Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Dextroden View Post
    It's sexual contact obtained with no consent.
    "Sexual contact" is a legal term. Here's the definition of such for Connecticut (chosen because that's the jurisdiction for the law in the OP);
    https://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/g...ualcontact.htm

    So no, a kiss on the neck or back of the head is not remotely "sexual contact".


  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The standard has always been affirmative consent. Because if an accusation comes out, and the victim says they didn't consent, the accuser will be obliged to demonstrate how they were sure the victim was consenting. Affirmative consent policies don't actually change the legal requirements, in the vast majority of instances; they merely clarify what has always been the standard.
    Are you saying it has always been guilty until proven innocent in the case of rape accusations? And you're defending this? Amazing.

  3. #83
    Warchief Bollocks's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    La Paz, Bolivia
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    It applies to generally everyone. Even the most faux-"progressive," will be squeamish thinking their daughter, sister, or mother is off at college getting plowed by frat guys and actually enjoying it.
    So it's an idea supported by conservatives and liberals alike.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The burden of proof was always on the accused, to demonstrate they reasonably thought they had consent. That's been the standard for rape cases for literally decades, if not centuries, because for a rape case to go to court, the victim is claiming they did NOT consent. So your defense has to be able to provide evidence as to why the victim is incorrect. You're the one who has to provide this, because we're talking about consent, which is the victim's state of mind, and they're better suited to be aware of that than anyone else, so if you want to contradict their statement, you're going to have to be able to provide an argument and/or evidence to back that up.

    That's always been the case.
    Yeah, it's totally not like rape has one of the highest acquittal rates because the prosecution can't prove it was rape. I guess rape cases just get bonus to defense on gear. Oh look, American Law Institute recently rejected it, citing what I said as one of the main reasons. Huh, how odd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    "Sexual contact" is a legal term. Here's the definition of such for Connecticut (chosen because that's the jurisdiction for the law in the OP);
    https://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/g...ualcontact.htm

    So no, a kiss on the neck or back of the head is not remotely "sexual contact".
    That's state law. That has no influence here.

    Try again.

  6. #86
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Again, kisses don't qualify as "rape", in the first place. Nor does a smack on the ass.
    It is sexual contact I didn't explicitly consent to.

    Have you read these laws? Have actually sat through the tribunal process for them and had to act as a witness to them? "clear, unambiguous, knowing, informed, and voluntary agreement" prior to any sexual act. Is the exact language and yes, a smack on the ass or a surprise kiss is sexual, I know sex might not be a thing in your life but that is how us mortal humans sometimes interact.

    It is any sexual act, not the dread PiV, anything from a boob grope to fingerbanging and beyond.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    Unfortunatly this is not the issue.

    What you just mentioned is perfectly covered by No means no.

    Someone makes a move, the other person says no, if he keeps insisting it's sexual abuse/rape. Simple.

    Affirmative Consent on the other hand is a lot more obscure.

    It's more along these lines.

    Person wants to make a move because he thinks he is getting the right signals. Makes a move, doesn't get any negative feedback. (The move could be anything, a kiss, placing of the hands in x or y place, penetration etc.) To only way to avoid this is, to literally ask for permission constantly for everything you do. Which is a silly concept.

    But let's assume that consent was asked and was given (clearly and vocally expressed, as that is a requirement here as well). But the day after for XYZ reasons the one of the participants retroactively decides that while in the heath of the moment action xyz was okay, not it isn't. (I'm not even assuming malicious intent, which is also a factor).

    Now this has to be arbitrated. In arbitration all this comes down to Word against Word. Affirmative Consent is not demonstrable, unless you literally filmed said consent being given.

    The problem with Affirmative Consent is that it is EXTREMELY VAGUE, and removes EVERY SINGLE PROTECTION granted to someone being accused. Essentially the person being accused has no rights. This is silly.

    Again, this would go into the realm of whether people lie about rape or not (I'M INTENTIONALLY AVOIDING GENDERS, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ABOUT GENDERS, tho in practice it hilariously reinforces gender roles, by typically assigning the victim role to women, and the aggressor role to the male, and thus reinforcing the idea that women lack agency), and there the fact remains that people are essentially people, which means faulty. There could be a bazillion reasons why we mishandle sexual assault cases, mental illness, inability to understand consequences, malicious intent, mistakes, decisions driven by preconceptions or religious norms and so on.

