Page 20 of 25 [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 25  Next

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,609
Location: Brisbane, Australia

01 Aug 2021, 6:07 pm

Mikah wrote:
What if you get what appears to be enthusiastic consent - a literal verbal "yes", then the morning afterwards the woman says she didn't really mean it - and she's not lying? She says she only said it because she was afraid for some reason. Do you plead guilty? I suspect you would be busily researching mens rea with your lawyer the next day.


Well, that would be getting a verbal yes, but I still wouldn't take a "yes" to do whatever I wanted. I would ask if something is okay, if it hurts, and I would have taken reasonable steps for the initial consent that I am not just pressuring out the answer I want.

A woman that says that she wants to get back to her friends, but you tell her to stay and keep kissing is not giving permission to have her underwear taken off and done from behind. If I met a guy, he said he was interested, and then when alone I bent him over while he was in shock from missunderstanding something and didn't check if he was still interested, could there be a problem?

I am not saying that "mens rea" shouldn't exist, just that there should be higher standards for men to have reasonable understanding of consent. You hear a lot of cases where men say that women are being teases because they dressed a certain way, which is a cultural problem.


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


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,609
Location: Brisbane, Australia

01 Aug 2021, 6:22 pm

Mikah wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
To be fair on the third point, you have said before that things like what someone is wearing and where they are is enough to imply consent.


Not alone, but as part of a bigger picture, unfashionable as that opinion is. What is much more important is the behaviour and history of the victim with the perpetrator when determining criminal intent. It does seems obvious to me that nunnery vs nightclub and heavy moleskin jacket vs hot pants might reasonably colour a scenario. This does actually work the other way too. Someone attacked in a supermarket can say "it's a supermarket - no one reasonable would imagine I was there looking to have sex in the bathroom" but according to this thread it's just crazy to say "it's a sex club, someone reasonable might expect someone there to be looking for sex".


Well, we ain't deciding if offering sex to people in a supermarket is creepy, we are talking about if someone being in a place and wearing a certain dress is consenting for people to sex (asking for it).

This is really kind of a dumb example, but if I am playing a video game (Cyberpunk 2077) and I dress my character in super sexy clothes (short shorts and a bra like top), I am not consenting if some random other character came up to mine and just started having sex with mine. I would like a choice to be on the screen, even if my character was just with a "Joytoy". I can just enjoy having my character be in some 'sexy' clothes.


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


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,667
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 7:09 pm

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


I don't believe you repeated the particular Pavlovian response I was referring to, no. Using your words again though, if implied consent is not consent which is true, prima facie - we have a serious problem in that most sexual encounters operate entirely on implied consent. In these scenarios I am not actually saying "they consented". I am especially not saying "they asked for rape", but simultaneously it might be the case that the other party is not culpable, they may not have actually committed a crime.

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Either you have a law degree


Not a degree but I do actually have some formal study in the subject from way back when. Enough to know about mens rea and actus reus - the very basics of criminal law.

Bradleigh wrote:
So, you are saying that manslaughter is not a crime? A case where a person may not have had intent to kill someone, but due to their actions caused it to happen anyway?


Manslaughter is where some culpability is found for the death in question - but not culpability to the same degree as murder. Most people equate manslaughter with "accidental death" but this is not quite right - if a court finds no culpability through action or inaction - causing a truly accidental death is not a crime at all.

funeralxempire wrote:
I'm pretty sure every single one of my first encounters with partners has involved some sort of confirmation of limits and consent, even if it wasn't quite as you describe.

It's sometimes involved confirmation of explicit confirmation of specific forms of penetration, whether or not protection was used and whether involuntary actions like squirting, gagging and puking were agreed to though.


Ugh. I hope you don't take my judgement too harshly - but it sounds like you have a really f****d up unhealthy idea of sex. The ladies on reddit might call it pornsickness. If that's what you are up to - you probably should ask for explicit consent, in fact you should probably get it on video tape and on paper, signed by witnesses, with a doctor's note.



A signature of a Justice of the Peace would be sufficient.
But make sure he/she is present at the time of copulation. 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!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,667
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 7:12 pm

Misslizard wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
What I'm getting from this thread is that asking for consent is too bothersome and might result in the woman getting "turned off", and the man not getting sex.

So, apparently, a man possibly being denied sex is worse than a woman being potentially raped. Therefore, we women should just accept the potential for sexual violence in our lives since men's sexual gratification apparently takes priority over our bodily autonomy.

