Derrick Rose rape accusations raise issues of consent

[spinner981]

Show me some examples of unfair convictions like the one just described. It doesn't happen like that.

This isn't about actual convictions, it is about the nonsense definition of consent that people are trying to impose onto the masses. Stop presenting red herrings in order to dodge the questions.

Why limit yourself to one person for the rest of your life? That's boring.

Because life isn't just about sex. Sleeping around would be like reading a single chapter into a book and then just moving onto another one. It might not be 'boring' per say, but it isn't as satisfactory compared to a deep relationship rather than simple shallow hook ups.

[Theodarzna]

You should teach these athletes!

No sex before entering a long term committed polyamory relationship with your Justin Trudeau body pillow?

[Endus]

Here's the cup of tea vid they mentioned;

And that team animation is stupid. Real life doesn't work that way. All these rape cases have not been a case of a person banging once and then assuming they can bang whenever.

It's more like

- person offered tea.
- person accepts tea.
- person decides mid sip (or after they finish) that they actually didn't want tea
- it's still considered forcing tea in them.

I did t catch that scenario. Weird they left that one out. The one that is most common.

Because that isn't a scenario, because that's not "rape". Not unless you kept trying to have sex with them after they decided they didn't want to have sex with you any more. At which point, yeah, obviously rape.

This is beyond ridiculous.

If you are getting raped - you fight back. If you fight back - you get beaten up, tied up or someone pulls out a fucking gun and puts it to your head.
If a man, or a woman force another woman or a man to have sex with them using physical force, a weapon or smth like that - it is rape.
If a man, or a woman uses the uncontious body of another woman or aman - it is rape.

But if a person is awake, not fighting back, but just didn't "consent" - it is not.

Pretty much no developed nation in the world agrees with you. By your argument, if a guy tells a girl he'll beat her to death and throw her in the river if she fights him, so she lets him "have his way" with her, that's not "rape", because she didn't "fight back".

You won't find many people who'll agree with that.

[THE Bigzoman]

In my experience it's actually the girls who've come across sexually aggressive...

Humble brag

You don't fuck fat women, do you?

I have to do everything and anything. The last one was too lazy to do anything and just laid there.

- - - Updated - - -

This isn't about actual convictions, it is about the nonsense definition of consent that people are trying to impose onto the masses. Stop presenting red herrings in order to dodge the questions.



Because life isn't just about sex. Sleeping around would be like reading a single chapter into a book and then just moving onto another one. It might not be 'boring' per say, but it isn't as satisfactory compared to a deep relationship rather than simple shallow hook ups.

Why do hook-ups have to be shallow?

[PassingBy]

Pretty much no developed nation in the world agrees with you. By your argument, if a guy tells a girl he'll beat her to death and throw her in the river if she fights him, so she lets him "have his way" with her, that's not "rape", because she didn't "fight back".

You won't find many people who'll agree with that.

I haven't been raped, however I have been engaged in quite some street fights. Including the ones that left me with broken ribs and bones in my face.
I find it hard to imagine a person that will just say "ye do whatever you want to me - i'll just lay back and relax".

And in that theoretical case where a man threatens a woman without using force - is there a way to prove that he did?
She says - he threatened to throw me in the river.
He says - I just fucked her and she wanted it.

I don't see how the fuck could you know if there was any threatening involved or not. And in the developed nations in the world there is still such a thing as presumption of innocence? Or there isn't if rape is involved?

[Cannibalus]

Sorry my penis no ablo ingles.

[Endus]

I haven't been raped, however I have been engaged in quite some street fights. Including the ones that left me with broken ribs and bones in my face.
I find it hard to imagine a person that will just say "ye do whatever you want to me - i'll just lay back and relax".

And in that theoretical case where a man threatens a woman without using force - is there a way to prove that he did?
She says - he threatened to throw me in the river.
He says - I just fucked her and she wanted it.

I don't see how the fuck could you know if there was any threatening involved or not. And in the developed nations in the world there is still such a thing as presumption of innocence? Or there isn't if rape is involved?

The difficulty of proving it was rape does not make it not-rape. Nor does this have anything to do with the presumption of innocence. "Presumption of innocence" means you get a trial before you're convicted and sentenced, rather than having to sue for your release and having to prove your innocence to do so. It does not mean you're immune from having charges filed.

And her testimony, however much you might not like this, is "evidence". And it can be enough to convict, if yours is not consistent nor realistic.

[spinner981]

Because that isn't a scenario, because that's not "rape". Not unless you kept trying to have sex with them after they decided they didn't want to have sex with you any more. At which point, yeah, obviously rape.

Doesn't matter whether or not they were actually raped. The point is the instances where women later decide (whether it be 5 minutes later or 5 months later) that they didn't 'want' the sex. There is no way to prove in court whether or not consent was given (unless you literally have a recorded video, which is unlikely), yet it would then fall upon the male to prove that they had consent.

Pretty much no developed nation in the world agrees with you. By your argument, if a guy tells a girl he'll beat her to death and throw her in the river if she fights him, so she lets him "have his way" with her, that's not "rape", because she didn't "fight back".

You won't find many people who'll agree with that.

Yet you conveniently don't give a definition of 'consent'. So tell me; what is consent? Is it a particular question and particular answer only? "Would you like to have sex?" answered with "Yes, I would like to have sex." and nothing else? Would it be considered consent to just nod their head in answer? Would it be considered consent if they were the one that made advances and took off their clothing first?

You don't just get to go waltzing around whining about other people's definitions of consent when you yourself are not presenting one nor giving reasoning as to why yours would be correct. Pretty much ALL definitions of 'consent' could be abused to so called allow 'legal rape', which is why consent is such a hot button topic. But when you just nitpick other people's definitions without presenting your own you are just being unfair and dishonest.

Why do hook-ups have to be shallow?

Because compared to a long term relationship, on average, mere hook-ups are far and away more shallow. Most often they are conduits for sex, not a relationship of any kind.

[Asiwassaying]

Here's the cup of tea vid they mentioned;





Because that isn't a scenario, because that's not "rape". Not unless you kept trying to have sex with them after they decided they didn't want to have sex with you any more. At which point, yeah, obviously rape.

That tea video is shit.

And my point was that, yes my scenario is considered rape by many. And with affirmative consent, it is entirely possible for you to have "raped" someone because they decided after the fact that it was rape.

The scenarios in that video rarely happen. Which makes it funny they decided to include them like that is the norm of rape trials.

Yet for everyone who is acting like consent is so simple and clearly defined cannot give one example where imtjere is no doubt that it's consensual sex.

You could literally get permission from a girl to have sex. Have sex in the same boring position with nothing kinky. And if at any moment she decides that she doesn't want to have sex anymore, but never lets you know her mind changed , it's rape.

And to expect her to let the guy know is to victim blame.

[spinner981]

And her testimony, however much you might not like this, is "evidence". And it can be enough to convict, if yours is not consistent nor realistic.

And what would be deemed a testimony that is sufficient to convict a person of rape without the presence of any additional evidence whatsoever? What defensive testimony would be considered inconsistent or unrealistic?

[Nihilist74]

I don't know why anyone would wan to have sloppy seconds with a women unless you were bisexual. I read a story about slash and izzy stradlin doing the same thing when they were in guns n roses. You would think such prominent men could get a woman to themselves. Even if a woman or anyone else lets you put it in her and tells you to stop, you got to respect their wishes for whatever reason they would tell you to stop.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know why anyone would want to have sloppy seconds with a women unless you were bisexual. I read a story about slash and izzy stradlin doing the same thing when they were in guns n roses. You would think such prominent men could get a woman to themselves. Even if a woman or anyone else lets you put it in her and tells you to stop, you got to respect their wishes for whatever reason they would tell you to stop.

