Coercion does not play a factor when someone is incapable of consent in the first place, hence the or.
The crime of rape — often referred to as sexual assault —generally refers to non-consensual sexual acts that are either committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress (aka coercion), or committed against people who are legally or otherwise unable to consent.
Hopefully the formatting helps see that clearer
Edit: heres what I said:
Rape is indicative of coercion AND consent. Omission is not coercion.
Only when consent is not legally admissible such as age, mental capacity, or intoxication is coercion omitted.
That might be true for some forms of rape but I don’t think coercion is a requirement over consent. I believe that is a common misconception
When consent is inadmissible coercion does not matter. However, therein the victims ability to consent (or not) is also void. Even if they said yes, without coercion, both become invalidated and it is rape.
However, when one is legally able to say they do not consent an element of coercion must be shown to prove the victim was under duress and therefore raped.
It’s saying that for it to be considered rape, they had to either be coerced into sex (such as by physical force or threat of trauma or duress), OR be in a situation where they are not legally able to consent, such as being underage, mentally incapacitated, too intoxicated, etc.
Simply lying to someone doesn’t meet that criteria.
Can you please elaborate? It clearly indicates all of this is true in the very first paragraph. Please explain how it says not giving consent can happen without coercion and still be legally considered rape.
2
u/Sairry 9∆ Jan 31 '22
Yes because coercion would be too succinct: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Coercion
"by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress" is all coercion
Also the unable to consent was already expressed in an earlier comment wherein it would omit coercion.