Woman found guilty of rape in hotel toilet

Poccington

WindSock wrote: »

So mute people are fair game then?


Hmmmm.

Unconcious people too.

The horny bastards!

wexford96c

WindSock wrote: »

So mute people are fair game then?


Hmmmm.

Fair Point - They need a different system for sure.

Capt'n Midnight

Nevore wrote: »

Why was digital used for electronics if it originally meast your finger?

The first computers were base 10

It's odd really because we have 20 digits

WindSock

What surprises me the most is the amount of people who don't know what digits are. Cretins from the technological age, all of ye.

Capt'n Midnight

wexford96c wrote: »

Pray tell, how on earth is a person supposed to know that sex is consensual? As far as I am concerned - if the words STOP or NO aren't said - Sex is Consensual. Case Closed. Horny people can't read minds!!!!!!

Actually it's the other way around, consent has to be given and can be withdrawn anytime.

When I was young a husband couldn't be prosecuted for raping his wife.

MagicSean

wexford96c wrote: »

Pray tell, how on earth is a person supposed to know that sex is consensual? As far as I am concerned - if the words STOP or NO aren't said - Sex is Consensual. Case Closed. Horny people can't read minds!!!!!!

So a person should be able to assume consent at all times?

wexford96c

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Actually it's the other way around, consent has to be given and can be withdrawn anytime.

When I was young a husband couldn't be prosecuted for raping his wife.

When a surgeon is operating, you must sign a Consent Form - because it could go wrong and he doesn't want to get sued. I think I am hearing you say that we all need to get a similar Consent Form signed each time we are about to get laid!

wexford96c

k_mac wrote: »

So a person should be able to assume consent at all times?

If a non mute conscious person allows sexual activity and allows it to escalate - then yes, I believe consent can be assumed.

See other post - we may soon need to get a Consent Form signed first. ORRRRRRRRR....perhaps the best way is to film the action each time!!!!!

bronte

wexford96c wrote: »

Pray tell, how on earth is a person supposed to know that sex is consensual? As far as I am concerned - if the words STOP or NO aren't said - Sex is Consensual. Case Closed. Horny people can't read minds!!!!!!

LOL! So if you're putting the moves on a girl and she screams at you and punches you in the face, you will take it that she's consenting because she didn't say Stop or No?

Good luck with that!

Wompa1

The husband was upset? I thought guys liked the girl on girl.

Wonder how he felt hearing his wife was kissing her before it happened.

Blowfish

bronte wrote: »

LOL! So if you're putting the moves on a girl and she screams at you and punches you in the face, you will take it that she's consenting because she didn't say Stop or No?

Good luck with that!

The same assumption would apply. Even though she hasn't actually said no, her actions can (and obviously should) be assumed to mean that consent has been withdrawn.

MagicSean

wexford96c wrote: »

If a non mute conscious person allows sexual activity and allows it to escalate - then yes, I believe consent can be assumed.

See other post - we may soon need to get a Consent Form signed first. ORRRRRRRRR....perhaps the best way is to film the action each time!!!!!

So you just walk around assuming every girl wants to have sex with you? That is an awesome ego. What if she has been drugged? How will you know of she is mute or silently consenting?

Rabble Rabble

Possibly we will all have to stop in the throes of passion and get a written affa-davit that the other side accepts ear licking, breast sucking, fingering, ass feeling, and so on.

its the new PC Taleban.

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Possibly we will all have to stop in the throes of passion and get a written affa-davit that the other side accepts ear licking, breast sucking, fingering, ass feeling, and so on.

its the new PC Taleban.

If the other person pushes your hands away, that's pretty clear. Nothing PC Taleban [sic] about it.

Rabble Rabble

This, by the way, is not the end of it. There is always a reaction to sexual libertinism from puritans. This time the reaction from the right was overcome, the real reaction is from the left ( although the "left" is a broad church, so not all of them).

There is a law, soon to be passed, in the UK and other countries which will effectively ban 90% of all sexual activity. Its the "women can't consent when drunk" law. As usual the law is sexist, applying to women - who can be raped, but not men.

The legal definition of "drunk" will be up to the courts to decide, but they will probably follow the only direction they have on drunkenness - the laws on drink driving. Any precedent will be followed by any other court, so sex with someone over the limit ( a glass of wine, or two) will be rape. Thus ending most sex. Even in marriage, over a nice meal and a glass ( or two) of wine. RAPE!!

Juries will nullify to start with, but the feminist movement is opposed to juries so they will then work on that one.

And if you dont think that "liberals" on here would defend this: look at this thread. A woman consents to passionate kissing in a public place but screams rape as a minor bit of fingering. This isnt just about storming out of the toilets - but a legal case brought against the "rapist" and her punishment as a sex criminal for life.

Brink back Catholicism.