    We as a society are experiencing a rape hysteria. It's not dissimilar from the Satanist Child Abuse Hysteria of the 90's,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse perhaps simply this being larger in scale and scope, and perhaps being a bit more grounded in reality. But it is still a hysteria, and we are still overreacting to it, as we did in the past. Driven by a media frenzy (add social media to it today) and honest good intentions to address a perceived problem (in this case I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, I'm saying we are overreacting).

    We can't throw logic and reason out the window in a frenzy to address a problem, real or perceived. On the contrary we should be applying reason, logic and an analytical approach to finding a solution.
    I have to agree a no ends the constant need for consent and anything beyond that is clearly criminal activity.

    Yes means yes is another way of saying that there never is consent that is satisfactory.

  8. #88
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Alright, let's go bigger. A girl decides to wake up her boyfriend with a blowjob.
    If the guy decides he doesn't want that blowjob when he wakes up?

    Yes. Rape. Pretty damned clearly. Unless you'd mentioned how much you'd like that, at some prior point, to establish some preliminary consent, that's a form of rape. Same as it would be if he woke her up by deciding to go for the rear entrance.

    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    Are you saying it has always been guilty until proven innocent in the case of rape accusations? And you're defending this? Amazing.
    It's not "guilty until proven innocent". The trial occurs before sentencing. If they were sentenced, and then had to sue for their innocence in a court of law, that is what "guilty until proven innocent" looks like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Yeah, it's totally not like rape has one of the highest acquittal rates because the prosecution can't prove it was rape. I guess rape cases just get bonus to defense on gear. Oh look, American Law Institute recently rejected it, citing what I said as one of the main reasons. Huh, how odd.
    Their main issue is that it has to be verbal, which is nonfunctional, but every instance I've cited thus far has allowed for nonverbal forms of affirmative consent.

    I'll also note that they clearly agree with the idea, their issue was with practicality. In short; they'd rather see some rapists go free with a too-broad definition of "consent" than risk locking up someone innocent because affirmative consent was too difficult for them to establish, even though it was present.


  9. #89
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Yeah, it's totally not like rape has one of the highest acquittal rates because the prosecution can't prove it was rape. I guess rape cases just get bonus to defense on gear. Oh look, American Law Institute recently rejected it, citing what I said as one of the main reasons. Huh, how odd.
    Endus lives in a bizarro world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  10. #90
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Dextroden View Post
    That's state law. That has no influence here.

    Try again.
    State law, for the state where this policy was being implemented. How is that not applicable? Sexual assault is a State-level law; that's where the laws are set.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    It is sexual contact I didn't explicitly consent to.
    Not "sexual contact" as defined under Connecticut law, as I already linked.


  11. #91
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Bollocks View Post
    So it's an idea supported by conservatives and liberals alike.
    You seem locked into vary simple thinking.

    Its an idea with a largely liberal origin and no serious conservative resistance from anywhere other than the more hard-line.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    State law, for the state where this policy was being implemented. How is that not applicable? Sexual assault is a State-level law; that's where the laws are set.



    Not "sexual contact" as defined under Connecticut law, as I already linked.
    The same reason the input of a person that actually deals with this doesn't count to you. It just doesn't.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It's not "guilty until proven innocent". The trial occurs before sentencing. If they were sentenced, and then had to sue for their innocence in a court of law, that is what "guilty until proven innocent" looks like.
    Oh for fuck's sake. You can't possibly be this stupid. It's nice to know you can so easily dismiss the presumption of innocence because: "Well, you see, what had happened was, he got a trial where he got to prove that he was innocent!" Give me a break.

  14. #94
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    Oh for fuck's sake. You can't possibly be this stupid. It's nice to know you can so easily dismiss the presumption of innocence because: "Well, you see, what had happened was, he got a trial where he got to prove that he was innocent!" Give me a break.
    This is how any trial goes, when it comes down to a witness and the accused having two different interpretations.

