Moderator: Community Team
mrswdk wrote:The man in the other thread said that he explicitly denied consent. You are now verging on what is commonly known as a 'double standard'.
_sabotage_ wrote:Rape is forced sex.
thegreekdog wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:Rape is forced sex.
No, actually, it's not. It's sex without consent. That's why statutory rape exists (the idea being someone under the age of 18 cannot give consent).
Now, I expect you don't agree with that definition and would posit it's another example of the state getting you down; but under legal definitions, that's the definition.
_sabotage_ wrote:Not in my books, TGD.
_sabotage_ wrote:The change in definition makes us less moral, not more.
_sabotage_ wrote:on the way to your place and buys some condoms
_sabotage_ wrote:No, I took into account that violence was shown and therefore the requirement to resist no long exists. Once someone needs to use violence to have sex, the person clearly knows you are not willingly consenting. Just as if they have sex with you while you are unconscious. If someone drugs them to specifically lower their ability to give consent, then I would consider it.
But in all situations, I would like to know that a reasonable person would clearly understand a rape was taking place before I convicted them of the crime. If they could prove to me that they had legitimate reason to believe what they were engaged in couldn't be viewed as forcing someone to do something against their will from a reasonable persons perspective, then I'd let him walk. The law won't though if all that needs to be stated is: I was drunk.
Did Jenny know she was raping Gump in this random perhaps made up guy's perspective? Would a reasonable person consider that rape? For everyone's sake, I hope not.
Not in my books, TGD.
_sabotage_ wrote:I'm not being accused of rape. I don't need to defend myself.
My definition is based on tacit consent. The definition coming into use is explicit consent. The difference is quite clear. In the first instance, tacit consent, the prosecutor requires a heavier burden of proof. In the case of Jenny, she could establish this through their history together, through knowledge of Gump's ability to consent to other things, and his ability to not consent to other things. She could then show that by showing no sign of refusal, though quite capable of showing sign of refusal, he expressed tacit consent.
On the other hand, if Gump is declared unable to consent, it's rape regardless of anything else. The prosecutor just has to show two things: Gump is mentally challenged and sexual activity occurred. The fact that he was able to be a soldier, a businessman, live on his own and otherwise consent to a wide range of activities doesn't give him the ability to consent to sex and doesn't give Jenny the to judge.
Everything that Jenny knew about Gump, how he reacts, what he is capable of, that he expressed only physical pleasure doesn't matter.
There is no longer a presumption of innocence.
The same goes for being drunk and if both parties are drunk, it boils down to who calls the cops first. This is clearly seen in the college case, and the boy was expelled.
What you are defending is his expulsion, please do so or recognize wherein lies the problem with your definition.
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users