WindSock wrote: » So mute people are fair game then? Hmmmm.
Nevore wrote: » Why was digital used for electronics if it originally meast your finger?
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!!!!!!
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Actually it's the other way around, consent has to be given and can be withdrawn anytime.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.
k_mac wrote: » So a person should be able to assume consent at all times?
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!
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!!!!!
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.
Millicent wrote: » If the other person pushes your hands away, that's pretty clear. Nothing PC Taleban [sic][sic] about it.
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.
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...
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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?
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).
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