    I never said that the court would automatically take the victim's account as definitive, I said that the accused would have to be able to present a reasonable counter argument as a defense to that accusation.

    As they would against literally any other charge. If it were a case where the accused was charged with trespassing, he'd have to provide a reasonable explanation for why he was on someone else's property, or that he actually wasn't. Same freaking difference.

    You're off on some weird tangent about something I never said.


  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is how any trial goes, when it comes down to a witness and the accused having two different interpretations.

    I never said that the court would automatically take the victim's account as definitive, I said that the accused would have to be able to present a reasonable counter argument as a defense to that accusation.

    As they would against literally any other charge. If it were a case where the accused was charged with trespassing, he'd have to provide a reasonable explanation for why he was on someone else's property, or that he actually wasn't. Same freaking difference.

    You're off on some weird tangent about something I never said.
    I'd say you know there are different counters to being accused of rape and being accused of murder or theft. And different levels of evidence needed to properly convict each of those crimes.

    But since when have you let reality get in the way of being "right"?

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Because affirmative consent has always been the legal standard. That's the point.
    I guess someone should tell ALI about it. Or better yet, replace it with the Tribunal of Endus.


    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Here's the actual bill; https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201320140SB967

    Doesn't make any statement that the consent has to be verbal.
    I know it doesn't say verbal. Because it doesn't say anything about the form. Which raises interpretation concerns. Which, when mentioned to the lawmakers ended with the replies I talked about. Great rebuttal you got here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is how any trial goes, when it comes down to a witness and the accused having two different interpretations.

    I never said that the court would automatically take the victim's account as definitive, I said that the accused would have to be able to present a reasonable counter argument as a defense to that accusation.

    As they would against literally any other charge. If it were a case where the accused was charged with trespassing, he'd have to provide a reasonable explanation for why he was on someone else's property, or that he actually wasn't. Same freaking difference.

    You're off on some weird tangent about something I never said.
    The problem is college campuses using this criteria don't use the same thresholds, and checks and balances as the courts do though. Thus, affirmative consent hinges on testimony that is entirely subjective.

    So, colleges err on the side of caution, but what is happening is they are seeing large law suits coming back at them from false or failed allegations.

    Basically, it is a balancing act for colleges to look at the costs of ignoring allegations versus dealing with the fallout from a false allegation. In the end money will be the deciding factor for college campuses, because they do not have the same thresholds as the court of law.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'll also note that they clearly agree with the idea, their issue was with practicality. In short; they'd rather see some rapists go free with a too-broad definition of "consent" than risk locking up someone innocent because affirmative consent was too difficult for them to establish, even though it was present.
    Yes, them saying it's only good on paper and then listing numerous issues with it and then rejecting it as the crap it is is nothing but love eternal on their part. The article and the fact they deliberated on it in the first place also does wonders to your claim that affirmative consent has always been the legal standard.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  19. #99
    hopefully. i did get a bit of a laugh when the article stated that affirmative consent is anti-sex, lmao. only for a rapist, maybe. or somebody who doesn't even give a shit that they might be raping someone.
    "Just because you read it on the internet, doesn't mean the person actually said it." - Thomas Jefferson

  20. #100
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    I guess someone should tell ALI about it. Or better yet, replace it with the Tribunal of Endus.
    I'll note again that the ALI said they agreed with affirmative consent in principle, but that the specific form in their particular discussion wasn't practical.

    Also, let's be clear; they felt that this was problematic;
    “a person’s behavior, including words and conduct — both action and inaction — that communicates a person’s willingness to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration or sexual contact.”

    And accepted an amendment that rephrased that to;
    a person’s willingness to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration or sexual contact

    So in their accepted form, you'd still need to establish that they were willing participants. This is hardly the huge gap you think.

    I know it doesn't say verbal. Because it doesn't say anything about the form. Which raises interpretation concerns. Which, when mentioned to the lawmakers ended with the replies I talked about. Great rebuttal you got here.
    I like how you dig back to a post from before you linked the ALI discussion as if that prior post were a "rebuttal" to that. You're citing me in Post #75, there, as if that were a "rebuttal" to what you'd linked in post #84.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •