Ridiculous rape laws...

[Bago]

Isn't that what you were doing to me all day yesterday on this subject. :rant:

Well, then say so yesterday! If you followed the argument, you may have noticed that I did not care to reply to every single post by everyone else, cos I don't have more than 2 hands. I'm sorry if you are offended by that. By the time I wanted to reply to you, you've bogged off. Insulted. Thrown a wobbly.

 

I normally ask people to reclarify their point, cos I have understood their implied words. If that is not what you meant, it does not kill someone to address the point directly to say "this is not what I am saying".

[tom3t0]

Well, then say so yesterday! If you followed the argument, you may have noticed that I did not care to reply to every single post by everyone else, cos I don't have more than 2 hands. I'm sorry if you are offended by that. By the time I wanted to reply to you, you've bogged off. Insulted. Thrown a wobbly.

 

I normally ask people to reclarify their point, cos I have understood their implied words. If that is not what you meant, it does not kill someone to address the point directly to say "this is not what I am saying".

 

you never asked me to reclarify the same point once nor twice yet i did so because you implied it to mean something different on both occasions

[Darbees]

Sir Igor Judge, the judge in this case explains very clearly in the Guardian article that Bago kindly directed us to but didn't read properly, the inherant problem with rape allegations and consent

 

"The practical reality is that there are some areas of human behaviour which are inapt for detailed legislative structures."

 

"In this context, provisions intended to protect women from sexual assaults might very well be conflated into a system which would provide patronising interference with the right of autonomous adults to make personal decisions for themselves."

[Cyclone]

Actually, I have done that in the past, when it isn't my house. There wasn't a spare room. I just wanted to be alone, so I slept on the sofa. Why do you presume that it is so hard to understand?

 

Why do you presume that just because a woman wanted to be alone and want to think for herself, that she would never be having sex again in her life?

 

What question did you wanted me to answer, Cyclone?

Sexual politics are not easy within a relationship. I recall being on the sofa caused friction in the relationship. My then partner was offended big time. At the end of the day it is about mutual understanding and respect. It's his house, I respected that. If it was my house, I'd hope he would respect that too.

 

I'm sorry, your 'logic' must have sidestepped me again somewhere.

You said that you would never be in that situation (alone in a bedroom with man I believe) because you would be sleeping on the sofa. This didn't and still doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you always sleep alone on a sofa.

 

The question was the same one that you asked me. I answered it the second time you posted it. I believe it was something along the lines of 'would you not stop {sex} if you were asked too by your partner'.

I answered that obviously I would, as would almost anyone. Since you asked me the question, I'm asking it back to you, would you?

 

Moving onto your next post, I can see that sex often comes with emotions, certainly does for me.

What you seem to be claiming though is that this is the case for all women everywhere. And you're argument is based purely on your own feelings.

Do you not believe that any women anywhere, ever, had sex just because it's fun, without knowing the guy and without loving him and without any plans beyond one night of fun? If you are claiming that then I think you're very naïve.

[Grahame]

First, she goes binge drinking, then she takes a boy home with her, and then she gets into bed before seeing him out.

 

I wonder if she locked the door while he was still in the room?

[Cyclone]

I only ask because women seem to have the upper hand in all this?

 

This is very much a misconception.

A very small % of rape accusations even make it to trial, and by small we're talking <10%. Conviction rates are obviously lower than this as only a portion of those making it to trial are convicted.

On the other hand there have been cases where women making provably false accusations have been successfully prosecuted...

[Cyclone]

The law should indeed be based on logic, yes. However, the law itself is also flawed. Cos with regards to rape cases, the aim of such cases is that of "consent". It does not take into consideration the motive. Or the situation which the couple was in etc. I read somewhere that for some reasons, the sexual background of the female victim was considered. (Why? Why was this necessary?) It makes the sexual act almost like a contractual agreement, which I feel is a little bit wrong.

Consent is clearly the only important factor. If both parties consent then regardless of everything else then there is no rape (with the exception of age possibly).

Motive is irrelevant in the case where consent is mutual, unless intending to have sex has become a crime?

Sexual background is slightly dodgy, but it can be used to prove a pattern of behaviour.

 

Even though the law is based on logic, the jury itself are representative of the population. They are there for moral judgements. It has been highlighted by Pedr that juries can be "misled" based on the question that they are asked in order to conclude the case. Isn't the emotional aspect important for juries to consider in rape cases?

The jury are not there to make moral judgements, they are there to determine guilt or innocence on the charges brought. They may well think that sex outside marriage is immoral, what bearing should that have? None at all.

