Conquer Club

Consent Club

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Consent Club

Postby mrswdk on Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:12 am

_sabotage_ wrote:From my post:

Investigators say Johnson drove to an Apopka orange grove near Boy Scout Road, where the victim said she was struck on the head and raped. violenceAccording to the report, following the attack, the victim persuaded Johnson to take her to a 7-Eleven for a drink. Once inside, she told a clerk that she had just been raped, immediately seeks helpand police were notified. Johnson fled, but was caught by the store’s surveillance camera. Evidence of guilt.

Three clear things if proven would show rape:

Violence. If proven, rape.

Immediately seeks help. Helps to prove it was unwanted.

Suspect flees. Indicates he understood he was in the wrong.

These three things, if proven, suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that it was rape.

Why not just violence? I think violence would be hard to prove in this case. If you read the article you posted, she was having a fight with her boyfriend before leaving her place.

This means the defendant could argue that the violence was not done by him. More info is required.

I said, if proven.


Let's put forward another potential scenario: intoxicated woman who is angry with her boyfriend gets in a car with a stranger, sleeps with him and then realizes what she has just done (cheated on her boyfriend). So she finds a group of people and tells them that the guy she is with raped her, at which point he beats it, not wishing to stick around to try and face down a bunch of people who will probably believe her story and get mad at him. She later makes a completely unsubstantiated claim of violence to back up her story.

For some reason you are, in this case, prepared to take her completely at her word and put a potentially innocent man in jail based on nothing more than a story that the story-teller has every reason to make up.

Compare this to other incidents you have discussed, in which cases you are prepared to fight all sorts of rape accusations based on nothing more than the idea of 'implied consent'.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Consent Club

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:14 am

_sabotage_ wrote:Actually, if you read the articles in question, you would realize you are wrong, TGD.

According to California, consent can be revoked at any time. What that means is, even if the woman (or man) whispered in Mets ear: I want to have sex with you tonight after drinking, it is still rape.

She/he made a completely sober, unforced decision and as soon as she/he had a drink, consent was revoked.

And no again on the juries. During selection they will specifically get rid of people like me. The judge and prosecutor will continually remind them what the law is. They will not say, act according to what you feel is rape or what damages you felt were suffered. They will continually hammer home their definition and hammer home the most egregious examples of why they must act according to this definition.


Wrong about what? I never said one could not revoke consent.

As to juries, I have not witnessed a jury deliberation on a rape case. I suspect you have not either (unless you've managed to serve on many juries hearing rape cases). The prosecution can hammer home whatever it wants (and it will do that). The defense also has the opportunity to hammer whatever it wants home (and it will do that). Further, both the prosecution and the defense can remove jurors. I'm not sure why you've decided that the defense counsel has no opportunity to speak to juries or to remove jurors. Perhaps there is some data on the number of successful rape convictions versus the number of rape cases prosecuted that would provide some insight, but even then we won't know in which cases the jury was "wrong" without looking at the individual cases.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:47 am

No, again, Mrs, I said if proven it's rape if not it's not.

The difference which I'm beginning to suspect you are willfully ignoring, is that even if the guy claiming rape could prove everything he has said, it's still not rape (if rape is defined as forced sex).

No, TGD. Prosecutors are there to carry out the states wishes. Just as in a debate, they will do everything they can to win. What you are suggesting is a shitty prosecutor. I don't think we should lay our trust in shitty prosecutors while we have the worlds highest prison population.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:57 am

_sabotage_ wrote:No, TGD. Prosecutors are there to carry out the states wishes. Just as in a debate, they will do everything they can to win. What you are suggesting is a shitty prosecutor. I don't think we should lay our trust in shitty prosecutors while we have the worlds highest prison population.


I don't think you read my post. I started typing a response, but realized there was no point since I already typed it above, so here is what I typed before:

TGD's Last Post wrote:Wrong about what? I never said one could not revoke consent.

