rape: a matter of opinion

[Stuie]

Man: Baby, let's go all the way tonight.
Woman: Ok, honey. I'm ready.
Man: Great. Can I get that notarized?
Notary Public: Sign here, and here.... and here.

[Lorizael]

She's too stressed to go on with the case that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but is still up for the case that only requires a preponderance....... and gets her a ****load of cash.

She was not raped.

[Az]

Under old UK law, that would be legal, if she didn't say no. Under new UK law, you must make sure that the other person actively consents, otherwise it is considered rape.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by alva
..With a lawyer present.


I'm sure some here would welcome that suggestion.

Only if the lawyer can participate ( if the girl is hot). In fact being lawyers, we would draft the consent form so we get to go first .

[Buck Birdseed]

Why would the amount of sex she has matter? (or clothing, flirtatious behaviour...)

Rape cases are all too often arbitrations of conservative christian "morality", with defense lawyers arguing against women effectively based on how virginal they act. It's something that's been massively debated up here and some of the treatment the women go through in the court room is truly shocking.

[Dr Strangelove]

Has anyone here actually heard her version of the incident? Did she state that she actually said "no" or something to that effect? I'd think that the prosecution would have wanted that, in order to have a semblence of a decent case.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drogue

Under old UK law, that would be legal, if she didn't say no. Under new UK law, you must make sure that the other person actively consents, otherwise it is considered rape.

That could get a little silly particularly since "consenting" to one act is not necessarily consenting to another.

For instance was I sexually assualted when the woman began performing oral on me without asking me first. And how is that different than when I do the same to her? Have we assaullted each other since no one verbalized a consent and each of us performed acts without getting the express consent of the other?


Look I am all in favor of strong rape laws but assuming mental competence of both parties, whats that tough about requiring the dissenter to actually say something?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Why would the amount of sex she has matter?

Usually a rape victim is in quite a state afterwards. Having sex a couple of hours later implies she wasn't in such a state afterwards, thus throwing doubt on whether she was raped.

[Az]

Why would the amount of sex she has matter? (or clothing, flirtatious behaviour...)

Rape cases are all too often arbitrations of conservative christian "morality", with defense lawyers arguing against women effectively based on how virginal they act. It's something that's been massively debated up here and some of the treatment the women go through in the court room is truly shocking.

I fully agree. However the demand that unless there is a clear agreement from the woman (who can anyone prove that, anyway?!) is rubbish, as well. Generally, the legal system in the case is currently based too much on emotions, etc.

[Buck Birdseed]

She might be unconcious, drunk beyond belief or incredibly scared because of the violence being committed against her. Still rape.

[Lorizael]

Yah, most rape victims tend to be scrubbing the filth off of themselves in the shower a few hours afterwards. Oh, and blaming themselves as well. That seems to be a big part of it.

[Buck Birdseed]

Because, of course, you work in a women's rape hotline and have massive experience in the matter.

[Lorizael]

No, but I've talked to someone who does work in a women's rape hotline. And was raped.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Why would the amount of sex she has matter? (or clothing, flirtatious behaviour...)

Rape cases are all too often arbitrations of conservative christian "morality", with defense lawyers arguing against women effectively based on how virginal they act. It's something that's been massively debated up here and some of the treatment the women go through in the court room is truly shocking.

I agree. But in every criminal case, the defense must try to show that a witness is either mistaken or lying. In a rape case, if the jury believes the victim, its pretty much game over. Thats why attacking the credibility is pretty much standard practice.

I have no idea why her past sexual conduct was relevant here. Did she make any statements that she hadn't had sex in some specified time period prior to the Brant incident? Or perhaps she made a statement that she would "never" have sex with someone she just met?

Unless its something like that, I don't care if she banged the entire hotel staff the day before. IF she said no its no.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Flubber
For instance was I sexually assualted when the woman began performing oral on me without asking me first. And how is that different than when I do the same to her? Have we assaullted each other since no one verbalized a consent and each of us performed acts without getting the express consent of the other?

If she said afterwards that she did not consent to you performing cunnilingus on her, then yes, that was a sexual assault. You performed an act on her that she didn't consent to, even if she seemed to enjoy it at the time.

Originally posted by Flubber
Look I am all in favor of strong rape laws but assuming mental competence of both parties, whats that tough about requiring the dissenter to actually say something?

I agree. IMHO, if she says stop or no, and you don't, that's rape/sexual assault, depending on the act involved. However there is the grey area of grooming, even amoung adults, where a partner is left feeling they have no choice but to comply.

It's all about whether rape is continuing when she's said no or continuing when she hasn't said yes. The idea was to make the man more aware of the issue of consent, in requiring it specifically, as it is with requiring the man to check that she's over 16.