Yeesh. I don't want to live on this planet anymore. :|

And if we become pregnant by the rapist we will be forced to carry the baby to full term.


Isn't "The Morning After Pill" available, where you come from? :scratch:

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Blaming the victim


There's another of those Pavlovian conditioned responses, you have to admire the public relations campaign that has been waged in order to shut down thought. In the scenarios we are discussing, there may be no blame to go around - that is the only point that need be understood.


Sanctimony stifles/destroys rational, objective discussion, yes. 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!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,036
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 7:17 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Recently, in Peru, a man was declared innocent of rape because the victim was wearing red underwear. The judges have since been suspended, and the case declared a mistrial.


Yup. That is stupid and not what I am defending.

XFilesGeek wrote:
No "reasonable" person in a civilized country believes what a person is wearing, or where they are physically at, is a declaration of consent.


Wish, not fact and try to be careful with the language - I would not say declaration. Can intentions of any kind never be inferred from dress and location? If you really have an open mind: perhaps you might answer a simple question in the style of a basic comprehension/english test.

Five activities. Five locations. With your pencil, draw lines to link the the most likely activity of an individual at each location.

The locations: the forest, a farm, a nightclub, a kindergarten, a lake.

The activities: drop off a child, fish, milk a cow, fetch wood, seek a sexual partner.

[5 points]

Edit: I know the choices are constrained, but if it can be answered at all - that is enough.

You can do something similar for clothes.

May I assume you did not link "seek a sexual partner" to forest, farm or lake? And I really hope you didn't link it to kindergarten.

Now remember I agree that being in a nightclub is not a declaration of consent, nor is wearing skimpy clothes. This is only actually relevant to determining pillar 2 of a rape conviction - these are not evidence that the person did consent to sex.

The problem is pillar 3. Unless you think the most likely intention of someone at a kindergarten is to milk cows or someone in a forest to drop off a child. You have already conceded that a person in a nightclub is more likely to be seeking a sexual partner than they are at say a farm or a lake. It is not unreasonable to believe that someone in a nightclub might be interested in a sexual liason. It does in fact happen quite frequently in such places, not much wood chopping or fishing happens in nightclubs.

Clothes and location alone is certainly not enough to prove that there was no criminal intent, but as taken and examined as part of a larger scenario - this does not seem unreasonable to me.


_________________
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!


Last edited by Mikah on 01 Aug 2021, 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,667
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 7:20 pm

Mikah wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
It's adorable that some people think consent means having to ask explicitly "MAY I INSERT MY PENIS INTO YOUR VAGINA AND INEFFECTIVELY WIGGLE AROUND?"


Learn to recognise humour.

uncommondenominator wrote:
or having to ask it more than once.


While I was exaggerating for amusement, that idea didn't come from nowhere. Much writing regarding "active consent" makes it clear that getting enthus


The left, in particular, often seem to have difficulty with humour.
Refer to my signature. 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!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,036
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 7:21 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
To be fair on the third point, you have said before that things like what someone is wearing and where they are is enough to imply consent.


Not alone, but as part of a bigger picture, unfashionable as that opinion is. What is much more important is the behaviour and history of the victim with the perpetrator when determining criminal intent. It does seems obvious to me that nunnery vs nightclub and heavy moleskin jacket vs hot pants might reasonably colour a scenario. This does actually work the other way too. Someone attacked in a supermarket can say "it's a supermarket - no one reasonable would imagine I was there looking to have sex in the bathroom" but according to this thread it's just crazy to say "it's a sex club, someone reasonable might expect someone there to be looking for sex".


Well, we ain't deciding if offering sex to people in a supermarket is creepy, we are talking about if someone being in a place and wearing a certain dress is consenting for people to sex (asking for it).

This is really kind of a dumb example, but if I am playing a video game (Cyberpunk 2077) and I dress my character in super sexy clothes (short shorts and a bra like top), I am not consenting if some random other character came up to mine and just started having sex with mine. I would like a choice to be on the screen, even if my character was just with a "Joytoy". I can just enjoy having my character be in some 'sexy' clothes.


See what I just wrote for XFG. I offer my fun comprehension test to you as well.


_________________
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!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,667
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 7:35 pm

Mikah wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Blaming the victim


There's another of those Pavlovian conditioned responses, you have to admire the public relations campaign that has been waged in order to shut down thought. In the scenarios we are discussing, there may be no blame to go around - that is the only point that need be understood.


