You can be as clear as you like - but I'm afraid it doesn't make it any less untrue.Originally Posted by Tar22
First of all, even before we address the content of what you're saying, you've committed a major fallacy. The fact that "pets include cats and dogs" does not mean that "cats and dogs are by definition pets"!
Secondly, look at what you're quoting. That's not the actual text of a statute. You couldn't build a prosecution on the wording of that definition. It's just a short "plain English" summary of the crime for laymen. It's meant to give you a gist of what sexual assault means. It gives a sense of the law; it doesn't act as the foundation of it. You're putting too much faith in the author's choice of words. It's not a watertight, all-encompassing definition that can reasonably be expected to cover all the nuances of what is or isn't sexual assault.
Otherwise, look at the implications. By the same token, all forms of unwanted touching and grabbing would automatically count as sexual assault too. "By definition," as you put it. But those categories also include as tonne of things that clearly aren't sexual assault. Tickling a sibling. "Normal" non-sexual assault. Rugby tackling a thief. Being uncomfortably sandwiched between two other people at a crowded festival. Inconsiderate moshing.
The author of that definition presumably thought people would supplement it with basic common sense, and expect (based on the name of the crime!) that a "sexual assault" would need to match a layman's understanding of "sexual" and also include criminal intent.
It's also worth bearing in mind that sex assault laws vary quite a bit from state to state, and that the US isn't the only jurisdiction anyway.
It's "unwanted kissing" when my elderly Great Aunt plants a big wet one on my cheek, but it certainly isn't sexual!Originally Posted by Tar22
To a lesser extent, impetuously kissing a friend who had just literally saved your life might be inappropriate and unwelcome, but it's hard to argue that such an outburst of joy and gratitude and manic joie de vivre could only be viewed as a sexual act. It's even harder to argue that it counts as a genuine sexual assault. Who would report such behaviour to the police? Who would prosecute? What jury would convict?
If you disagree, can you point to a single case where someone spontaneously kissed a friend who had saved their life... and was subsequently charged with sexual assault and convicted in a court of law?
If no such case exists, then how reasonable is it to argue that the Doctor's behaviour constitutes sexual assault by any reasonable definition of the crime?
Whether the scene in question was sexist/uncool or not, I think you're undermining your argument by making a false and illogical claim. An unwelcome kiss doesn't automatically qualify as sexual assault (although of course it can do).