As to juries, I have not witnessed a jury deliberation on a rape case. I suspect you have not either (unless you've managed to serve on many juries hearing rape cases). The prosecution can hammer home whatever it wants (and it will do that). The defense also has the opportunity to hammer whatever it wants home (and it will do that). Further, both the prosecution and the defense can remove jurors. I'm not sure why you've decided that the defense counsel has no opportunity to speak to juries or to remove jurors. Perhaps there is some data on the number of successful rape convictions versus the number of rape cases prosecuted that would provide some insight, but even then we won't know in which cases the jury was "wrong" without looking at the individual cases.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:24 am

If the standard of rape is:

Sex without consent.

And having a drink, a joint, a painkiller, Ritalin and who knows what automatically constitutes revoking consent, then the defense has nothing to say.

Example:

When I was 17, I had a girlfriend of the same age. She had broken up with a guy a couple of months before but they still talked. At the time I was always high. If he wanted, he could report her for rape.

We had sex.
I was high.

The defense can say whatever they want. But it wouldn't matter. I was high, unable to consent, and we had sex. Sex without consent.

That's the law. That is your definition. That is rape.

Her lawyer might as well talk about the weather.

He can't prove I wasn't high, because I was. He can't prove we didn't have sex, because we did.

The jury has nothing to consider. The law was clearly broken. And it was repeatedly broken. 10 years.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:45 am

_sabotage_ wrote:If the standard of rape is:

Sex without consent.

And having a drink, a joint, a painkiller, Ritalin and who knows what automatically constitutes revoking consent, then the defense has nothing to say.

Example:

When I was 17, I had a girlfriend of the same age. She had broken up with a guy a couple of months before but they still talked. At the time I was always high. If he wanted, he could report her for rape.

We had sex.
I was high.

The defense can say whatever they want. But it wouldn't matter. I was high, unable to consent, and we had sex. Sex without consent.

That's the law. That is your definition. That is rape.

Her lawyer might as well talk about the weather.

He can't prove I wasn't high, because I was. He can't prove we didn't have sex, because we did.

The jury has nothing to consider. The law was clearly broken. And it was repeatedly broken. 10 years.


Juries consider other things. If they didn't, 100% of rape cases would result in convictions. I cannot find any statistics, but I can only assume the number is not 100%.

And, again, it's not my definition.

Your reading comprehension skills are piss poor dude. I know you think you win arguments, but you really just argue whatever the f*ck you want and don't actually read anything anyone else types. And I know you don't want to conform and all that, but seriously...

I think in our future discussions, I won't read your posts and I will make up whatever it is I want you to say to make my argument look better. This should be fun.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:06 pm

The definition of consent is being changed. It's being changed in California. It's being changed by the Obama admin investigating schools who don't comply with the new definition. It is being changed by guys who think Gump could consent to becoming a soldier, could consent to engaging in business activities, could consent to doing everything a normal person can do, but can't consent to sex.

I don't think the definition needs to be changed. It only would potentially result in very few victims being granted justice, but many more people being accused and convicted of no wrong doing. It takes the burden of guilt away. It takes the standard for rape away. It utterly alters how society thinks about sex. It causes much more harm than good.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby mrswdk on Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:57 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:The difference which I'm beginning to suspect you are willfully ignoring, is that even if the guy claiming rape could prove everything he has said, it's still not rape (if rape is defined as forced sex)


Yeah, if you ignore the legal definition of rape and make up your own then it is possible to interpret a rape as not a rape.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:23 pm

The legal definition: sex without consent has been the same. Consent has been redefined.

I presented a scenario about Mets and one about me and there's the one about Jenny.

Verdicts please.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby Serbia on Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:00 am

_sabotage_ wrote:Verdicts please.


I think that you should just tell us all what the verdicts are meant to be, and then lock this thread. Seems the only way we'll have any resolution.

Bollocks.
CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
Captain Serbia
 
Posts: 12251
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:09 am

It seems people enjoy getting me to arrive at some definite conclusion that they can rail against, but have no intention of placing themselves in the same position.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby mrswdk on Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:22 am

You mean your examples where someone has one drink and then you pretend that's enough to make the man legally guilty of rape?
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:37 am

That's the law as you continually point out.

