Ridiculous rape laws...

[liam1412]

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".

 

No Bago I did say that and you were completely misunderstanding what I was saying. when I reclarified you then misunderstood loads of other bits. And I didn't throw a wobbly I just had to go out. Any way. Like I said I don't like confrontation. Just though I would point out you were having a go at someone for doing exactly what I was doing.

[Bago]

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

I sense that you're becoming quite obtuse for the sake of it here.

 

I'm sorry if you don't seem to follow the argument, or other chats that are taking concurrently within this thread. That's your problem, not mine.

 

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.

Sorry, WHERE did I imply that?

 

I had taken the time and be respectful to yourself to see why you are being this way. To answer you directly, and the following previous post:

 

Originally Posted by Cyclone

I'm sorry, I thought it was hypothetical.

If either partner says stop and the other does not then you are committing rape.

So of course I would stop.

 

Would you?

I do not understand what you were referring to with regards to this "hypothetical".

 

Yes, I would stop.

 

My post afterwards about sleeping on the sofa was a mere response to something which you wrote, and I thought of in the process of responding to you. So I shared a personal experience with you. It was based on sexual politics. Anyway, I'm not going into details of it, so you can throw it in my face again. Sorry. Now that I know what you're capable of.

 

I don't understand why you are being so offensive in saying this:

"You said that you would never be in that situation (alone in a bedroom with man I believe)"

 

I didn't think you had it in you to write that, judging from past encounters with yourself in the old rape thread. I suppose the truth is coming out now.

 

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?

I have answered you above.

 

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

Really ?? Sorry, were you not one of those who talked about the British Legal system blah blah blah, and ask what has emotions got to do with sex, and therefore the rape case blah blah blah? BS.

 

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.

What I am saying is that, this case is ludicrous and it is setting precedents for a lot of cases afterwards. Most of the time lawyers work from previous cases in order to pitch their own cases, I believe.

 

I thank Pedr for his/her info. Cos I am pointing out that emotions needs to be considered from the jury that this is a rape case. I believe that Darbee has summed it up already with the quote from the judge on that one. I don't know what more can be said there. Why is it just my feelings? You seem to have concrete thoughts that you know how women behaves more than I do. Whereas I was trying to share unpublicised female feelings out into the public domain to say that, such things never comes to light into the public because it is not a said or done thing. I just cannot believe that you won't consider such thoughts or things.

 

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.

I think you're also very naive to think that women everywhere who did have a ONS actually wanted a ONS, and preplanned this, and that it was what they wanted, and that they don't want a relationship out of it. Plus the fact that she can emotionally tune out, and be aroused without emotions, or romantic inclination what-so-ever for the sex.

 

If you are claiming that, then I think YOU are also very naive...

If you also thought that women have not faked orgasms and the rest is also very naive too.

 

I'm with the aim to protect women in rape cases, but obviously that does not seem to be your aim. Or so that is what is coming across here.

[Bago]

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.

 

NO Cyclone. Drunken consent by the definition of the law meant that she gave consent, however it does NOT mean that she WANTS sex.

 

If she wanted sex, then she would not say in her defence that she did NOT want sex.

 

Just because the law failed her, does not mean that she is not entitled to her feelings, and her stance. I hope that you're respectful enough to acknowledge this difference.

[Bago]

This is simply her word against his.

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

I do not know and cannot think what "evidences" could be used for such a case. I have mentioned in the old thread that breatherlysers may be used to measure the drunkenness etc. However, such cases probably were not logged until the alcohol has worn off.

 

I actually do not agree with the outcome. No. Not especially after I have read the materials relating to the case.

[cressida]

So nowadays it isn't safe to invite anyone back for coffee, and to say nightcap is very risky, I'v been watching too many old films, we'll have to bring back the chastity belt!!!

[Bago]

No Bago I did say that and you were completely misunderstanding what I was saying. when I reclarified you then misunderstood loads of other bits. And I didn't throw a wobbly I just had to go out. Any way. Like I said I don't like confrontation. Just though I would point out you were having a go at someone for doing exactly what I was doing.

Sorry, but I don't wish to be getting into personal vendetta with people just because they don't seem to agree with me, or whatever. I certainly do not want to receive another long-winded drawn out battle via PM as I have done with Darbee here!

