Derrick Rose rape accusations raise issues of consent

[Garnier Fructis]

So first things first. What qualifies as being 'incapable of giving consent' which I assume refers to consent given 'by words or conduct'. If somebody is drunk but still physically capable of what would be qualified as giving consent? Is that still rape? If so, how drunk do they have to be? Do they have to have zero alcohol in their system in order to be capable of giving consent? Does the person's drunkenness have to be known to the alleged 'rapist' in order for the rapist to be convicted of rape, or is the alleged 'rapist' out of luck if the 'complainant' gives consent but had a shot of beer a couple hours earlier? Where do we draw the line here and what does it mean to be 'incapable of giving consent'? What if both parties involved are drunk and/or therefore unable to give consent for whatever reason?

Second, what qualifies as words or conduct that expresses consent? Once again, where do we draw the line and why? Demanding that we do not discuss the semantics here is basically demanding that we discuss nothing. You make accusations and complaints about what people say, you just outright say people are wrong or false, and whenever somebody demands you give reasoning for your words you complain and tell them you don't need to and that it is just up to the jury or is in the law somewhere or something.

Laws like this are intentionally written to be vague since very specific laws tend to have unintended consequences that aren't in the spirit of the law. Sure, it sucks. But what are we sacrificing as a society by implementing this? The tradition of drunken sex at college parties? Well, nothing of importance is lost, then.

[Canpinter]

Ok, do you have a legitimate source on that? Like with a link?

I know many people who are female, and nowhere near a third of them have been a victim of sexual violence.

its a world wide life time statistic so 1/3 women experience direct violence some time in there life.

[Garnier Fructis]

Think about it this way, imagine you had 3 brothers...would you be happy to live in a world where 1 of them is falsely accused of sexual violence?

We should strive for a society that has neither instead of being fine with one of them over the other.

[PassingBy]

Women need consent. Of course is the average woman going to overpower you and take you by force? Nope.

The guy just a few answers on top says that lack of physical violence doesn't mean it is not rape.

Can a woman threaten my life or well being? Sure.
Can a woman wield a weapon? Sure.

[darkwarrior42]

The truth can't be sexist. Women need consent just like males do.Difference is that men are in a position of power. Think about it, is an average woman going to overpower an average man? Nope.

The truth cannot be sexist, but that doesn't mean everything which is said here is the truth... and while the truth cannot be sexist, individual statements which are themselves true can absolutely be used in a sexist manner. "The truth" means all of it, whether you agree with it or not.

"Men are in a position of power" is an inherently flawed viewpoint. There are innumerable ways to gain an advantage over someone else, and that's ignoring the fact that not every guy is stronger than every woman, as well as the psychological impact of the situation which can leave even those with an advantage in physical strength unable to fight off their attacker.

According to RAINN, 1 in 10 rape victims are male... and if you go by http://www.slate.com/articles/double...assaulted.html
the number of men subject to sexual assault is quite high, and about half those studied were sexually assaulted by women.

It is sexist to assume that men cannot be victims. It is sexist to assume that women cannot be perpetrators. It is simply wrong to believe these things do not happen on a regular basis.

[spinner981]

Women need consent. Of course is the average woman going to overpower you and take you by force? Nope.

Doesn't matter. If consent is to be consistent then both the man and woman need similar or equal consent from the other party in any and all sexual encounters.

[hydrium]

Thus we see the fruits of sexual liberation and rampant feminism. Let's just outlaw sex completely and require state permission to copulate. That will remove any and all questions of rape or consensual.

[Garnier Fructis]

Doesn't matter. If consent is to be consistent then both the man and woman need similar or equal consent from the other party in any and all sexual encounters.

You'll be happy to know this is what we were taught at Title IX training.

[spinner981]

its a world wide life time statistic so 1/3 women experience direct violence some time in there life.

And what the heck does that mean? 'Direct violence'? So some dude on the street accidentally bumps into you once in a rush and now you are a part of this statistic or something?

Laws like this are intentionally written to be vague since very specific laws tend to have unintended consequences that aren't in the spirit of the law. Sure, it sucks. But what are we sacrificing as a society by implementing this? The tradition of drunken sex at college parties? Well, nothing of importance is lost, then.

Well, get rid of the society's obsession and addiction with both alcohol and sleeping around and you will solve a great many problems. But that isn't realistically going to happen.

[garr21]

Women need consent. Of course is the average woman going to overpower you and take you by force? Nope.

I like how you appeal to the "woman are weak" card, are they not strong independent who don't need no man? your argument is shit and runs agaisnt the strong women argument which is it? women are weak or women are strong?