Rabble Rabble

Millicent wrote: »

If the other person pushes your hands away, that's pretty clear. Nothing PC Taleban [sic][sic] about it.

Oh, I think the woman who was passionately kissing for 3 minutes in a public place was giving signals, which might not have been overcome, by the slight pushing away of a hand. This is not rape.

Taleban is the correct alternative spelling of Taliban ( or rather, both are alternates of each other). I put a sic after your sic. Word to the wise, if you are going to sneer with a [sic] be sure to know what you are doing, otherwise you just look very very stupid.

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

This, by the way, is not the end of it. There is always a reaction to sexual libertinism from puritans. This time the reaction from the right was overcome, the real reaction is from the left ( although the "left" is a broad church, so not all of them).

There is a law, soon to be passed, in the UK and other countries which will effectively ban 90% of all sexual activity. Its the "women can't consent when drunk" law. As usual the law is sexist, applying to women - who can be raped, but not men.

The legal definition of "drunk" will be up to the courts to decide, but they will probably follow the only direction they have on drunkenness - the laws on drink driving. Any precedent will be followed by any other court, so sex with someone over the limit ( a glass of wine, or two) will be rape. Thus ending most sex. Even in marriage, over a nice meal and a glass ( or two) of wine. RAPE!!

Juries will nullify to start with, but the feminist movement is opposed to juries so they will then work on that one.

And if you dont think that "liberals" on here would defend this: look at this thread. A woman consents to passionate kissing in a public place but screams rape as a minor bit of fingering. This isnt just about storming out of the toilets - but a legal case brought against the "rapist" and her punishment as a sex criminal for life.

Brink back Catholicism.

At a minor bit of fingering?!!?! She stuck her fingers up the woman's arse and vagina. That is sexual penetration. And if someone is obviously p1ssed, they can't give consent. Dunno why you think that constitutes a mild amount of drinking. Also don't know why anyone would want to have sex with someone who was fall-down drunk.

Your whole post is a bit mad, to be honest. Feminist/liberal/anti-jury agenda? Hmm...

Rabble Rabble

Millicent wrote: »

At a minor bit of fingering?!!?! She stuck her fingers up the woman's arse and vagina. That is sexual penetration. And if someone is obviously p1ssed, they can't give consent. Dunno why you think that constitutes a mild amount of drinking. Also don't know why anyone would want to have sex with someone who was fall-down drunk.

Your whole post is a bit mad, to be honest. Feminist/liberal/anti-jury agenda? Hmm...

See?

Actually there is a movement in the feminist movement to use judges, not juries in rape trials.

Now, how do you define "pissed".

Chinafoot

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Oh, I think the woman who was passionately kissing for 3 minutes in a public place was giving signals, which might not have been overcome, by the slight pushing away of a hand. This is not rape.

So because she kissed her attacker back that means she's fair game? Even if the kissing was fine with the victim (didn't she say she did to avoid confrontation or something?) she is now not allowed to stop at any point that things get too much for her, such as having her clothes pulled down and fingers inserted in her genitals and anus?

Scary, scary attitude you've got there mate.

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

See?

Actually there is a movement in the feminist movement to use judges, not juries in rape trials.

Now, how do you define "pissed".

Have you a link for that? I've never heard of it. Although, I could perhaps see their reasoning when members of the public sincerely believe that a "minor bit of fingering" against someone's consent is not an assault.

And I would have thought "p1ssed" was fairly obvious to anyone, no?

28064212

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

There is a law, soon to be passed, in the UK and other countries which will effectively ban 90% of all sexual activity. Its the "women can't consent when drunk" law. As usual the law is sexist, applying to women - who can be raped, but not men.

Source?

Blowfish

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Oh, I think the woman who was passionately kissing for 3 minutes in a public place was giving signals, which might not have been overcome, by the slight pushing away of a hand. This is not rape.

She pulled up her jeans and tried to leave the cubicle, but was dragged back in. That's a damn sight further than 'slight pushing away' of hands.

Rabble Rabble

Chinafoot wrote: »

So because she kissed her attacker back that means she's fair game? Even if the kissing was fine with the victim (didn't she say she did to avoid confrontation or something?) she is now not allowed to stop at any point that things get too much for her, such as having her clothes pulled down and fingers inserted in her genitals and anus?

Scary, scary attitude you've got there mate.

yeah, whatever. heres what should happen.

Women kiss consensually in toilet. One woman goes to far. Other woman leaves and says "piss off". End of story.

What is probably not necessary is the law getting involved.

The "scary" attitude is that having replaced the Catholic church, and the State control of sexuality, some many closed minds want the law to determine private sexual relations once again.

BTW I read the australian newspapers reports first. The Irish one ( journal.ie) is a more clear cut case of rape, so I am at fault for not reading that.