 

If people felt what they wrote was exactly as that, then so be it. If they don't feel that is what is understood by the recipient, then it is down to them to do something about. However, do not expect that others SHOULD accept your view or your stance.

 

Yes, Big Sista is out from this confrontation with yourself. I'm sorry. I'm fed up now.

[pedr]

So how would you go about proving that there was rape in this case?

 

How would you prove the two necessary things here:

 

1) that the girl did not consent

 

2) that the boy did not have a reasonable belief that she did?

[Bago]

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.

 

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).

 

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).

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

 

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.

That was again a response to someone else. I do not want to get into a personal fight with you, which you are very close to being. From what I sense of what you wrote on the other post.

 

Say what you will, but I won't respond to you Cyclone. Forget it.

[Cyclone]

I sense that you're becoming quite obtuse for the sake of it here.

 

I'm sorry if you don't seem to follow the argument, or other chats that are taking concurrently within this thread. That's your problem, not mine.

 

 

Sorry, WHERE did I imply that?

 

I had taken the time and be respectful to yourself to see why you are being this way. To answer you directly, and the following previous post:

 

 

I do not understand what you were referring to with regards to this "hypothetical".

 

Yes, I would stop.

 

My post afterwards about sleeping on the sofa was a mere response to something which you wrote, and I thought of in the process of responding to you. So I shared a personal experience with you. It was based on sexual politics. Anyway, I'm not going into details of it, so you can throw it in my face again. Sorry. Now that I know what you're capable of.

 

I don't understand why you are being so offensive in saying this:

"You said that you would never be in that situation (alone in a bedroom with man I believe)"

 

I didn't think you had it in you to write that, judging from past encounters with yourself in the old rape thread. I suppose the truth is coming out now.

 

 

I have answered you above.

 

 

Really ?? Sorry, were you not one of those who talked about the British Legal system blah blah blah, and ask what has emotions got to do with sex, and therefore the rape case blah blah blah? BS.

 

 

What I am saying is that, this case is ludicrous and it is setting precedents for a lot of cases afterwards. Most of the time lawyers work from previous cases in order to pitch their own cases, I believe.

 

I thank Pedr for his/her info. Cos I am pointing out that emotions needs to be considered from the jury that this is a rape case. I believe that Darbee has summed it up already with the quote from the judge on that one. I don't know what more can be said there. Why is it just my feelings? You seem to have concrete thoughts that you know how women behaves more than I do. Whereas I was trying to share unpublicised female feelings out into the public domain to say that, such things never comes to light into the public because it is not a said or done thing. I just cannot believe that you won't consider such thoughts or things.

 

 

I think you're also very naive to think that women everywhere who did have a ONS actually wanted a ONS, and preplanned this, and that it was what they wanted, and that they don't want a relationship out of it. Plus the fact that she can emotionally tune out, and be aroused without emotions, or romantic inclination what-so-ever for the sex.

 

If you are claiming that, then I think YOU are also very naive...

If you also thought that women have not faked orgasms and the rest is also very naive too.

 

I'm with the aim to protect women in rape cases, but obviously that does not seem to be your aim. Or so that is what is coming across here.

 

Again you miss the point. I'm claiming that it might apply to some women, whereas you are claiming to speak for all women everywhere.

The case is not ludicrous, unless you mean the fact that it went to court without any evidence at all, which could be considered quite silly.

 

Maybe something that is causing confusion on all sides is that I read and respond to all posts, I don't have 'chats' which I keep separate. So when you're posting you need to consider all the posts made and all the posts you have made, you can't pretend that they are all separate. You've told several people to not respond to comments you aimed at someone else, it doesn't work like that.

[Cyclone]

NO Cyclone. Drunken consent by the definition of the law meant that she gave consent, however it does NOT mean that she WANTS sex.

 

If she wanted sex, then she would not say in her defence that she did NOT want sex.

 

Just because the law failed her, does not mean that she is not entitled to her feelings, and her stance. I hope that you're respectful enough to acknowledge this difference.

 

So you're saying that it's not possible that she's lying, or that she changed her mind afterwards or that she did consent, but then couldn't remember doing so?

 

Consent is consent, it means that she wanted to have sex, at the time, in her drunken state, with inhibitions repressed (as alcohol does). If she changed her mind after the fact (ie the next morning) that's tough luck.

 

I do not acknowledge that stance, it's duplicitous. You cannot consent to something and then claim later that you didn't want it to happen.