Legal site: “If you rely on implied consent, you may find it difficult to defend yourself if you are charged with trespassing. You will need to show that a reasonable person in the same situation would have believed that there was implied consent based upon the conduct of the person in possession of the property and the overall circumstance.”
Not a slam dunk.
But what does this have to do with colleges? I suppose, this: “If you rely on implied consent, you may find it difficult to defend yourself…”
I’m sitting on the east coast, impatiently waiting for Cardinal Fang to wake up on the west coast and respond to some of these posts. I’m worried how much time she needs to get breakfast and so on till she gets back to this.
My issue with yes means yes is that unless it’s on video or consent forms are required I don’t see why this isn’t just going to be a he said, she said about yes instead of no. Unless the purpose is just to give more guidance to young people who don’t know what they are doing but something about that concept does bother me if we call them adults.
Additionally, no-one has a right to your body however if the state is charging someone with a felony there is going to have to be some proof. Even a not guilty verdict in court is not the same thing as saying the accused had the right to do, whatever. It becomes a problem of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the difficult cases, not a question of rights.
@awcntdb As usual you are completely wrong and then claim that it is others who are mistaken and/or changed their stories.
Here is what CF initially wrote:
Notice how she doesn’t say “walk up to the house”. She says “walk right IN the door”. You then respond with
Notice how you use the example of walking up to the door. You never say anything about implied consent to walk in the house. She then explains to you how she said IN the house.and gives an example of something she might do in the house
You then counter with
Despite the fact that you are the one changing and was initially erroneous you are claiming that she changed.
You then follow by now changing your argument and saying that people sometimes have an implied consent to enter the house (when originally your implied consent argument involved approaching the house. Worse than that, however, is that you throw out supposed examples of implied consent where you claim people have the right to enter your home (e.g. plumbers, Fed Ex, etc) when if fact NONE of those people are allowed in your home.
Still want to claim that it is CF who is massaging the story to fit her claims instead of you?
I agree with you. In most cases it won’t make a difference, but there are bound to be some case of incapacitation and/or where there are witnesses where it could change the outcome over a “no means no” version.
Essentially what it does, in my opinion, is change the norm from a culture where men touch, or try to touch, until told to stop, to one where men ask permission. That is huge. Women live a reality where others have touching rights. It is how we have to deal with the world and it really ****s.
@momofthreeboys said upthread that “no means no” laws don’t give someone the right to another person’s body and gave an example of how you can’t kill someone just because they didn’t tell you no.
As I think I mentioned before, one difference is that killing someone is illegal whereas having sex is not. The biggest difference though is that there is not a “no means no” law pertaining to murder (or stealing, or anything else but rape.
Think of it this way: if a law was passed saying that “no means no” in cases of murder it would then become legal to kill someone if they didn’t say no. All of the examples you listed supported your argument only because there are not specific laws regarding those acts which have been changed to “no means no” versus “yes means yes”.
@alh That is a PERFECT summary!
No, I didn’t give the killing example LOL, no one asks permission to murder someone - unless it’s a right to death case - my example was that no one has a right to my body in the medical field if I say “no.” I have to sign a consent form if I say “yes” - that was my example.
The murder example was mine.
And, the problem is one of evidence not rights. Even if a prosecutor believes a crime was committed he or she is going to have to prove it somehow in a courtroom. And, if it can’t be proven that does not translate into the accused had the right to commit the act at all. People do get away with murder but it certainly doesn’t mean they had a right to kill the victim. It means the case couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Marie was the murder example
I don’t think that really detracts from the response, which I liked. (pun)
The issue here is not a “seem,” and not a guess, but directed, positive actions and associated words.
This is the problem many here do not want to accept - that is, no one else is responsible for your actions, words and behavior except you. And if you voluntarily do something that makes you positively do things and act in ways that you would not normally do, that is not someone else’s issue to resolve for you. The other parties can deal only with want they are being told and what they are actually being presented.
And in the examples where the plaintiffs lost, there was no “seem” about it. The females were positively saying yes and doing actions to reinforce that yes. That is not a “seem” to the other person; that is a reality going in one direction. And the courts found that no reasonable person could conclude otherwise. And the problem these females had were others who also confirmed that there was no “seem” about it.
And I suspect this is what is happening to a lot of college females. Their intent is not to have sex, and they also have no intent to consent - they may even have thought how to act “no” and say no to sex. However, after ingesting alcohol, they can no longer act positively on that original intent and unfortunately do things that are completely contrary to that original intent. Then when they sober up, they panic and they say rape because they recall their original intent. However, they might have done nothing to reinforce the original intent and did everything to present and support the opposite. It is not someone else’s responsibility to resolve your actions and words for you, especially if you are clear in what you are saying and doing.
I trained my kids never to put themselves purposely in a position where they cannot take smart personal decisions.
Therefore, if either of them put themselves in such a position, I would say, “You let your guard down by your own freewill by putting yourself in position where you could not think straight and you were doing things that you would not normally do. It is unfortunate what happened to you, but there are consequences when you purposely impair your ability to act your normal self. The world is full of lots of people, some very bad, and you have no control over their actions, only control over yours. Do not give bad people another opportunity to have control over you. Personal safety always comes first and remember never to give that up.”
Looks like I was more effective than I expected, given the fact that both DSs are teetotalers and always make sure their heads are on straight because they understand that their behavior and words are their responsbility, not someone else’s.
You know the expression awc: methinks he doth protest too much.
You want to be right and have us, therefore, wrong. I get it.
Plus a whole lotta assuming going on- “And in the examples where the plaintiffs lost, there was no “seem” about it. The females were positively saying yes and doing actions to reinforce that yes.”
Where did you get this? If you mean, from the narrow, hypothetical you designed earlier, claim it as such.
I think alh’s post #4051 sums it up.