Is ‘Yes Means Yes’ Unstoppable?

[May90]

Alright, let's go bigger. A girl decides to wake up her boyfriend with a blowjob.

If it was specified before by the boyfriend that it is okay with him, then it is not rape. It would only be a rape if the boyfriend says, "Darling, I want to sleep, stop it", and she still keeps doing it.
If it was not, then the girl acts at her own risk. If the boyfriend doesn't want it, then the girl is raping him.

A really simple and obvious example. The fact that the situation is confusing to someone is quite alarming...

[s_bushido]

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.

You said: "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."

Now tell me. What happens when they can't possibly demonstrate that they were sure the victim was consenting because the victim is right there telling everyone that they weren't?

Look, I'm not really concerned that you (have clearly demonstrated that you) think rape accusations should be treated differently because, frankly, they are different. There are very few other crimes that involve an action that is perfectly legal and a normal part of daily human interaction, or one of the worst things you can do to another person, based solely on how one or more of the people involved responds to the situation. But don't give me this nonsense about "oh, I'm just asking for your alibi, what's the big deal?" when the case can come down to the only available alibi being the person who is doing the accusing. That's not how it works (or how it should work).

[Endus]

If it was specified before by the boyfriend that it is okay with him, then it is not rape. It would only be a rape if the boyfriend says, "Darling, I want to sleep, stop it", and she still keeps doing it.
If it was not, then the girl acts at her own risk. If the boyfriend doesn't want it, then the girl is raping him.

A really simple and obvious example. The fact that the situation is confusing to someone is quite alarming...

It's a really easy example to make. It's only presented as confusing because a lot of guys go "hey, free blowjob, awesome". Change it to a sex act you WOULDN'T want to get woken up by, say her deciding to peg you with her strap-on. Or whatever. If that changes your viewpoint, then you understand the difference between you consenting to the act and you not consenting.

[Independent voter]

Like 90% of college rapes involve alcohol, seems the solution is obvious.

[Endus]

You said: "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."

Now tell me. What happens when they can't possibly demonstrate that they were sure the victim was consenting because the victim is right there telling everyone that they weren't?

That doesn't happen, because they both get to have their say, and her story isn't above criticism.

If you really, seriously can't demonstrate that you had reason to believe she was consenting, then you are a rapist. As in, that's the literal definition; you had sex with someone who you weren't sure was consenting.

Look, I'm not really concerned that you (have clearly demonstrated that you) think rape accusations should be treated differently because, frankly, they are different. There are very few other crimes that involve an action that is perfectly legal and a normal part of daily human interaction, or one of the worst things you can do to another person, based solely on how one or more of the people involved responds to the situation. But don't give me this nonsense about "oh, I'm just asking for your alibi, what's the big deal?" when the case can come down to the only available alibi being the person who is doing the accusing. That's not how it works (or how it should work).

I'm not treating it differently.

If Bob says you stole his newspaper, you're going to have to explain WHY you took his newspaper, or provide an argument to demonstrate that you did not, like say by showing that you were out of town, or something.

That's how pretty much any case goes. When accused of a crime, you have to provide a defense. You're acting aghast that an accused rapist might have to do the same. It makes no sense.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It's a really easy example to make. It's only presented as confusing because a lot of guys go "hey, free blowjob, awesome". Change it to a sex act you WOULDN'T want to get woken up by, say her deciding to peg you with her strap-on. Or whatever. If that changes your viewpoint, then you understand the difference between you consenting to the act and you not consenting.

Thats a little different, because I'd warrant that most men wouldn't normally be into getting a good ole pegging anyway. PnV sexual activity would be a better example. It has to be something you'd normally suspect your partner would be okay with. Thats where it truly get confusing. And thats why people use the "woke me up with a blowjob/sex" scenario. Because I'd say normally, that man would low a blowjob. On the other hand, what if he was feeling sick or depressed and didn't want a blowjob/sex? It just feel strange to me to consider that the same kind of issue as someone brutally throwing someone on a bed and forcefully raping them.

Again, thats why these specific scenarios are brought up. Its why "two drunk people having sex" scenarios come up as well. Not only because those areas are extremely gray, but we have billboards telling us that if a drunk woman and a drunk man has sex, only the man is a dirty rapist. Consent might seem 100% easy and simple, but its really more complicated than that.

[analmoose]

I recommend having someone with a notary stamp accompany you during the encounter as well. That way it's official.

