Page 17 of 25 [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 25  Next

IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 40,283

31 Jul 2021, 2:19 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
It's unreasonable to treat 'she was at a club and dressed revealingly' as confirmation of consent.


How about we go to an absurd example. Change my scenario above, except the woman is wearing no clothes and they are in a sex club. Now, I would agree that being naked in a sex club does not necessarily mean the woman is there looking for sex at that specific time... but could it possibly, reasonably be interpreted by a third party that she might be?


Ever been to a nude beach? I have. Lots of times, including gay nude beaches. There's no ogling or staring at all, even from the occasional passerby who is clothed, or people when they first arrive. The addition of music in a dance club is no excuse.

I've been sexually assaulted. I've been to criminal court and been cross-examined.

I know the system and all its faults, but I can say with certainty:

Implied consent is not consent.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,462
Location: I'm right here

31 Jul 2021, 2:21 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
She's entitled to be there for sex with some people who are there and still refuse contact with others unless it's explicitly stated that by entering that room one is choosing to waive that right.


You dodged the question.


She might be, but it's still up to that person to positively affirm consent instead of assuming. If he fails to positively affirm and assumes wrong that shouldn't be a defence.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough.


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,061
Location: England

31 Jul 2021, 2:38 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Ever been to a nude beach? I have. Lots of times, including gay nude beaches. There's no ogling or staring at all, even from the occasional passerby who is clothed, or people when they first arrive. The addition of music in a dance club is no excuse.

I've been sexually assaulted. I've been to criminal court and been cross-examined.


I picked sex club for a reason and dress alone is but one factor. Nude beaches are for nudists, sex clubs are for sex and however much people want to pretend otherwise nightclubs and the like are where people go to hook up. It matters.

IsabellaLinton wrote:
I know the system and all its faults, but I can say with certainty:

Implied consent is not consent.


We are talking about mens rea in a scenario where the victim offers no verbal or physical resistance, where there is no reasonable way for the other party to believe it is not consensual.

funeralxempire wrote:
She might be, but it's still up to that person to positively affirm consent instead of assuming. If he fails to positively affirm and assumes wrong that shouldn't be a defence.


This is not a reasonable expectation and a ridiculous burden to put on people.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,462
Location: I'm right here

31 Jul 2021, 2:56 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
She might be, but it's still up to that person to positively affirm consent instead of assuming. If he fails to positively affirm and assumes wrong that shouldn't be a defence.


This is not a reasonable expectation and a ridiculous burden to put on people.


You're welcome to insist that but I don't agree and you've presented nothing but your insistence as an argument.

I don't think expecting affirmation of consent is a ridiculous burden. If one isn't mature enough to be capable of asking would you like me to f**k you? before proceeding one probably shouldn't be participating in the first place.

If one fails to perform that step one can't insist they knew consent was given and if other party states clearly it wasn't that's on the one who failed to confirm. Further, if we allow someone to insist that they didn't know they were raping and therefore shouldn't be punished it makes it easier for that argument to be trotted when everyone involved damn well knows consent wasn't given so long as the defence keeps insisting consent must have been given (but, but, I thought she wanted it, isn't that enough?).

No, you're defending part of the problem that allows rapists to get away with it.


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 51,787
Location: Over there

31 Jul 2021, 3:30 pm

Mikah wrote:
How about we go to an absurd example.
Well, there's really no need. You've already used a hypothetical, apparently trying to demonstrate some sort of scenario which, ultimately, would simply make it easier for a rapist to claim "but she was up for it" as a defense - and still managed to ignore the responses in opposition.