I've given examples that meet the standard of the law you say you agree with. I'm just trying o confirm you aren't talking shit about agreeing with the law.

I gave the example of my girlfriend raping me, Mets raping a girl, the student who was expelled, Jenny raping Forest.

Put up or hold your peace.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:54 am

_sabotage_ wrote:It seems people enjoy getting me to arrive at some definite conclusion that they can rail against, but have no intention of placing themselves in the same position.


Actually, what happens is that someone puts forward a position and you ignore it and argue the position that you deem most appropriate.

I've said repeatedly in this thread that rape is defined as sex without consent and that juries will take into account all of the evidence available to them, including, but not limited to the relationship between the accused and accuser and whether and to what extent drugs/alcohol were involved. Your response was "prosecutors lie" and you completely disregard defense attorneys and juries. You have yet to respond to that, so there seems to me to be no point in my continuing to engage you. You clearly have a result in mind and won't listen to any discussion to the contrary. As I stated in other threads, that is not a discussion or an argument.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:57 am

And I've repeatedly shown that rulings have come down to:

1. Consumption of substances immediately revokes consent.
2. Consent has changed from tacit to explicit.

I then gave several examples of this and asked you your opinion on them. You refuse to give it, so I can't say if you support your position or not.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:04 am

_sabotage_ wrote:And I've repeatedly shown that rulings have come down to:

1. Consumption of substances immediately revokes consent.
2. Consent has changed from tacit to explicit.

I then gave several examples of this and asked you your opinion on them. You refuse to give it, so I can't say if you support your position or not.


No, you gave scenarios, not examples. You've made a whole lot of conclusions with very little (I mean, no) evidence apart from wild accusations about prosecutors and the government. In order to convince me that (1) the definition of rape harms people who would not otherwise be convicted of rape and (2) prosecutors maintain 100% of the power in rape cases with respect to the judge and jury, you will need to provide some sort of statistical analysis. You will not convince me by giving me three random scenarios and asking me how a jury would decide those cases.

Further, you have not shown rulings coming down that consumptions of substances immediately revokes consent. You've posted exactly one link in this thread, which focused on rape penalties.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:07 am

Do you support the conclusions that are being reached that:

1. Consumption of intoxicants prevents consent from being given?
2. Consuming intoxicants revokes previous consent?
3. Explicit consent must be given?

As you said, this thread is based on previous threads. The links are there. Regardless of the links, do you support this definition? If no, why are you trying to attack my position since we are in agreement? If yes, please defend it with specific cases.

Otherwise it's just a witch hunt.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:35 am

_sabotage_ wrote:Do you support the conclusions that are being reached that:

1. Consumption of intoxicants prevents consent from being given?
2. Consuming intoxicants revokes previous consent?
3. Explicit consent must be given?

As you said, this thread is based on previous threads. The links are there. Regardless of the links, do you support this definition? If no, why are you trying to attack my position since we are in agreement? If yes, please defend it with specific cases.

Otherwise it's just a witch hunt.


1. It depends.
2. It depends.
3. It depends.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:48 am

Great, we are in agreement, we disagree with this:

DY posted this a while back(I referred to it mistakingly as. AOG's article).

From the weekly standard:

"It turns out that when you decouple the sex drive from modesty and prudence, it takes armies of elected officials, bureaucrats, and consultants to protect females from “undesirable” behavior. Virginia’s governor Terry McAuliffe is establishing a task force on campus sexual violence comprising up to 30 top state officials and representatives from law enforcement and higher education. Connecticut is requiring colleges to form sexual assault response teams, on the model, presumably, of active shooter response teams. California has just enacted a law mandating that colleges receiving state funds require students to be in “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement” in order to engage in sexual activity, agreement that is “ongoing throughout a sexual activity and that can be revoked at any time.” Gloria Steinem and a gender studies professor from New York’s Stony Brook University explain in the New York Times: The California law “redefines that gray area” between “yes” and “no.” “Silence is not consent; it is the absence of consent. Only an explicit ‘yes’ can be considered consent.” In other words, California’s new statute, like many existing campus policies, moves the sexual default for female students back to “no.”