That's solid advice, thank you

[May90]

Thats a little different, because I'd warrant that most men wouldn't normally be into getting a good ole pegging anyway. PnV sexual activity would be a better example. It has to be something you'd normally suspect your partner would be okay with. Thats where it truly get confusing. And thats why people use the "woke me up with a blowjob/sex" scenario. Because I'd say normally, that man would low a blowjob. On the other hand, what if he was feeling sick or depressed and didn't want a blowjob/sex? It just feel strange to me to consider that the same kind of issue as someone brutally throwing someone on a bed and forcefully raping them.

Again, thats why these specific scenarios are brought up. Its why "two drunk people having sex" scenarios come up as well. Not only because those areas are extremely gray, but we have billboards telling us that if a drunk woman and a drunk man has sex, only the man is a dirty rapist. Consent might seem 100% easy and simple, but its really more complicated than that.

Well, personally, I hate, absolutely hate waking up before the timer, so if I had a partner and they did morning blowjob to me, likely I would be pretty pissed: I get very-very snappy when people wake me up, it even led my parents to refuse waking me up upon request, back when I lived with them, because they'd had enough of curses in the morning.

So, does my partner doing it to me without my permission is justified by it "normally" being considered okay? Nope, I don't think so. If they really want to surprise me like this, then they better bring it up casually in a conversation, to know what I think about it. It is not that hard to do, after all...

Same way, for example, someone might not be okay with anal sex. Going for it without asking their permission wouldn't be very nice. It is not hard, not hard at all to just find time, sit together and spend, I don't know, 10 minutes to discuss what sexual activities each partner is okay with. No problem with the law, everyone is happy. Mature approach.

---

"Two drunk people having sex", I agree, is much more complicated.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You sure do have a chip on your shoulder for the evil liberal. Maybe once you leave college life and enter the real world, the partisan politics won't seem nearly so ridiculous.

Or you could go into full on Republican Trumpism conspiracy think, and then you'd be lost to the world of reason. Although part of us already seems to believe you're there.

[Bollocks]

You sure do have a chip on your shoulder for the evil liberal. Maybe once you leave college life and enter the real world, the partisan politics won't seem nearly so ridiculous.

Or you could go into full on Republican Trumpism conspiracy think, and then you'd be lost to the world of reason. Although part of us already seems to believe you're there.

What's funny is that this bill was passed in the republican controlled house of representatives.

[s_bushido]

That doesn't happen, because they both get to have their say, and her story isn't above criticism.

Victim blaming now, are we? For shame.

If you really, seriously can't demonstrate that you had reason to believe she was consenting, then you are a rapist. As in, that's the literal definition; you had sex with someone who you weren't sure was consenting.

You're missing the point. And I have to assume you're doing it deliberately. I could have known unequivocally that she was consenting at the time. How am I supposed to demonstrate that when she is now accusing me of raping her?

I'm not treating it differently.

Then, perhaps, you should be. If a newspaper has been stolen, a newspaper is missing. If a woman accuses a man of raping her, she has still had sexual intercourse (presumably), regardless of whether or not her accusation is true.

You're acting aghast that an accused rapist might have to do the same. It makes no sense.

Because in the case of affirmative consent (if it actually worked the way you're pretending it has "always" worked), you're ignoring that the accuser has to merely make the accusation and then the burden of proof is almost entirely on the defendant. Rather than the defendant simply having the opportunity to provide evidence of his innocence and plaintiff/prosecution being the one required to demonstrate that a crime took place.

[Bollocks]

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.

I get the reasons why republicans/conservatives support the bill and I get that it's from liberal origin. But the majority of conservatives supported the idea for their reasons, no one forced them to vote on the bill. So it's an idea supported by the majority of conservatives.

[Endus]

Victim blaming now, are we? For shame.

Not what was said, but you know that.

You're missing the point. And I have to assume you're doing it deliberately. I could have known unequivocally that she was consenting at the time. How am I supposed to demonstrate that when she is now accusing me of raping her?

By having a coherent statement that at least comparably explains the circumstances. Like you would be required to provide in any court defense.

Then, perhaps, you should be. If a newspaper has been stolen, a newspaper is missing. If a woman accuses a man of raping her, she has still had sexual intercourse (presumably), regardless of whether or not her accusation is true.

What, exactly, is your point?

Whether she had sex is comparable to whether or not Bob's paper is missing. Whether you took that paper, or were her sex partner, is the first part that has to be established. The second is whether you had justification for that, some reason to take his paper, or some reason to think she was consenting.

It's the same, either way. There is no special circumstance under the law for rape trials.