Since no emotions can be presented as factual evidence how can they be considered?

The person should not have won the appeal because the girl was drunk. Drunk to a state whereby she vomitted. Plus memory loss. Also, because the girl is young and she seemed somewhat inexperienced. The whole scenario does not sound like she is a working professional, or someone old enough with sexual experiences behind her to conduct a tie-free ONS.

You are making huge assumptions there which are completely unwarranted.

Firstly being drunk, even to the point of vomitting does not make you incapable of decision making, and there not incapable of consent.

18 is 2 years older than the minimum age required to give consent, so beyond that it has no bearing on the case.

Your judgement as to her capability to have or not have a ONS is nothing to do with the question of whether she consented or not, and more importantly as to whether it's beyond reasonable doubt that she did not (the requirment to find him guilty).

Also, the consent was not a true consent, in the sense that both parties agree with it. Cos one of the party does not remember. Shouldn't the law be such that it is trying to find out IF consent truly confirmed, and agreed? Than by "default" to eliminate that it did happen?

Forgetting something doesn't mean it never happened, at least last time I checked it didn't.

No, this is reversing the burden of proof, it's like saying you have to prove that you didn't hit me last night, rather than me having to prove that you did (don't worry, I didn't report it to the police).

 

Also, her sentence of, she was not able to stop it. Does sound worrying. Cos even though it is hard to believe for some members here. I know and have seen grown women broken down and get intimidated. Which scared them into freezing and not doing anything. If this kind of situation happen, then what chances has the girl got?

You're saying then that he should be convicted on her word?

Also, the case never really questioned the defendent's actual background too. What were his morals? What was his intent? Did he not actually cheated on his own gf for this ONS ? I know this is not one of those malicious rape cases, but things like this shouldn't happen either and escalated to a point of legality.

I don't see your point. Cheating is not illegal, ONS's are not illegal, morality is irrelevant and his intent is pretty clear, he slept with her and I doubt it was by accident.

[Cyclone]

How the heck does a woman have the upperhand ? If you read the thread and understood how the legal system works. Drunken consent seems to mean consent, regardless of whether the woman wanted it to be OR not. Which meant even if she was drunk and is able to get home, but does not want sex, and was raped, then she is still under the eyes of the law not been raped.

FFS.

 

No Bago, that's not what the thread has said.

Drunken consent means that she did want sex. If she didn't then there would be no consent and it would be rape.

Unless you'd like to make it a law that no one can have sex if they've been drinking I don't really see where you're going with your argument.

[Cyclone]

From the articles, it mentioned that she was adament that she was not consenting.

 

"Although the victim could not remember parts of the attack, she was adamant she did not consent to sex. "

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23377027-details/Binge+drinking+can+ruin+lives,+says+rape+judge/article.do

 

This is simply her word against his.

Do you believe that's sufficient evidence for a conviction?

[Bago]

you never asked me to reclarify the same point once nor twice yet i did so because you implied it to mean something different on both occasions

by the way, what you quoted me there, was a response to Liam, not yourself. Please do not cross-reference and confuses different chats within this whole thread.

 

I hate to be so pedantic, but since you're so adament on all of this.

 

Between yourself and I, we had this direct conversation which inter-linked with various chats amongst other members. I recall you directly quoted me, which sparked off our argument. I did not ask you directly for clarification, but I have asked you questions to clarify your points and implied meaning against your first response after you quoted me.

 

I will repeat it here again what you quoted me which sparked off this whole palavar. :

 

Enjoyable sex means trust with the partner, that it won't become hurtful nor degrading. I am not suggesting that sex without love automatically and logically means rape. However, I am advocating that sex without trust, and without awareness and acknowledgement can indeed becomes rape. If men cannot distinguish their own behaviour, then what chance has from women who tell them to becareful ?

 

If you did something to someone whilst having sex, and then the partner told you to stop, but you still continue... against her wishes... well.. don't you think that is somewhat wrong?

I was loosely defining what I thought was rape there. I was making the point that a woman does actually subconsciously or consciously "judge" the guy before having sex with him. Maybe it is an instinct... but a woman will do just that.

 

You reply to me which sparked off my hot-headed response to you:

not really, maybe for you, you can't trust someone you don't know but it's possible to have enjoyable sex

My post was defining rape. Yet, your reply came across to me in disagreement with that definition. So you do not think that trust was needed from the woman's side even before having sex with a stranger? Cos you thought that it was just me???

 

Maybe for YOU. Have you ever asked your sexual partners if they trusted you enough to have sex with you ?

Then I asked further questions to understand you, to see if that was what I thought you truly meant!