It's a woman's body, not a tray of sandwiches left in the break room. You can't just dive in, and be like "oh, my bad, I thought it was for everyone..."

The notion of a "blameless" or "faultless" penetration makes it sound like two people just walk along and suddenly trip, and his penis just HAPPENS to become erect, while totally accidentally ending up inside her vagina, by mistake!

I mean, what guy hasn't been just minding their own business, and just ended up with their penis in someone, totally out of nowhere! It's not MY fault! I was on the sofa! My penis just RAN OFF! I had no idea where it was sticking itself! She was bent over and I could see her panties! CLEARLY she was expecting EXACTLY ME to come along, and plow her! I mean, it's possible she was just bending over to pick up her purse that she dropped, and didn't know that I was looking up her skirt, but, p'shaw, get real, what are the odds of THAT?!

It all sounds like porn fantasies.

Learn to be funny.


I know you have been keen to start another fight ever since the abortion thread, but you could at least read the thread before jumping in.

There are three components to securing a criminal rape conviction:
You must find:
1 - that the sex happened
2 - that the person did not consent to that sex
3 - that the alleged perpetrator knew the other person did not consent - this is the mens rea.

If 1 and 2 are found, but 3 is not - this is indeed a blameless situation, it isn't the victims fault, but neither is it the alleged perpetrator's. Your examples are amusing, but there are real life scenarios where mens rea must be seriously considered and investigated in a rape trial.


In these emotion-charged debates, mass or otherwise, reason is often relegated to the waiting room of the "court".
It often becomes less a case of looking at the facts, keeping an open mind, considering all aspects, and more the extolling of virtue signalling or expressing personal outrage.

Since this isn't a formal debate, recognising that most situations, including this one, is not binary, is not rocket surgery.
I will never get tired of pointing out this fact of life. 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!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,036
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 7:37 pm

Pepe wrote:
In these emotion-charged debates, mass or otherwise, reason is often relegated to the waiting room of the "court".


Sadly, it is often relegated entirely, even in courtrooms these days.


_________________
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!


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,609
Location: Brisbane, Australia

01 Aug 2021, 7:42 pm

Mikah wrote:
Wish, not fact and try to be careful with the language - I would not say declaration. Can intentions of any kind never be inferred from dress and location? If you really have an open mind: perhaps you might answer a simple question in the style of a basic comprehension/english test.

Five people. Five locations. With your pencil, draw lines to link the the most likely intentions of each individual to a location.

The locations: the forest, a farm, a nightclub, a kindergarten, a lake.

The activities: drop off a child, fish, milk a cow, fetch wood, seek a sexual partner.

[5 points]

You can do something similar for clothes.

May I assume you did not link "seek a sexual partner" to forest, farm or lake? And I really hope you didn't link it to kindergarten.

Now remember I agree that being in a nightclub is not a declaration of consent, nor is wearing skimpy clothes. This is only actually relevant to determining pillar 2 of a rape conviction - these are not evidence that the person did consent to sex.

The problem is pillar 3. Unless you think the most likely intention of someone at a kindergarten is to milk cows or someone in a forest to drop off a child. You have already conceded that a person in a nightclub is more likely to be seeking a sexual partner than they are at say a farm or a lake. It is not unreasonable to believe that someone in a nightclub might be interested in a sexual liason. It does in fact happen quite frequently in such places, not much wood chopping or fishing happens in nightclubs.

Clothes and location alone is certainly not enough to prove that there was no criminal intent, but as taken and examined as part of a larger scenario - this does not seem unreasonable to me.


Assume nothing. On a farm, with sexy farmers, and then we went into the woods. Maybe it might seem more uncomfortable to ask some stranger if they are interested while they are alone in the middle of the woods, probably because you are adding extra pressure of the other person being at your mercy, but it really shouldn't change anything for assuming consent.

Regardless, you are being a bit loaded with your "comprehension test", whether someone might be more likely at a place and wearing certain clothes if they are interested in sex with someone, doesn't mean they want or agree to just anyone, regardless of if many guys do think that way. The fact we still do this kind of "slut shaming" where if a woman was found to be walking through a seedy area in sexy clothes they get blamed for being sexually assaulted, like they have culpability rather than just the person that did the assaulting, is super gross.

And I suspect that these changes in attitudes on this subject are why a lot of men on the right are getting upset. It is like the people from conservative Muslim countries who think that women are being immodest for not wearing a hijab, and that they are practically asking for it by walking around without one, because how are men meant to be able to just know the difference.


