Appledreams15 wrote: » Iceland has passed a landmark law on consent today. The person must get a 'yes' from each person before they have sex. Common f#cking sense. Do you want to have sex? Yes or no.
Mrsmum wrote: » If he was that impaired, I don't think he could perform the act, could he ? Then again I'm not a man, maybe you are able to have sex while blacked out ???
hill16bhoy wrote: » Wouldn't it be some craic if there was a hypothetical case where a very drunk woman (for argument's sake let's say she was as drunk as Jackson and Olding) decided to come onto a man, kissing them first, and then decided to assume she had consent to ram her finger or fingers up a man's anus, causing bruising and an internal laceration to the man's rectum. The reaction from a significant amount of male posters here to such a case would be tremendously interesting, I feel. I suspect they wouldn't have quite the sympathy for the defendant that they had for the chaps during the Belfast trial.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Like any rape case, it's a whole lot of 'he said', 'she said'. How can anyone ever totally prove consent wasn't given? Doesn't mean that a person who is drunk can legally give consent. As the law puts it, they do not have the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Proving it, is of course, close to impossible. There is no legal definition to "drunk" so what you are suggesting is not legally in-forcible.
irishrebe wrote: » Like any rape case, it's a whole lot of 'he said', 'she said'. How can anyone ever totally prove consent wasn't given? Doesn't mean that a person who is drunk can legally give consent. As the law puts it, they do not have the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Proving it, is of course, close to impossible.
Owryan wrote: » How long before "i only said yes cause i was afraid of him"
GreeBo wrote: » Lack of evidence is your problem. Care to show some that indicates that our society is one where rape is considered normal and is tolerated? Perhaps you are posting from some part of India or the middle East?
GreeBo wrote: » I propose no trials without substantial evidence. What do you suggest will increase conviction rates? Jail more men?
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » You accept it for what it is, banter. You mightn't like it but the vast majority is bravado. Why would I take my wife's friend saying 'I'd ride you backwards' as anything other than bravado? Especially as my wife was present in the conversation. Thanks for adding women to your earlier comment on reeducation but the whole notion of vast swathes of the population needing reeducation still echoes a totalitarian mentality that I would have assumed extinct since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently I was wrong...
GreeBo wrote: » These 4 men were brought to justice also, yet we have these lunatic protests. You do know that justice doesn't mean imprison men without evidence...right?
Silentcorner wrote: » Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better....There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » hill16bhoy wrote: » Wouldn't it be some craic if there was a hypothetical case where a very drunk woman (for argument's sake let's say she was as drunk as Jackson and Olding) decided to come onto a man, kissing them first, and then decided to assume she had consent to ram her finger or fingers up a man's anus, causing bruising and an internal laceration to the man's rectum. The reaction from a significant amount of male posters here to such a case would be tremendously interesting, I feel. I suspect they wouldn't have quite the sympathy for the defendant that they had for the chaps during the Belfast trial. Are you being serious? For a start if that happened there would not even be a trail.
irishrebe wrote: » No legal definition of drunk? I think you'll find there is. If the evidence points to the victim being extremely drunk then, yes it is enforceable. For example, if he or she is caught on CCTV staggering around, unable to support themselves on a wall, or if witnesses state that they were so intoxicated that they were slurring words and unable to speak coherently, then yes, there is a clear case for being too drunk to consent. The problem arises when there is little to no evidence.
Curly Judge wrote: » Appledreams15 wrote: » Iceland has passed a landmark law on consent today. The person must get a 'yes' from each person before they have sex. Common f#cking sense. Do you want to have sex? Yes or no. A good, but perhaps unromantic, suggestion. It still leaves uncertainty out there though, as either side can lie about it afterward and we are back to square one. Tape recordings and signed copies anyone?
irishrebe wrote: » And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.
Silentcorner wrote: » Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better.... There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...
irishrebe wrote: » I think it will end up going that way, honestly. Almost everyone has a voice recorder on their smartphone now. And I'm sure when this becomes a requirement, the 'hysterical looney left wing green haired nutters' will be blamed, and not the small minority of people who don't understand the concept of boundaries or consent.
degsie wrote: Time for a 'consent' app?
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » No legal definition of drunk? I think you'll find there is. If the evidence points to the victim being extremely drunk then, yes it is enforceable. For example, if he or she is caught on CCTV staggering around, unable to support themselves on a wall, or if witnesses state that they were so intoxicated that they were slurring words and unable to speak coherently, then yes, there is a clear case for being too drunk to consent. The problem arises when there is little to no evidence. Point me to the legal definition of "drunk" in the statue book. Is it drunk or extremely drunk? Where is the bar here? Is a little drunk ok???
[font=Georgia, serif]A person is “drunk” when he is so far under the Influence of liquor that his passions are visibly excited or his judgment impaired, or when his brain is so far affected by potations of liquor that his intelligence. sense-perceptions, judgment, continuity of thought or of ideas, speech, and co-ordination of volition with muscular action(or some of these faculties or processes) are impaired or not under normal control.State v. Pierce. 65 Iowa. 85. 21 N. W. 195; Elkin v. Buschner (Pa.) 16 Atl. 104; Sapp v.State, 116 Ga. 1S2, 42 S. E. 411; Ring v. Ring, 112 Ga. 854, 38 S. E. 330; State v.Savage, 89 Ala. 1, 7 South. 183, 7 L. R. A. 426; Lewis r. Jones, 50 Barb. (N. T.) 667.[/font]
emeraldwinter wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in. I'm confused who thinks sexual assault is ok ? Why is there this men vs women. If sexual assault happens people go to jail.
irishrebe wrote: » So clever and yet can't do your own research or even a bit of googling? Since you seem to think I'm your butler, here's one definition.
irishrebe wrote: » Of course it is. There are always saps around. Idiots like that don't represent all women any more than misogynist trolls speak for all men.
irishrebe wrote: » Are you five? There's 327 pages of dicussion on this forum alone and that's your comment? If sexual assault happens people go to jail?
Rodin wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » So clever and yet can't do your own research or even a bit of googling? Since you seem to think I'm your butler, here's one definition. That definition only appears to cover men.
emeraldwinter wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Are you five? There's 327 pages of dicussion on this forum alone and that's your comment? If sexual assault happens people go to jail? Are you saying the cases that fail to lead to a conviction are wrong ?