But isn’t this bureaucratic and legislative ferment, however ham-handed, being driven by an epidemic of campus rape? There is no such epidemic. There is, however, a squalid hook-up scene, the result of jettisoning all normative checks on promiscuous behavior. A recent case from Occidental College illustrates the reality behind so-called “campus rape.” Girls are drinking themselves blotto precisely in order to lower their inhibitions for casual sex, then regretting it afterwards.

The freshman complainant, Jane Doe (a pseudonym), began her weekend drinking binge on Friday, September 6, 2013. She attended a dance party in the dorm room of John Doe, another freshman whom she had just met, and woke up the next morning with a hangover. She soon began “pregaming” again—that is, drinking before an event at which one expects to drink further. Jane drank before a daytime soccer game and continued during the evening, repeatedly swigging from a bottle of orange juice and vodka which she had prepared. Around midnight, she went to a second party in John Doe’s dorm room, still drinking vodka. John, too, had been drinking all day. Jane removed her shirt while dancing with John and engaged in heavy petting on his bed, sitting on top of him and grinding her hips. Jane’s friends tried to shepherd her home, but before she left John’s room, she gave him her cell phone number so that they could coordinate their planned sexual tryst.

When she arrived at her own dorm room, John texted her: “The second that you away from them, come back.” Jane responded: “Okay.” John wrote back: “Just get back here.” Jane responded: “Okay do you have a condom.” John replied: “Yes.” Jane texted back: “Good, give me two minutes.” John texted: “Knock when you’re here.”

Before leaving her dorm room, Jane texted a friend from back home: “I’m going to have sex now.” Jane walked down to John’s room at approximately 1 a.m., knocked on his door, went in, took off her earrings, got undressed, performed oral sex, and had sexual intercourse with him. When an acquaintance knocked on John’s door to check up on her, Jane three times called out: “Yeah, I’m fine.” Shortly before 2 a.m., Jane dressed herself and returned to her room. On her way there, she texted her friends vapid messages, complete with smiley faces, none of which mentioned assault. She then walked to a different dorm where she sat on the lap of another male student whom she had met the night before, talking and joking. The next day she texted John asking if she had left her earrings and belt in his room and asked to come by to pick them up.

Now someone who asks a male if he has a condom, who conspires with him to have sex, who announces to a friend that she intends to have sex, who voluntarily goes to his dorm room in order to have sex, who has sex through no coercion or force on the male’s part, is as voluntary and responsible an agent in that sex act as the male. Any male on the receiving end of such behavior, who is asked if he has a condom before a planned sex act, is going to rightly assume that he is facing a willing and consenting partner. And yet Occidental, under investigation from the Obama administration for ignoring sexual violence (a baseless charge), found John guilty of assault and expelled him. Though Jane’s actions and statements seemed to indicate that she consented to sexual intercourse, John should have known that she was too incapacitated to consent, the adjudicators concluded."

My take:

Prosecutors are bloodthirsty, if you let them redefine or minimize gray areas, they will seek a conviction to the point that encourages innocent parties to accept plea bargains as their best option even if they were taken completely surprise by the charge of rape. We have a prison industrial complex and a legal complex with mouths to feed. Even if found innocent, legal costs would be high all around.

We are good at putting people in prison because we are good at criminalizing and enforcement.

What a lot of posters seem to be upset about is my demand to have refusal be explicitly stated and clearly understood.

Fingernail clippers aren't a blade and a samurai sword isn't something you'd expect to be in someone's hand when they are asking nicely. What I mean by that is if the accusers statement is:

She was forcing my arms behind my head. I was helpless. After a minute, I took myself mentally out of the situation as far as I could and just tried to limit how much I was physically hurt by her.