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


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,667
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 7:45 pm

Mikah wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Kind of seems gross, that it can be found that there may have been a lack of consent, but because the guy could believe that the lack of a no means consent from a drunk woman, he can get acquitted. This really does show that there is a problem, that assumptions of consent doesn't work, it is not just a case of ruining the mood, especially if the ruining the mood is to let the woman make a decision what happens to her body.


What if you get what appears to be enthusiastic consent - a literal verbal "yes", then the morning afterwards the woman says she didn't really mean it - and she's not lying? She says she only said it because she was afraid for some reason. Do you plead guilty? I suspect you would be busily researching mens rea with your lawyer the next day.


Wear a bodycam throughout the sexual procedure, with the other person's consent of course, while being witnessed by a JP, would be a sensible precaution these days.
Just "To be sure, to be sure". 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!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,667
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 7:46 pm

Mikah wrote:
Pepe wrote:
In these emotion-charged debates, mass or otherwise, reason is often relegated to the waiting room of the "court".


Sadly, it is often relegated entirely, even in courtrooms these days.


Noooo!
Shades of OJ! EEP! 8O


_________________
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: 16,667
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 7:50 pm

Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Recently, in Peru, a man was declared innocent of rape because the victim was wearing red underwear. The judges have since been suspended, and the case declared a mistrial.


Yup. That is stupid and not what I am defending.

XFilesGeek wrote:
No "reasonable" person in a civilized country believes what a person is wearing, or where they are physically at, is a declaration of consent.


Wish, not fact and try to be careful with the language - I would not say declaration. Can intentions of any kind never be inferred from dress and location? If you really have an open mind: perhaps you might answer a simple question in the style of a basic comprehension/english test.

Five activities. Five locations. With your pencil, draw lines to link the the most likely activity of an individual at each location.

The locations: the forest, a farm, a nightclub, a kindergarten, a lake.

The activities: drop off a child, fish, milk a cow, fetch wood, seek a sexual partner.

[5 points]

Edit: I know the choices are constrained, but if it can be answered at all - that is enough.

You can do something similar for clothes.

May I assume you did not link "seek a sexual partner" to forest, farm or lake? And I really hope you didn't link it to kindergarten.

Now remember I agree that being in a nightclub is not a declaration of consent, nor is wearing skimpy clothes. This is only actually relevant to determining pillar 2 of a rape conviction - these are not evidence that the person did consent to sex.

The problem is pillar 3. Unless you think the most likely intention of someone at a kindergarten is to milk cows or someone in a forest to drop off a child. You have already conceded that a person in a nightclub is more likely to be seeking a sexual partner than they are at say a farm or a lake. It is not unreasonable to believe that someone in a nightclub might be interested in a sexual liason. It does in fact happen quite frequently in such places, not much wood chopping or fishing happens in nightclubs.

Clothes and location alone is certainly not enough to prove that there was no criminal intent, but as taken and examined as part of a larger scenario - this does not seem unreasonable to me.


Going to a farm to achieve sexual bliss is definitely a valid consideration, also. 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: 6,609
Location: Brisbane, Australia

01 Aug 2021, 7:54 pm

Pepe wrote:
In these emotion-charged debates, mass or otherwise, reason is often relegated to the waiting room of the "court".
It often becomes less a case of looking at the facts, keeping an open mind, considering all aspects, and more the extolling of virtue signalling or expressing personal outrage.

Since this isn't a formal debate, recognising that most situations, including this one, is not binary, is not rocket surgery.
I will never get tired of pointing out this fact of life. 8)


I asked you this earlier, but in your words what is not binary. Are you saying that there are cases where what someone is wearing and where they are means that they can be assumed to be consenting to something?

Also, a court of law is not the be all and end all of what is right. A person can be acquitted of a crim for various reasons, it doesn't mean they didn't do something sh***y. It could just mean a lack of evidence for a crime.


Pepe wrote:
Wear a bodycam throughout the sexual procedure, with the other person's consent of course, while being witnessed by a JP, would be a sensible precaution these days.
Just "To be sure, to be sure".


You are being excessively hyperbolic, like making a joke that a JP has to be available. Do you actually have an opinion other than making fun of the idea of getting express consent? I mean, considering that you are using Pepe Le Pew, who would probably be a sex offender if he was real.