[PassingBy]

The difficulty of proving it was rape does not make it not-rape. Nor does this have anything to do with the presumption of innocence. "Presumption of innocence" means you get a trial before you're convicted and sentenced, rather than having to sue for your release and having to prove your innocence to do so. It does not mean you're immune from having charges filed.

And her testimony, however much you might not like this, is "evidence". And it can be enough to convict, if yours is not consistent nor realistic.

Correct me if I am wrong, but presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is on the side of the prosecution, and that it must prove beyond the reasonbable doubt that I am guilty.
And just the testimony of the victim can't be the reason for proving that someone is guilty.

Otherwise any consensual sex can be prosecuted as rape.

[Tennis]

You say that yet this video is one of the most popular videos regarding consent. Maybe it's you who is out of touch.

That tea video is shit.

And my point was that, yes my scenario is considered rape by many. And with affirmative consent, it is entirely possible for you to have "raped" someone because they decided after the fact that it was rape.

The scenarios in that video rarely happen. Which makes it funny they decided to include them like that is the norm of rape trials.

Yet for everyone who is acting like consent is so simple and clearly defined cannot give one example where imtjere is no doubt that it's consensual sex.

You could literally get permission from a girl to have sex. Have sex in the same boring position with nothing kinky. And if at any moment she decides that she doesn't want to have sex anymore, but never lets you know her mind changed , it's rape.

And to expect her to let the guy know is to victim blame.

[Mistame]

You say that yet almost all successful people are married.

They're married because they're successful.

You don't fuck fat women, do you?

No one should. It would improve the pool of prospective partners.

[jicka]

i always ask first because of stuff like this

[Asiwassaying]

You say that yet this video is one of the most popular videos regarding consent. Maybe it's you who is out of touch.

I'm not listening to you until you can give me a 100% sure fire way that defines consent.

You can't legislate what you can't define. So define it. Then people that don't initiate sex as laid out can officially be deemed rapists with no further argument.


The point me and others are trying to get across is that consent is subjective. So you can't punish people under the law for something that changes with each person and situation... Unless someone can tell me plain and simple what I gotta do to guarantee I never rape Someone.

[Mistame]

i always ask first because of stuff like this

Easier to just hire it out. Cash means yes.

[PassingBy]

i always ask first because of stuff like this

Well with the way it is playing out now - to be safe you'd better film the whole encounter, so that you have proof that she was into it.
Or get a written consent

[Endus]

Doesn't matter whether or not they were actually raped. The point is the instances where women later decide (whether it be 5 minutes later or 5 months later) that they didn't 'want' the sex. There is no way to prove in court whether or not consent was given (unless you literally have a recorded video, which is unlikely), yet it would then fall upon the male to prove that they had consent.

This basically does not happen. I've never heard of a case like that going to court.

Yet you conveniently don't give a definition of 'consent'. So tell me; what is consent?

I'm not playing the semantics game with you. Consent is defined under legal codes. Pick a jurisdiction.

Canadian law, for instance, defines it here; http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...4.html#docCont

And what would be deemed a testimony that is sufficient to convict a person of rape without the presence of any additional evidence whatsoever? What defensive testimony would be considered inconsistent or unrealistic?

Ask a jury. That's their role; to decide whether the testimony by the victim is sufficient, and the testimony of the accused is lacking enough, to make them certain of his guilt to the standard of evidence required.

There is no objective measure of this, because if there were we wouldn't need courts. We'd just tally up the facts, and that would either convict or not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is on the side of the prosecution, and that it must prove beyond the reasonbable doubt that I am guilty.
And just the testimony of the victim can't be the reason for proving that someone is guilty.

That last sentence is simply false. It absolutely can be.

It often isn't enough, because if both stories are reasonable, there's no way to be certain who's "right", but if only her story makes any sense, it's absolutely enough to bring about a conviction.

[Mistame]

Well with the way it is playing out now - to be safe you'd better film the whole encounter, so that you have proof that she was into it.
Or get a written consent

And then post it online. Win/win... win.