What I read was
women kissing in toilets.

one woman goes too far.
First woman leaves.
Husband gets upset. Call cops.

The journal.ie story has a story about forcing the first woman to kiss, and the second woman detaining the first. That is, of course, more serious.

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Oh, I think the woman who was passionately kissing for 3 minutes in a public place was giving signals, which might not have been overcome, by the slight pushing away of a hand. This is not rape.

Taleban is the correct alternative spelling of Taliban ( or rather, both are alternates of each other). I put a sic after your sic. Word to the wise, if you are going to sneer with a [sic] be sure to know what you are doing, otherwise you just look very very stupid.

Yeah, I'm fairly sure I'm not the one looking a bit stupid here. Or alarming, to be perfectly honest. "The slight pushing away of a hand"? Firstly, how do you know it was "slight"? Secondly, doesn't matter if it's slight or not, that's a fairly certain signal that someone doesn't want you to continue in your actions.

And three minutes is enough of a signal to indicate that someone wants to further things? F.uck me, I'll have to alert every person I've had a brief snog with and promise to ride them immediately to make up for misleading them. :eek: Thanks for telling me.

Rabble Rabble

Millicent wrote: »

Have you a link for that? I've never heard of it. Although, I could perhaps see their reasoning when members of the public sincerely believe that a "minor bit of fingering" against someone's consent is not an assault.

And I would have thought "p1ssed" was fairly obvious to anyone, no?

No it isnt. I want you to tell me exactly how much drink is too pissed. This is the law, it needs to be exact.

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

No it isnt. I want you to tell me exactly how much drink is too pissed. This is the law, it needs to be exact.

Really? You want me to define what constitutes "p1ssed"? Despite the fact that it depends on a person's gender, weight and general constitution? You really couldn't tell if a person was p1ssed without me telling you?

Rabble Rabble

Millicent wrote: »

Yeah, I'm fairly sure I'm not the one looking a bit stupid here. Or alarming, to be perfectly honest. "The slight pushing away of a hand"? Firstly, how do you know it was "slight"? Secondly, doesn't matter if it's slight or not, that's a fairly certain signal that someone doesn't want you to continue in your actions.

And three minutes is enough of a signal to indicate that someone wants to further things? F.uck me, I'll have to alert every person I've had a brief snog with and promise to ride them immediately to make up for misleading them. :eek: Thanks for telling me.

The laws on rape exist inside and outside marriages and relationships. If you want a law where a women ( always a woman) is raped if things move on from kissing to fingering then this is true of all relationships.

Get consent for every move.Is that what you want, or is some form of prior consent assumed in some situations?


( There are two versions of the story. The one where is vicitm is "detained" adds a totally different nuance to the story. Otherwise, I think the law need not have been troubled. However most people arguing for rape here are clearly making any move which isnt accepted prior to the move an act of rape immediately after).

ScumLord

Does this sentence taken from the first website posted make sense?

The five day trial heard O'Loughlin attacked the 34-year-old woman in the female toilets of the hotel where she digitally vaginally and anally raped the woman.

To me it either reads she raped her anus, her vagina and then her fingers separately or,
she raped the victim with her fingers then with her vagina and then with her anus.

Rabble Rabble

Millicent wrote: »

Really? You want me to define what constitutes "p1ssed"? Despite the fact that it depends on a person's gender, weight and general constitution? You really couldn't tell if a person was p1ssed without me telling you?

Draft the law. You are right about the differences in gender, weight, and general constitution but laws on drunkenness take no account of that elsewhere. Like drink driving.

The law has to determine what drunkenness it, it cant be a loose limit dependent on the actual person, it has to be based on alcohol in the blood.

So I am asking you for the limit. 2 pints? One glass of wine? Some port after a meal?

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The laws on rape exist inside and outside marriages and relationships. If you want a law where a women ( always a woman) is raped if things move on from kissing to fingering then this is true of all relationships.

Get consent for every move.Is that what you want, or is some form of prior consent assumed in some situations?


( There are two versions of the story. The one where is vicitm is "detained" adds a totally different nuance to the story. Otherwise, I think the law need not have been troubled. However most people arguing for rape here are clearly making any move which isnt accepted prior to the move an act of rape immediately after).

No, they're not. Any indication that the woman did not want the situation to move further was sign that the assaulter was on seriously dangerous ground. The woman objected by her physical actions.

You seem to be taking umbrage with the fact that the woman did not explicitly say "no". She attempted to call for security. She pulled up her jeans. She pushed the woman's hand away. She tried to leave the cubicle. I don't know what about this assault you are construing as someone crying rape after the fact.

Also, what is your deal with women? What do statements like

If you want a law where a women ( always a woman) is raped if things move on from kissing to fingering then this is true of all relationships

even mean?