_________________
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: 2,036
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 7:59 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Assume nothing. On a farm, with sexy farmers, and then we went into the woods. Maybe it might seem more uncomfortable to ask some stranger if they are interested while they are alone in the middle of the woods, probably because you are adding extra pressure of the other person being at your mercy, but it really shouldn't change anything for assuming consent.


So just to confirm Bradleigh, you think a reasonable answer to that question is that it is more likely that someone would seek a sexual partner by going to a farm, then the woods rather than a nightclub AND this is also more likely than the activities of milking cows and fetching wood being performed in those locations.

0 points. You are assigned to the same therapy group as funeralxempire.

Bradleigh wrote:
Regardless, you are being a bit loaded with your "comprehension test", whether someone might be more likely at a place and wearing certain clothes if they are interested in sex with someone, doesn't mean they want or agree to just anyone, regardless of if many guys do think that way. The fact we still do this kind of "slut shaming" where if a woman was found to be walking through a seedy area in sexy clothes they get blamed for being sexually assaulted, like they have culpability rather than just the person that did the assaulting, is super gross.


A sane person answering that question merely forces the admission that people are more likely to be doing something in one location compared to the other. This is all you need. You are right that is doesn't mean they agree by going there, but remember this is about pillar 3 - the mind of the third party and what they might reasonably believe about consent.

Bradleigh wrote:
And I suspect that these changes in attitudes on this subject are why a lot of men on the right are getting upset. It is like the people from conservative Muslim countries who think that women are being immodest for not wearing a hijab, and that they are practically asking for it by walking around without one, because how are men meant to be able to just know the difference.


I don't know about that, I suspect our differences are quite simply different modes of thinking and reasoning. And I don't mean that in a negative way.


_________________
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!


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 599

01 Aug 2021, 8:06 pm

Mikah wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Blaming the victim


There's another of those Pavlovian conditioned responses, you have to admire the public relations campaign that has been waged in order to shut down thought. In the scenarios we are discussing, there may be no blame to go around - that is the only point that need be understood.


It's a woman's body, not a tray of sandwiches left in the break room. You can't just dive in, and be like "oh, my bad, I thought it was for everyone..."

The notion of a "blameless" or "faultless" penetration makes it sound like two people just walk along and suddenly trip, and his penis just HAPPENS to become erect, while totally accidentally ending up inside her vagina, by mistake!

I mean, what guy hasn't been just minding their own business, and just ended up with their penis in someone, totally out of nowhere! It's not MY fault! I was on the sofa! My penis just RAN OFF! I had no idea where it was sticking itself! She was bent over and I could see her panties! CLEARLY she was expecting EXACTLY ME to come along, and plow her! I mean, it's possible she was just bending over to pick up her purse that she dropped, and didn't know that I was looking up her skirt, but, p'shaw, get real, what are the odds of THAT?!

It all sounds like porn fantasies.

Learn to be funny.


I know you have been keen to start another fight ever since the abortion thread, but you could at least read the thread before jumping in.

There are three components to securing a criminal rape conviction:
You must find:
1 - that the sex happened
2 - that the person did not consent to that sex
3 - that the alleged perpetrator knew the other person did not consent - this is the mens rea.

If 1 and 2 are found, but 3 is not - this is indeed a blameless situation, it isn't the victims fault, but neither is it the alleged perpetrator's. Your examples are amusing, but there are real life scenarios where mens rea must be seriously considered and investigated in a rape trial.


Much like assumptions about pretty girls in revealing clothes, it's not always all about YOU.

Yes, there are real world situations where these things must be considered. They're called "rape investigations". Just cos they might need to be considered, doesn't mean every lame excuse must be given equal validity and credit. Every desperate lonely-boy has an excuse for why he thought it was ok, and "didn't know".

If you're that bad at interpreting what other people want, that you can "accidentally" have sex with them against their will, you probably shouldn't be taking those kinds of risks in the first place. No matter how good of a defense you think you have, no matter how much mea culpa you slather on top of your precious mens rea, if it becomes known that you're that kinda guy that might "accidentally" have sex with them against their will, can you really be surprised if they don't want to take that chance. But you're such a NICE GUY!! !

"Gee ma'am, I'm sorry you didn't want that sex, but please understand, I thought you were saying "No, don't stop!" and not "No! Don't! Stop!". Innocent mistake on both our parts. My bad. We cool?"

The things people come up with to justify taking what they want.

It reeks of desperation.

And entitlement.

Boo hoo. So sad. Write a song about it.