Because in the case of affirmative consent (if it actually worked the way you're pretending it has "always" worked), you're ignoring that the accuser has to merely make the accusation and then the burden of proof is almost entirely on the defendant. Rather than the defendant simply having the opportunity to provide evidence of his innocence and plaintiff/prosecution being the one required to demonstrate that a crime took place.

You're confusing the burden of proof with the presumption of innocence.

They are not the same thing. Presumption of innocence is why you get your trial before your sentencing, which remains true in a rape trial. The burden of proof in a given case will depend on the particular element that is being proven; if you want to prove someone stole your TV, you have to demonstrate that your TV was stolen. If Bob wants to prove HE didn't steal it, he'll have to provide an alibi or demonstrate that he had no motive or the like. That's how courts work. Presumption of innocence does not mean you automatically win any defense claim.

[May90]

snip

I think you are misunderstanding the principle of presumption of innocence / burden of proof. Here is how any trial works. The court attempts to reconstruct, from the evidence presented by both sides, what took place. If the reconstruction is complete, then everything is clear. If the reconstruction failed, then, for the lack of evidence, the accused is found not guilty.

There is no burden of proof on the defendant. If the accuser fails to present evidence indicating that rape took place, then the accused can just dance around naked in the courtroom: he will win the process. Well, assuming unbiased judge, that is.

[Dextroden]

I think you are misunderstanding the principle of presumption of innocence / burden of proof. Here is how any trial works. The court attempts to reconstruct, from the evidence presented by both sides, what took place. If the reconstruction is complete, then everything is clear. If the reconstruction failed, then, for the lack of evidence, the accused is found not guilty.

There is no burden of proof on the defendant. If the accuser fails to present evidence indicating that rape took place, then the accused can just dance around naked in the courtroom: he will win the process. Well, assuming unbiased judge, that is.

So, not only are you arguing that no one has ever been falsey convicted or jailed for rape. But that court testimony based solely on the accuser's words never happens. Or that accused get ousted before there trial and have their life torn asunder.

Yep. None of these things happen.

[May90]

So, not only are you arguing that no one has ever been falsey convicted or jailed for rape. But that court testimony based solely on the accuser's words never happens. Or that accused get ousted before there trial and have their life torn asunder.

Yep. None of these things happen.

You have a really poor reading comprehension, mate...

[Deleted]

That doesn't happen, because they both get to have their say, and her story isn't above criticism.

If you really, seriously can't demonstrate that you had reason to believe she was consenting, then you are a rapist. As in, that's the literal definition; you had sex with someone who you weren't sure was consenting.



I'm not treating it differently.

If Bob says you stole his newspaper, you're going to have to explain WHY you took his newspaper, or provide an argument to demonstrate that you did not, like say by showing that you were out of town, or something.

That's how pretty much any case goes. When accused of a crime, you have to provide a defense. You're acting aghast that an accused rapist might have to do the same. It makes no sense.

Or you are socially inept or your partner was social awkward, this list can go on for quite a bit.. The point is that you can interpret any action in a thousand ways and still not interpret it in the way it was intended. And when the other side is claiming you have raped them you can't be sure about consent now can you? That they both can do their say doesn't mean that you can't be sure because, you know, you just got accused of raping someone.

You are treating it differently then any other case.
If Bob says you stole his newspaper then Bob needs to prove that you stole his newspaper. That is the way things work. When they ask you where you was on a certain date is to exclude you from the possibility. There is no need what so ever to be able to demonstrate that you did not take that newspaper, he has to prove that you did take it.

[Dextroden]

You have a really poor reading comprehension, mate...

You painted a lovely, idealized Icuren of where cold hard facts are used to determine the truth in a rape trial. That no one is in danger unless they actually rape someone. It's a lovely load of hogwash and you know it. Emotions win the day for these things. It's why you're supposed to listen and believe every woman that claims rape. That, and not looking like a rape apologist.

[Kellorion]

Here's a thought: don't rape anyone and you won't have anything to worry about. I know that can be confusing for some people...

Here's another thought: Shut Up.
Dont commit a crime, and you wont get shot by the police.......unless you are black, Muslim, Arabic, 'talking back' 'askin for it' autistic, or otherwise innocent.

[May90]

Here's another thought: Shut Up.
Dont commit a crime, and you wont get shot by the police.......unless you are black, Muslim, Arabic, 'talking back' 'askin for it' autistic, or otherwise innocent.

Funny thing is: if you don't commit a crime and collaborate with police officers, then, indeed, your chances of getting shot are almost zero.