Is ‘Yes Means Yes’ Unstoppable?

[Deleted]

The year is 2019. Names have been abolished. Humans are pushed into a booth weekly and their skin tone and gender is listed and that is their name for the week. There are over 3500 genders, with hundreds more 'discovered' every month. Laws have been abolished, instead there are just 'Victim Protocols'. Victims receive badges, to display how oppressed they are. Oppressors are sent to University, to be reeducated on the 'Yes Means Yes' doctrine. The following interaction totally happened in the year 2019.


Skin Tone 834 Gender 47B: Requesting permission to engage in flirtation with you.
Skin Tone 392 Gender 71X: Request granted. Proceed with flirtation protocol.

Skin Tone 834 Gender 47B winks at Human Gender X71.

Skin Tone 392 Gender 71X: Warning. Warning. Winking is rape. I have just been raped. Activating victim protocol 374C.
Skin Tone 834 Gender 47B: I have just raped a fellow human being. I am now a white male. I must return to University to get reeducated on the 'Yes Means Yes' doctrine.

Skin Tone 392 Gender 71X: I have added my Victim Protocol 374C badge to my chest. It will display that I was and am a continuing victim of this abuse. I now have over 700 victim badges. I also placed it on my chest, a perfect place to draw the eyes of other Entities, and thus have them commit eye rape on my person.

Skin Tone 477 Gender 97Q: As a bystander to the rape I just witnessed, I was also raped. I have just been raped. Activating Victim Protocol 263B.

(other entities (the word human is considered rape) approach the scene, raising their hands to signal that they too have been raped by witnessing the event)

Wow.. this stuff might sell...

[Anastacy]

What I mean is, consent has to be given verbally; however, the verbal expression doesn't have to be literal, as long as it is clear in its meaning. For example, suppose a girl asks her boyfriend, "What do you think of waking people up with blowjobs?", during a discussion on sex between them, and he says, "I think it is pretty sweet, and I'd love it done to me". Now, he didn't explicitly say, "I allow you to do that to me", however his answer makes it reasonable for the girl to assume that he would like it. If she does it to him, she is not raping him, because he essentially gave her consent on that. Of course, he can revoke the consent at any moment; then, if the girl still keeps doing it, it is rape.

So if a girl tells a guy "I want you to fuck me", that gives him free reign to fuck her whenever, wherever until she says no?

[May90]

So if a girl tells a guy "I want you to fuck me", that gives him free reign to fuck her whenever, wherever until she says no?

No, because that's not what this phrase implies. Putting phrases out of context ain't nice!

[Endus]

The problem with this argument is that it is not even technically correct, it has never been and can never be correct. A victim needs to prove that no consent was given, just saying "i did not consent" is not proof in any way.

Since "consent" is largely determined by the state of the mind of the victim at the time, and the ONLY one who knows that is the victim, yes, declaring that they did not consent is evidence.

It's not incontrovertible proof; if the accused can provide evidence that they did consent, or present an alternative that seems equally plausible, or extenuating circumstances that color the victim's testimony, that can all be grounds for the jury to not accept the victim's statements as a given.

In court, there's no such thing as "proof". Just evidence. It's the jury that decides whether the evidence is convincing or not. And the victim's testimony is a strong piece of evidence.

Without proof it is nothing more then her word against his, and that is why it is so hard to prove rape in court. "Nuh uh" is exactly all that a defendant needs to say in order to go against the claim of no consent. The victims "i did not consent" has just as much weight in court as the defendants "Nuh uh, she consented", claiming otherwise is shifting the burden of proof. There needs to be proof, and the burden of proof lies with the accusing party, just like with any other case because, everyone who is accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

You don't seem to understand what "proof" means.

If it's her word against his, and the jury decides he's probably lying, then her word does prove his guilt. You're placing a completely irrelevant barrier to victims stating their state of mind, for absolutely no reason. No, her statement on its own is not automatically proof of guilt, but literally nobody was saying that. It absolutely is evidence, and absent a solid defense, it absolutely can be grounds for conviction.

- - - Updated - - -

My question is, how do you prove Yes and No in the bedroom? When your partner says NO, you have to stop, if you don't it's rape. But how do they prove they said no?

Again, that's not how courts work.

They don't have to "prove" they said no. They make their case that they said "no", and the defendant makes their case that they didn't, and the jury decides which side is more convincing, or if they can't come to a decision (which favors the defendant, by design, since it's better to let a guilty defendant go free than imprison an innocent).

Testimony does not have to be "proven". It is evidence, that is weighed against other evidence. In this case, the defendant's story. Absent a strong defense, that victim testimony can be enough to convict.