Those basically state: "There is no situation where a woman dressing a certain way, or being in a particular location can be interpreted as consent".
That really should be enough to settle it; further ducking and weaving to avoid this self-evident truth seems rather futile.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,618
Location: Aux Arcs

31 Jul 2021, 3:49 pm

These excuses for rape are sickening.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 607

31 Jul 2021, 3:51 pm

Even if a woman is at a sex club, naked, holding a sign that reads "I am here for sex", that STILL doesn't mean she's there to have sex with YOU. Even if she bangs literally everyone else there except you, that still doesn't mean she wants to, or has to, bang you too. No matter how "unfair" you think it is. It's still THEIR body, and THEY get to choose who they give it to, regardless of what they're giving, or who wants what they're giving, or how much you want it too.

That aside, even if a woman is at a sex club, and naked, there's still a wide variety of reasons she could be there. First of all, she could be gay, and has no interest in you. She could be there to cruise other women. She could be there with a friend, male or female, just to be there with them. She could be a voyeur, and isn't interested in "doing" anything. She could be an exhibitionist, and simply likes being looked at. ONLY looked at.

The idea that there's somehow enough "reasonable doubt" that it's perfectly acceptable to go dickenpoken anything you want, just cos it "looks" available, is self-indulgent wishful thinking. Even if the woman wants sex, that's not necessarily sex WITH YOU. The idea that "if they don't want it, they can say no" ignores the fact that they could have said no BEFORE you tried to accost them w/o asking first, if you'd just ASKED FIRST. Ask with your words, not by thrusting your little wee-wee at her.

Somma y'all don't really seem to understand consent, and it shows.

The whole thing sounds suspiciously like "If I don't ask, they can't say no - and if they don't say no, that's basically a yes".

Right wing men are probably so mad cos they don't get enough sex. They blame women for the fact that women aren't attracted to them, despite being such a "nice guy" :roll: and won't whack off cos "that's for losers" or "jesus will cry" or w/e stupid reason they have for not doing it. So now you have a sexually frustrated man who doesn't know why he isn't getting the release he wants, and blames other people for not satisfying him FOR him.

Not to mention the failed promise of the house / yard / picket fence / wife / 2.4 kids / career that conservatism seems to loft upon a silver platter as being the key to happiness - those that don't achieve it feel "denied happiness", and those that do achieve it feel slighted when having it doesn't give them the happiness they expected. So they blame everyone else, the wife, the kids, the world - cos surely it can't be THEIR fault, they jumped through all the right hoops and everything! Where's my happiness?!?!

I'd be mad too, if I bought a box that was supposed to be full of "happiness" and it turned out to be a box full of bricks. Most people realize it's a scam at that point. But some people are sufficiently entitled, they still expect someone or something to make good on that promise of "happiness".



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,612
Location: Brisbane, Australia

31 Jul 2021, 5:43 pm

Mikah wrote:
You keep avoiding the question of mens rea and falling back on the same one-liners. Do you think mens rea should not apply for sexual crimes?


Intention and awareness can always be a point in trying to prove guilt or innocence, but it should not be the entirety of deciding if a sexual crime happened. For instance, if a man thought that a 15 year old could give consent, would he have committed a crime if he slept with them?

The answer is a yes, because minors cannot give consent, even if some cultures might have said that they might. It is a modern standard that consent be given after a reasonable level of receiving explicit consent. Even if the guy had watched movies where all of them have men that don't wait for the women to say yes, and maybe she struggle a bit at first before relenting and expresses that she enjoyed it. Although, this is why a lot of media should be open to criticism of if they push attitudes as completely okay, and might increase the likelihood of crimes a movie told them that it is fine as long as she is not trying to bite them.

I agree with uncommondenominator's list of possible other explanations for why even in your example it is not actual consent. Someone 'naked at a sex club', does not mean they agree to have sex with everyone and anyone. Would you agree that a man doing the same agrees for some other man to get up behind and start ramming him without asking if he is interested? I don't know the rules of such establishments, but I am going to guess that they either have rules about getting consent before trying something, or they make it clear that that certain areas or the premises have a level of implications unless someone says otherwise, because maybe they cater to rape play fantasies. But unless there is at some point in time the required level of consent to something extreme like that, nothing is given.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

31 Jul 2021, 5:54 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
Even if a woman is at a sex club, naked, holding a sign that reads "I am here for sex", that STILL doesn't mean she's there to have sex with YOU. Even if she bangs literally everyone else there except you, that still doesn't mean she wants to, or has to, bang you too. No matter how "unfair" you think it is. It's still THEIR body, and THEY get to choose who they give it to, regardless of what they're giving, or who wants what they're giving, or how much you want it too.