If he were Shaq and she was Ally McBeal, I wouldn't believe him. Just as if the story was that the supposed victim turned out to be the armed party.

If the story goes, it was clear I didn't want to have sex with him because I put a gun to his belly, pulled down his trousers and smacked his penis and said no.

My point is that as in most cases, the man is bigger, stronger, and if equally incapacitated as the woman, I would regard his size as an indicator of his ability to prevent forced sex without resorting to violence.

Someone wrote that that person was let go. I had left which case I was referring to unclear. The case I was referring to is the case where the student was expelled.

Serious consequences to what amounts to be a case like those I brought up which several posters said, yeah but there was consent so it wasn't rape. As the policy is being enforced, all of those case I mentioned were rape. But everyone is so quick to rush to the aid of the victim. I would like to know there was a victim, because the sentiments which I wholeheartedly agree with of ensuring everyone has the right to decide if they want to engage in sex, will be used by the state to literally scare people out of having sex.

They will prosecute. Anything you say can and will be used against you. The prosecutor isn't making moral decisions, he works for the state with the goal of convicting. With such arbitrary measures in place to secure a conviction by law, rather than by harm, stick to porn or put part of your student loan towards retaining a lawyer, getting pre-sex contracts, and some recording equipment. Good luck getting laid either way.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:35 am

I did not read anything after the first scenario (i.e. DY's scenario), in the interest of full disclosure.

One quibble (not really minor) - this scenario was something that happened at a university where the student was expelled. This was not a situation where the accused was convicted in a court. Therefore, we're arguing about the school's rules; not the law and not the activities of a prosecutor. I wonder, for example, whether the adjudicators in this situation was made of up students.

What is not clear from the first scenario is to what extent John Doe knew that Jane Doe was intoxicated and thus whether John Doe was in a position of taking advantage of Jane Doe's condition. The adjudicators apparently thought he was.

Obviously, this does not make the result in this particular scenario the "right" or "just" result and I would like to think all evidence would have been available (it is unclear whether it was) and weighed equally.

In sum, with respect to the first scenario, while it is largely complete: (a) there are gaps in information provided; (b) it was provided by a publication that has every interest in distorting the facts and result; and (c) it was a college and an expulsion.

Therefore, I am unwilling to conclude, based on this scenario that the Weekly Standard, DY, and you have provided, that there is a persasive push by governments and prosecutors to prosecute and convict accuseds of rapes by disregarding evidence of consent and that this has become so pervasive as to render defense counsel helpless, juries impotent, and to result in the convictions of many, many, many people.

Anecdotally, I will note that when I was in college I was in situations where clearly drunk women tried to have sex with me. I did not take advantage of those situations; not because I was concerned about expulsion (or prosecution), but because I felt it would be demeaning to me and the various women to engage in sexual activities. I mention this for no other reason than to point out that it is not out of the realm of possibility for a man to refuse to have sex with a woman who has consented to sex. This seems to be something that is lost in this discussion. Men can also use good judgment in these situations.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Consent Club

Postby mrswdk on Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:07 am

_sabotage_ wrote:
mrswdk wrote:You mean your examples where someone has one drink and then you pretend that's enough to make the man legally guilty of rape?


That's the law as you continually point out.


I don't believe I've said that anywhere.

_shabotage_^.^ wrote:I've given examples that meet the standard of the law you say you agree with. I'm just trying o confirm you aren't talking shit about agreeing with the law.

I gave the example of my girlfriend raping me, Mets raping a girl, the student who was expelled, Jenny raping Forest.

Put up or hold your peace.


The standard I have said I agree with is that sex without consent equals rape. The point I was contesting with you and mandalorian was your insinuation that the man didn't try hard enough to resist and that it is therefore not rape.

I don't think I have been inconsistent at any point.

I think you are being inconsistent in dismissing the word of the man who was raped at the party but accepting the word of the woman who claims she was raped after accepting a lift from a stranger.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:38 am

I am not dismissing him, I'm taking him at the totality of what he says.