[nextormento]

Since "consent" is largely determined by the state of the mind of the victim at the time, and the ONLY one who knows that is the victim, yes, declaring that they did not consent is evidence.

It's not incontrovertible proof;
You don't seem to understand what "proof" means.

What proof means, exactly, in each context doesn't prevent the argument from working. Proof has a very specific meaning within legislation. It's advisable that we pretend they're aware of that. Because, if they are, the argument doesn't change one bit: the accuser needs to prove the claim.
In a similar vein, it's not advisable to use "victim" in place of the actual word: accuser. The accuser is trying to demonstrate that they are a victim; presuming that they are, only renders your entire argument as an appeal to emotion; particularly so when your entire intervention is a semantic nitpick.

[Deleted]

Since "consent" is largely determined by the state of the mind of the victim at the time, and the ONLY one who knows that is the victim, yes, declaring that they did not consent is evidence.

It's not incontrovertible proof; if the accused can provide evidence that they did consent, or present an alternative that seems equally plausible, or extenuating circumstances that color the victim's testimony, that can all be grounds for the jury to not accept the victim's statements as a given.

In court, there's no such thing as "proof". Just evidence. It's the jury that decides whether the evidence is convincing or not. And the victim's testimony is a strong piece of evidence.



You don't seem to understand what "proof" means.

If it's her word against his, and the jury decides he's probably lying, then her word does prove his guilt. You're placing a completely irrelevant barrier to victims stating their state of mind, for absolutely no reason. No, her statement on its own is not automatically proof of guilt, but literally nobody was saying that. It absolutely is evidence, and absent a solid defense, it absolutely can be grounds for conviction.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, that's not how courts work.

They don't have to "prove" they said no. They make their case that they said "no", and the defendant makes their case that they didn't, and the jury decides which side is more convincing, or if they can't come to a decision (which favors the defendant, by design, since it's better to let a guilty defendant go free than imprison an innocent).

Testimony does not have to be "proven". It is evidence, that is weighed against other evidence. In this case, the defendant's story. Absent a strong defense, that victim testimony can be enough to convict.

Well then, the guy saying "i had consent" is just as much evidence as the "he had no consent" from the accuser. And then you go on making strawmens again with a nice denigratory tone towards men, evidence isn't the same as proof no, but, it is still up to the accuser to proof that there was no consent. And if a jury thinks he is probably lying, but aren't sure, means they should acquit this person, as, you know, there is still this thing called reasonable doubt.

So, while both have to make their case, it is still up to the accuser to prove that there was no consent. Not being able to do this means there is no case and the defendant walks free.

but literally nobody was saying that

So when the victim clearly states they did not consent, unless you can contradict that statement somehow, or provide extenuating information, there's no reason to dispute it.

Literally nobody but you...

But i've got better things to do then arguing about some backwards law in a forgein country with someone who clearly doesn't want to discuss anything.

[zenkai]

Again, that's not how courts work.

They don't have to "prove" they said no. They make their case that they said "no", and the defendant makes their case that they didn't, and the jury decides which side is more convincing, or if they can't come to a decision (which favors the defendant, by design, since it's better to let a guilty defendant go free than imprison an innocent).

Testimony does not have to be "proven". It is evidence, that is weighed against other evidence. In this case, the defendant's story. Absent a strong defense, that victim testimony can be enough to convict.

That's how suppose to work, but there have been plenty of people convicted of rape and molestation by word of mouth testimony, with 0 physical evidence.

[May90]

That's how suppose to work, but there have been plenty of people convicted of rape and molestation by word of mouth testimony, with 0 physical evidence.

The last line of the comment you quoted explains that...

The court doesn't just look at evidence. It looks at stories from both perspectives. If the accusing side presents a strong, believable and consistent story, while the accused side changes versions every few minutes - then, well, it makes sense to assume that the accused is lying and the accusing is not.

[zenkai]

The last line of the comment you quoted explains that...

The court doesn't just look at evidence. It looks at stories from both perspectives. If the accusing side presents a strong, believable and consistent story, while the accused side changes versions every few minutes - then, well, it makes sense to assume that the accused is lying and the accusing is not.

There is a story of 2 parents who hired this bitch of a baby sitter to watch their 2 young girls. The woman reported to police that the parents molested the children. The story she spun changed several times, and even a doctor inspection determine the children showed no child of abuse. The parent's story never changed, despite this they were still convicted. Years later the kids grew up and claimed they were never sexual abused and was fighting to get their parents out of jail. I wish I could find the story but Google keeps popping up with Michael Jackson, Teri Hatcher and Hillary Clinton when I search for the story... I even try to omit those names out of the result.