Add to the fact that you try to imply they person you are arguging with is a rapist/women beater/insert boogieman here.

[Super Kami Dende]

We should strive for a society that has neither instead of being fine with one of them over the other.

Well no shit, I was being facetious towards his entirely hyperbolic statement.

[spinner981]

You'll be happy to know this is what we were taught at Title IX training.

Great, so then I still want to know who is raping who when two drunk people just start banging each other without 'consent' being given in a state of right mind.

[Tennis]

The guy just a few answers on top says that lack of physical violence doesn't mean it is not rape.

Can a woman threaten my life or well being? Sure.
Can a woman wield a weapon? Sure.

So instead of focusing on 99% of rapes you want to focus on the <1%?

[garr21]

So instead of focusing on 99% of rapes you want to focus on the <1%?

Does that make them less bad? Answer me that.

[Canpinter]

So instead of focusing on 99% of rapes you want to focus on the <1%?

again citation needed that women are only 1% of rapists

[spinner981]

So instead of focusing on 99% of rapes you want to focus on the <1%?

Reminds me of every argument that pro-choice advocates throw out. But that's a discussion for a different time.

Also, apparently about 6% of rapes are done by women, so this isn't quite such a drastic statistic. Furthermore, why are you trying to be so defensive in defending female rapists? (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...33178914,d.dmo)

[Garnier Fructis]

Well, get rid of the society's obsession and addiction with both alcohol and sleeping around and you will solve a great many problems. But that isn't realistically going to happen.

People can drink and people can bonk; nothing says those two have to happen together. By now most everyone is made aware of what can land them in hot water, so if they're intentionally skirting the edge because that's their image of what college life or the workplace should be, then they can get the book thrown at them.

[spinner981]

People can drink and people can bonk; nothing says those two have to happen together. By now most everyone is made aware of what can land them in hot water, so if they're intentionally skirting the edge because that's their image of what college life or the workplace should be, then they can get the book thrown at them.

What are you saying here? That if somebody has sex with somebody who is drunk, while drunk themselves, that they are to be convicted of rape because they should have known better before ingesting alcohol? At least in the case of drunk driving you give somebody your keys. What do you suggest for sex? Obligatory chastity belts that require keys to remove for all drinking outings?

[Endus]

So basically, if the 'complainant', who would be the person who is 'raped' if such a rape is alleged, is incapable of giving consent, induced by somebody to have sex (induce - to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind), expresses a lack of agreement to have sex through either words or conduct or later expresses such lack of agreement during the activity.

So first things first. What qualifies as being 'incapable of giving consent' which I assume refers to consent given 'by words or conduct'. If somebody is drunk but still physically capable of what would be qualified as giving consent? Is that still rape? If so, how drunk do they have to be? Do they have to have zero alcohol in their system in order to be capable of giving consent? Does the person's drunkenness have to be known to the alleged 'rapist' in order for the rapist to be convicted of rape, or is the alleged 'rapist' out of luck if the 'complainant' gives consent but had a shot of beer a couple hours earlier? Where do we draw the line here and what does it mean to be 'incapable of giving consent'? What if both parties involved are drunk and/or therefore unable to give consent for whatever reason?

Second, what qualifies as words or conduct that expresses consent? Once again, where do we draw the line and why? Demanding that we do not discuss the semantics here is basically demanding that we discuss nothing. You make accusations and complaints about what people say, you just outright say people are wrong or false, and whenever somebody demands you give reasoning for your words you complain and tell them you don't need to and that it is just up to the jury or is in the law somewhere or something.

See, this is the semantic nonsense that I meant.

It's written in fairly clear English. If you can't understand what's being said, that's your issue, not mine. Yes, a lot of this stuff is somewhat subjective, but again, this is why we have courts. And juries. That's literally their purpose; to figure out what the law means to a reasonable, average person, and make a decision based on that.

So you're saying that it is a good thing that a man can be convicted of rape with the presence of absolutely no evidence outside of a rape accusation?

Her testimony is evidence, so you can just drop that claim that there's "no evidence" right off.

[Mistame]

So instead of focusing on 99% of rapes you want to focus on the <1%?

Equality and fairness are binary. What does not apply to the goose does not apply to the gander. Sorry kiddo.

See, this is the semantic nonsense that I meant.

Her testimony is evidence, so you can just drop that claim that there's "no evidence" right off.

Mhm. Ok. How about concrete evidence. Her testimony is no more valid than his. Lack of objective deduction is a failure of justice.