That aside, even if a woman is at a sex club, and naked, there's still a wide variety of reasons she could be there. First of all, she could be gay, and has no interest in you. She could be there to cruise other women. She could be there with a friend, male or female, just to be there with them. She could be a voyeur, and isn't interested in "doing" anything. She could be an exhibitionist, and simply likes being looked at. ONLY looked at.

The idea that there's somehow enough "reasonable doubt" that it's perfectly acceptable to go dickenpoken anything you want, just cos it "looks" available, is self-indulgent wishful thinking. Even if the woman wants sex, that's not necessarily sex WITH YOU. The idea that "if they don't want it, they can say no" ignores the fact that they could have said no BEFORE you tried to accost them w/o asking first, if you'd just ASKED FIRST. Ask with your words, not by thrusting your little wee-wee at her.

Somma y'all don't really seem to understand consent, and it shows.

The whole thing sounds suspiciously like "If I don't ask, they can't say no - and if they don't say no, that's basically a yes".

Right wing men are probably so mad cos they don't get enough sex. They blame women for the fact that women aren't attracted to them, despite being such a "nice guy" :roll: and won't whack off cos "that's for losers" or "jesus will cry" or w/e stupid reason they have for not doing it. So now you have a sexually frustrated man who doesn't know why he isn't getting the release he wants, and blames other people for not satisfying him FOR him.

Not to mention the failed promise of the house / yard / picket fence / wife / 2.4 kids / career that conservatism seems to loft upon a silver platter as being the key to happiness - those that don't achieve it feel "denied happiness", and those that do achieve it feel slighted when having it doesn't give them the happiness they expected. So they blame everyone else, the wife, the kids, the world - cos surely it can't be THEIR fault, they jumped through all the right hoops and everything! Where's my happiness?!?!

I'd be mad too, if I bought a box that was supposed to be full of "happiness" and it turned out to be a box full of bricks. Most people realize it's a scam at that point. But some people are sufficiently entitled, they still expect someone or something to make good on that promise of "happiness".


Your verbal smack-downs are always a joy to read.

Also, "dickenpoken." :lol:


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,998
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

31 Jul 2021, 7:05 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
In all honestly, I think it’s because the ideals of today don’t resemble those of the classic 50s/60s sitcoms.


That's touched on in the video. People harking back to the post war days where the American dream was taking off. Romanticising the positives and ignoring the negatives.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,908
Location: Australia

31 Jul 2021, 7:42 pm

Quote:
Australian Muslim leader compares uncovered women to exposed meat

Quote:
A senior Muslim cleric in Australia has sparked a furore by comparing women who do not wear a headscarf to "uncovered meat", implying that they invited sexual assault.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/ ... a.marktran


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,908
Location: Australia

31 Jul 2021, 7:44 pm

Misslizard wrote:
These excuses for rape are sickening.


viewtopic.php?f=20&t=398856&p=8833092#p8833092


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,908
Location: Australia

31 Jul 2021, 7:58 pm

Mikah wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
Agreed. This thread is horrible. So if I entertain the attention of a guy for a few hours whilst looking nice the logic is just because some people are into one night stands that means I'm automatically assumed to be one of those people because I like to dance and got on well with someone I met whilst out dancing. Yuck.

And men wonder why women ignore them whilst their out having fun with their friends.


