Hacker News Reader

But it's not "rape" unless the coercion involved threats of violence, cf http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr...

It is sexual harassment though.

View on HN

As another poster pointed out, your own link includes retribution as a form of duress, and it doesn't limit it to physical retribution. Section 261 b. It applies to all of section 261.

Did you make a new account just to post a misinterpretation of this link twice?

Edit: I changed the text. I had cited the wrong section. But that doesn't change what the document says: section b says retribution is a form of duress, not necessarily violent.

The "duress" you refer to is only relevant when someone is using "the authority of a public official" in lieu of force. I.e., the police/IRS can't threaten to arrest you/hit you with tax penalties unless you sex them up.

Please read all of 261.7.

[edit: I misunderstood the scoping rules of law. Ignore.]

This isn't correct. I made an incorrect citation, but you're also reading the text wrong.

There is no 261.7. There is 261.a.7, which deals with public officials. 261.b deals with duress, and applies to all of 261.

only in some legal jurisdictions with outdated notions of "rape"

And even in those, rape is often the proper word, it's just not used in the legal text for historical reasons.

What is your definition of rape?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com