(June 2, 2015 at 7:09 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Loss of Consortium is for suing another party if a spouse is denied marital relations because of injury by that party. Married people aren't suing each other because they aren't getting laid, dude. Divorced, maybe, but no one has any obligation ever to have sex without consent.
I am aware of that as I said it several posts ago. I did not say that married people are suing one another for lack of sex. (Loss of consortium does not simply cover sex. It covers the loss of the spouse to perform their spousal duties which also includes providing for the family, cleaning of the domicile, and child care.) I was pointing out that only married couples may sue for loss of consortium.
(June 2, 2015 at 7:09 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:(June 2, 2015 at 7:09 pm)Anima Wrote: At common law spouses could not legally refuse sexual activity with their partners. The laws on this have changed such that while general sexual consent is still granted upon marriage particular legal consent is not given such that any particular engagement in sexual activity need a present expression of consent or (you are going to love this) a perceived expression of consent. That is right it is not rape if the person believes you consent even when you did not.
That's not true.
Which part? The rape part? Rape is an aggravated form of battery defined as unlawful sexual intercourse without consent or consent acquired by threat, force, coercion, or wrongly implied by victims silence. It is considered a general intent crime (meaning the prosecution does not have to prove that you intended to specifically rape). Defense to general intent crimes include but are not limited to a mistake of fact (not a reasonable mistake of fact. Just a mistake of fact) where that mistake of fact can be whether the victim consented or not. So if the person can prove they were mistaken as to your consent