I have sympathy for you - but this is, alas, the horrible post-Christian world we have collectively, negligently created. I would much prefer a different world, but this is what we are and what we have at the moment. ^ That, like it or not, is how many people socialise and seek short-term-maybe-later-long-term partners today. Camille Paglia once said in regards to clothing and behaviour "If you're advertising, be ready to sell" I understand the point but I don't much like it, even that sounds a bit too rapey. I would tweak it "If you're advertising, be ready to be approached by and to deal with prospective buyers".


It is rather simples.

There are simple-minded people out there who will misread the situation or lack self-control.
One must be cognizant of that simple fact of life.
Walking alone in a dark alleyway is not recommended either.

Making oneself a target for neanderthals is not the smartest thing in the world to do.
Personal responsibility is a needed consideration.

Once again, this is not a binary/black&white situation.
Simples. 8)

Will a straw man argument ensue?
Time will tell. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,612
Location: Brisbane, Australia

31 Jul 2021, 8:14 pm

Pepe wrote:
Walking alone in a dark alleyway is not recommended either.

Making oneself a target for neanderthals is not the smartest thing in the world to do.
Personal responsibility is a needed consideration.

Once again, this is not a binary/black&white situation.
Simples. 8)


What do you mean about "personal responsibility" being a needed consideration?
What isn't black and white?


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,061
Location: England

31 Jul 2021, 9:22 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Mikah wrote:
How about we go to an absurd example.
Well, there's really no need. You've already used a hypothetical, apparently trying to demonstrate some sort of scenario which, ultimately, would simply make it easier for a rapist to claim "but she was up for it" as a defense - and still managed to ignore the responses in opposition.

Those basically state: "There is no situation where a woman dressing a certain way, or being in a particular location can be interpreted as consent".
That really should be enough to settle it; further ducking and weaving to avoid this self-evident truth seems rather futile.


I'm the one being ignored here. I'm the only one using the term "mens rea" and everyone is spouting boilerplate soundbites about women dressing down = consenting to rape which is not what I am saying.

Criminal intent matters - if no criminal intent is found in a hypothetical person of reasonable mind - no crime has occurred. That is still a fundamental pillar of the legal system.

Like it or not, determining criminal intent still matters for rape. This is a no-brainer if there is obvious resistance, but the concept of "freezing up" was raised, where a victim doesn't want sex, but gives no indications of non-consent. I suggest this might not be rape because the perpetrator may reasonably believe he is not committing rape. In these cases how can you determine the criminal intent (that is, an understanding that sex is not desired) of the alleged criminal if not by analysing the history, behaviour, dress or any other signals given by the alleged victim? You can't.

This constant barrage of "dressing is not consent" is wrongheaded. The problem is whether it could be construed as consent (by the alleged perpertrator) as part of a larger picture. The alleged victims reasons for dressing in a particular way doesn't actually matter when determining criminal intent. The only way this sound bite might apply to this discussion is if you were saying women never ever dress to invite sexual attention, which is obviously wrong.

We don't live in a world where reasonable people autistically scream "WOULD YOU ALLOW ME TO VAGINALLY PENETRATE YOU?"
"ARE YOU STILL CONSENTING TO THIS SEXUAL INTERACTION WITH ME?" and never will. Sex in the real world, outside of the fantasies of virgins and politically radicalised maniacs rarely involves explicit verbal consent and the law's concept of the mind of a reasonable person should continue to understand that.

funeralxempire wrote:
No, you're defending part of the problem that allows rapists to get away with it.


Our entire justice system was designed to protect the innocent as best as it can - that I defend. That it will sometimes protect the guilty is just a price that must be paid. The alternative is not desirable.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 40,283

31 Jul 2021, 9:55 pm

Mikah wrote:
everyone is spouting boilerplate soundbites


I sincerely hope I'm reading this wrong, and that you aren't suggesting my disclosure of first-hand experience constitutes a "boilerplate soundbite".

Either you have a law degree, or you've been involved in a rape trial as the victim or the accused.

Which is it?