He defines rape as what Jenny did to Gump.

Is this a standard you agree with? A reasonable person can agree with?

If no, we should already call into question his understanding of rape and consent.

He clearly states he was conscious and could have resisted, but is a pacifist. Does pacifism prevent him from clutching his belt and requiring the woman to use force? If it doesn't, then why didn't he do it? Does his pacifism prevent him from shouting for help? Does it prevent him from trying to leave?

If he had done any of these things, it would show that the woman would have understood she was forcing him.

He then knows two contradictory things: he knows he wasn't speaking clearly and he knows he said no. What he doesn't say is that he knows she heard him. He doesn't say she understood him. He doesn't state he spoke clearly.

In the end, if everything that he said could be proven, we have no proof that he was forced or that she knew she was forcing him. And this is his story, unsupported, anonymous and unreported.

The way that it is written seems to be with the intent to cause controversy and we have had several examples of people just making shit up and be published.

That you are willing to support this suggest you share his view that Jenny raped Gump. It suggests you are willing to convict without evidence based solely on: I was drunk, but still sober enough to make decisions, but too drunk to make this one. You support convicting someone of rape who, if we believe everything that the guy said, could still have no idea she was forcing herself on him.

You also believe in double standards. How drunk was she?

You also don't believe in evidence. You don't say, I'd like to hear the gf's version, the hosts version, the woman's version. You are happy to call it rape with his anonymous, unreported, unsupported version coming from the same perspective that thinks Gump could consent to being a soldier, a businessman but can't consent to sex.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Consent Club

Postby mrswdk on Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:03 pm

He does not describe his situation in a way that is comparable to that scene from Forrest Gump. Did you even read the original article? He says 'I know that I repeatedly said, "No thanks, I have a girlfriend, surely you understand."' By means of explaining his lack of physical resistance he says that he is not a big guy, was worried that if he resisted and hurt her then he could end up being prosecuted for assault, and was drunk enough not to be able to put up a proper fight anyway.

By his account, he clearly denied consent and was then taken advantage of anyway. The way you choose to dispute this is to say 'he said he was a pacifist' and then bring out your strawman of asserting that tgd and I think that 'one drink = no consent possible', when in actual fact neither of us have said any such thing.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Consent Club

Postby mrswdk on Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:09 pm

On a side note, you seem worried that the justice system is out to get you and throw you in prison on trumped up rape charges.

A quick Google says that the US has relatively rates of successful prosecution of rapes compared to countries such as the UK, but that successful rape prosecution rates are still significantly lower than prosecutions for crimes such as murder and assault. Of all the rape cases that actually make it to court*, only about 25% of alleged rapists actually get sentenced for rape. I wouldn't panic about being thrown behind bars just yet.

It's odd that you're so worried about falling victim to the heavy hand of the US justice system when during your life to date the only country in which you have served time was China, in which you apparently got locked up for an unfair amount of time due to being prosecuted for made up crimes that you never committed.

*i.e. of all the cases in which prosecutors feel they have enough evidence for it to be worth their time pursuing a conviction
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Consent Club

Postby _sabotage_ on Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:16 pm

Did you read the second page of the article?

Scream! Try to get up, she held me down! I clutched my trousers, she forced me off!

He says he was speaking incoherently, to the point where he was surprised his gf, who presumably understands him better than a girl who he (doesn't know?) isn't familiar with, could understand him.

I asked this several times previously, but of course no one can answer...what if he wasn't speaking clearly? but was grabbing her ass and pushing her head under the blankets while in his mind refusing consent a la Gump?

The whole point of not changing the meaning of consent is so that we can determine these things. If consent is immediately revoked by a drink, joint, line, pill then we will never know any of these things, it's just rape anyways.

They are conditioning those at the start for their sex life to be afraid of sex, to expect to be called guilty just because a drink was drunk betwixt yes and sex.

It's odd that I'm worried about the country with the most prisoners make laws easier to imprison people? I see.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ConfederateSS