Cute, but nothing I said equated to "you got a handy".
It's not like this is a difficult concept. If you're not completely sure you have consent, assume you don't. Trying to lay down specific guidelines is obfuscation, not clarification.
Yes Means Yes law passed
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
Cute, but nothing I said equated to "you got a handy".
It's not like this is a difficult concept. If you're not completely sure you have consent, assume you don't. Trying to lay down specific guidelines is obfuscation, not clarification.
None. Being "unfounded" means they were not deemed worthy of serious investigation. Oftentimes, it can happen when a law enforcement official persuades a victim that there is no way the result will be a conviction, or just dismisses the testimony out-of-hand.
There's also a world of difference between an officer declaring a claim unfounded and a person making a false accusation.
We don't have that here, though, since "unfounded" does not mean "false".
It will make a difference in cases where the victim was so inebriated that consent was impossible, which occasionally happens at parties.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I don't recall any that tried to lay down specific guidelines. I think I offered a couple of examples. Is that what you mean?
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
The problem is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not give consent. If an alleged rape victim was too drunk to remember giving consent, how do they know they didn't? How do you determine when that line begins? If they voluntarily get drunk, it is a tough burden for them to say they didn't intend to have sex when they don't remember consenting. When you get that drunk, you inhibitions go out the window as many of you know. I quit drinking for a long time because of this... If the victim decides afterward that it wasn’t a great idea, then what would have appeared to be consensual sex at the time becomes rape after the fact if she says she didn't affirmatively consent (or remember doing so?). It would be clear if the victim had passed out, but that would be classified as rape already. What about some of the murky gray areas, such as cases where a woman is too drunk to be articulate in her refusals but not so drunk that she passes out? Especially if both parties are drunk?
If you were a member of a jury, and someone says they think they were raped because they were too drunk to remember, how can you convict a defendant who says the other party gave consent? Often at parties both of the people involved do not recall giving consent and regret it in the morning. So what happens in that case? Are they both convicted of rape? If you can be too drunk to consent, can you be too drunk to rape? I know that sounds absurd, but if two parties have sex when they are both piss drunk, how can it be rape (or did they both get raped, and if so, should they both get convicted)?
I think women should be protected, but I see how this law has teeth to do much of anything.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The pollsters counted all women's "not sure's" as "yeses" and you try to justify that in a "Yes means yes" thread. I can't really take your cries of "rape culture" seriously after that.
I also left out that they included all instances of drunk sex as rape even when the woman didn't.
A large non-response rate means it ain't representative of the overall community...in other words BOGUS.
I don't see a significant difference in the two definitions as you've expressed. The latter just explains the actions you would engage in for the former.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Don't get your atheist panties in a bunch.
We weren't talking about "sexual assault." We were talking about sex where both participants are drunk. Unlike the feminazis I don't claim all "alcohol facilitated" sex is automatically rape.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
someone gets it
Guess Dodo's not such a dodo
Neither of you get it in this case.
The law already stipulates that incapacitated adults cannot consent to sex.
The same way you know the difference if someone forced you to vomit or it happened naturally, if you punched the wall yourself of if someone forced your hand into it, if you were too drunk to find the toilet or if someone made you pee elsewhere. Your body feels differently the next day.
I understand that it is a defense attorney's job to force this sort of grayness onto the situation; this law helps keep it clear.
These are things people say to believe that men who rape are few and far between, to persuade themselves that rape is unusual and atypical. Attorneys use these desires to create doubt.
This is just an anecdotal, but so far, the vast majority of false accusations of rape that I have read about have involved no physical contact between the accuser and the suspect, at all. Women who enthusiastically consent, and then cry rape, are almost entirely the stuff of stories and legends, going back to Genesis.
You would think so, but it often does not get treated that way. Again, this law clarifies that.
Can you craft these laws in such a way that there is no gray area?
By voting guilty, of course. If you can come up with a good reason for the woman to lie, that's one thing. Absent that, why would she go through the ordeal of the investigation and trial unless she was certain?
Are you really so dense that you don't understand the difference between regret and rape? Do you really think women are?
How often do you have sex, and wake up unsure that you consented?
When you have so many people taking the positions such as JAZZGASM and LogGrad98 have, you internalize that dialogue. You start to wonder if you can trust yourself, and when the guy says you consented (very few will admit you were so passed out that you couldn't, and they just didn't care) you become unsure. If (almost) everyone says it, you tend to believe it. In this case, (almost) everyone is wrong.
Not quite true. All instances were the woman was so drunk they could not have offered consent.
Since we don't know which way any bias lies, there is no better option than to treat the number as provisionally accurate.
Well, that certainly explains a lot.
I see a clear difference between saying "I think rape is acceptable" and "I think that rape is bad, but the victims are partly to blame, and you can't blame men for sticking their genitals in any convenient opening, and really tho women just need to move on from it". I see a difference so large that it's hard for me to see how you can honestly say the former is the same as the latter.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
You've already lost credibility on the subject, there is no reason to repeat your assertion that females are wishywashy.
If you agree with counting a woman's "not sure" as a "yes" on the poll you can't call a like-minded guy a rapist for doing the same in a sexual situation.
I don't take your assessment of my credibility seriously, I didn't say anything about women that doesn't apply equally to men, and your latter paragraph is simply evil. It is borderline on saying rape is acceptable.
a good reason for this law - - better to have this guy realize that a "not sure" response means NO to lessen the risk he might be called a rapist
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Now "not sure" means "no?"
OneBrow insists every woman's "not sure" means "yes."
Are these chicks too damn retarded to be able to say "no" if that's what they mean? I always figured "no" was one of a baby's first words and most of them use it often once they learn it.
You liberal feminists are trying to tell me adult-aged chicks need this law to protect them from their inability to say no. What kind of retards are you people sending to college?
The men are the retards, Pearl, that's the main problem. Unless they just really want to be accused of rape, they'd better learn the difference.
I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand.
I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand.
and the only thing that the bill aims to protect is the flow of state financial aid funds to California state universities...
maybe they don't teach the retards how to read where you grew up?
(from the first post in the thread)
maybe they don't teach the retards how to read where you grew up?
(from the first post in the thread)
Can she change her mind after penetration? What about after ejaculation? Where is the cut-over point?