I did find lots of other stories of people being falsely accused who were guilty until proven innocent.

[Mistame]

Just keep video proof of it on youporn. Problem solved.

[May90]

There is a story of 2 parents who hired this bitch of a baby sitter to watch their 2 young girls. The woman reported to police that the parents molested the children. The story she spun changed several times, and even a doctor inspection determine the children showed no child of abuse. The parent's story never changed, despite this they were still convicted. Years later the kids grew up and claimed they were never sexual abused and was fighting to get their parents out of jail. I wish I could find the story but Google keeps popping up with Michael Jackson, Teri Hatcher and Hillary Clinton when I search for the story... I even try to omit those names out of the result.

I did find lots of other stories of people being falsely accused who were guilty until proven innocent.

There are all kinds of cases out there, all kinds of biased judges, etc. Nothing is perfect.

[zenkai]

There are all kinds of cases out there, all kinds of biased judges, etc. Nothing is perfect.

That's my point, but people will get wrongly convicted by false or bad testimony.

[Endus]

Well then, the guy saying "i had consent" is just as much evidence as the "he had no consent" from the accuser.

Yes. That's the point.

The point is that, confronted with the victim's testimony, the accused will have to provide a defense, or the jury is likely to see that the victim's testimony is consistent and that the accused is not contradicting it, and convict on those grounds. That's exactly how courts work.

Literally nobody was arguing that the victim's statements should be taken as incontrovertible fact every time. That's a straw man.

So, while both have to make their case, it is still up to the accuser to prove that there was no consent. Not being able to do this means there is no case and the defendant walks free.

By stating that they did not consent, the accuser has established in evidence that there was no consent. That's already done. If the accused wants to contest that, that's fine, but they have to be able to contest it, or that testimony stands.

That's how suppose to work, but there have been plenty of people convicted of rape and molestation by word of mouth testimony, with 0 physical evidence.

And? There's absolutely nothing in the legal system which states that this is somehow a mistake. The lack of physical evidence is not a demonstration that the defendant should walk free, automatically. It's a burden that the prosecution will have to overcome, but it's certainly possible to overcome.

Sure, there are going to be cases where sketchy rulings were made, in either direction, but that doesn't speak to a failure in the standards in play, which is what you were getting at.

[Mistame]

By stating that they did not consent, the accuser has established in evidence that there was no consent. That's already done. If the accused wants to contest that, that's fine, but they have to be able to contest it, or that testimony stands.

And if the accused states that the accuser did consent, the accuser's testimony has been countered.

[Endus]

And if the accused states that the accuser did consent, the accuser's testimony has been countered.

That's overly reductive. No, the jury is going to evaluate each person's testimony, and they're free to decide they don't believe the accused's account. You don't get to make that determination, the jury does.

[Mistame]

That's overly reductive. No, the jury is going to evaluate each person's testimony, and they're free to decide they don't believe the accused's account. You don't get to make that determination, the jury does.

No more reductive than your statement. And yes, other evidence/testimony will influence the jury's determination. I never said otherwise. I merely pointed out that the accused saying that accuser consented is no less valid "evidence" than the accuser saying they did not consent. The way your comment reads is that the accused has to prove, other than a counter claim, that they did consent, which is not true.

[Anastacy]

No, because that's not what this phrase implies. Putting phrases out of context ain't nice!

But "I'd love that done to me" implies that anytime, anywhere is OK?

[Endus]

No more reductive than your statement. And yes, other evidence/testimony will influence the jury's determination. I never said otherwise. I merely pointed out that the accused saying that accuser consented is no less valid "evidence" than the accuser saying they did not consent. The way your comment reads is that the accused has to prove, other than a counter claim, that they did consent, which is not true.

If the jury believes the victim's account, that's exactly how it works. A defendant doesn't just get to say "nah, I'm innocent" and have that automatically win all court cases. If they want to counter their accuser's claims, they need to provide an actual defense, to provide evidence that they're innocent.

This is why things like "alibis" and such exist, as concepts.

[Mistame]

If the jury believes the victim's account, that's exactly how it works. A defendant doesn't just get to say "nah, I'm innocent" and have that automatically win all court cases. If they want to counter their accuser's claims, they need to provide an actual defense, to provide evidence that they're innocent.

If it comes down to "I didn't consent" vs "Yes you did", the accused should get the benefit of the doubt. The accused does not have to prove anything, as the burden of proof lies on the accuser. The accuser merely saying "I didn't consent" is not proof on its own, nor does it require anything from the accused other than a counter statement.

[May90]

But "I'd love that done to me" implies that anytime, anywhere is OK?

In the context I mentioned, it does!