The Boys

[The Oblivion]

Not just anime, some psychopath yandere girl as well.

- - - Updated - - -



There is really no reason to consider his dumb point cause it's fucking dumb though.

yep, lol just trying to stop the pointless back and forth. his point is dumb and arguing it is dumb, because in his impossible scenario he is right so he will keep arguing the semantics.

[Nymrohd]

yep, lol just trying to stop the pointless back and forth. his point is dumb and arguing it is dumb, because in his impossible scenario he is right so he will keep arguing the semantics.

Oh honey, is this your first time on the internet? You ain't stopping it

[deenman]

Not just anime, some psychopath yandere girl as well.

how dare you slander her good name sir...how dare you

[Nymrohd]

how dare you slander her good name sir...how dare you

Her good name???

[Ghost of Cow]

Someone having sex with you because they fear you is rape by coercion. Period.

This is a really oddly broad definition, though.

Obviously there's room for laws regarding coercion and abuse of power, but simply saying, "Well the other party took no action, made no threats, and was not in a position of power or authority over me, but I just felt in my mind that I had to consent." is pretty shaky ground.

[eschatological]

This is a really oddly broad definition, though.

Obviously there's room for laws regarding coercion and abuse of power, but simply saying, "Well the other party took no action, made no threats, and was not in a position of power or authority over me, but I just felt in my mind that I had to consent." is pretty shaky ground.

You could argue that in court. It might work, because our legal system tends to favor men over women, but it's not the law.

[Ghost of Cow]

You could argue that in court. It might work, because our legal system tends to favor men over women, but it's not the law.

Big yikes on the favoring comment.

But is that really your argument? That if someone makes no threats, takes no hostile action, and is not in a position of power or authority over another party - and that party in sound mind consents - that other party can simply say, "Well, but I still really didn't want to." and that would be enough for you to convict?

[Soikona]

I am telling you, as a lawyer of 13 years, that it does indeed having a legal basis. Consent which isn't freely given is literally the definition of coercion. In situations with wildly differing levels of power and authority (like a cop with a stranger they d on't know, or fucking HOMELANDER), a clear, affirmative consent is required, which can be revoked at any point in the encounter. Consent is an affirmative requirement, not a passive or assumed one. Furthermore, there's not even an indication that Becca gave affirmative, verbal consent, just that she went into Homelander's office seemingly of her own volition....which is not consent for sex. That should be blatantly obvious.

When you then consider the fact that 1) SHE SAID HE RAPED HER, 2) she immediately had a meltdown and went to an "authority" that could help her deal with the rape and escape Homelander, 3) she's still terrified of Homelander years later, and 4) Homelander is a known psychopath....well, if it quacks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

Just for your first point, A friend of mine was accused of rape, thankfully he had an alibi and it was dropped. However, she did rape him. By having had evidence in the case of a recording of him saying no, the police still did not proceed.

People like this, sadly, make your first point moot.

Also, you can be a 13 year experienced lawyer and still be a shitty lawyer. Experience doesn’t equal quality.

[Endus]

Big yikes on the favoring comment.

But is that really your argument? That if someone makes no threats, takes no hostile action, and is not in a position of power or authority over another party - and that party in sound mind consents - that other party can simply say, "Well, but I still really didn't want to." and that would be enough for you to convict?

Like I cited above, under Canadian law, the onus is on the person initiating to verify there is open and freely-given consent. If you recklessly or willfully ignore the context of a "yes" and how it may be coerced, that's rape. Implicit threats, for instance, are dead simple, and could be as basic as you being a big guy, in a bar/party with a lot of friends, and the girl you single out is alone and feeling scared. Yeah, you're supposed to figure out she's uncomfortable and not abuse the situation.

[eschatological]

Just for your first point, A friend of mine was accused of rape, thankfully he had an alibi and it was dropped. However, she did rape him. By having had evidence in the case of a recording of him saying no, the police still did not proceed.

People like this, sadly, make your first point moot.

Also, you can be a 13 year experienced lawyer and still be a shitty lawyer. Experience doesn’t equal quality.

False reports of rape make up less than 5% of rape reports, and legitimate rape is already severely underreported. This isn't a problem that warrants making points "moot."

It is, however, a point that rape apologists make.

FWIW, I was a criminal defense lawyer. I have defended people who've been charged with sexual assault, and I never came across a case in my 5 years in that job as a public defender where the defendant couldn't have known consent wasn't given.

[Ghost of Cow]

Like I cited above, under Canadian law, the onus is on the person initiating to verify there is open and freely-given consent. If you recklessly or willfully ignore the context of a "yes" and how it may be coerced, that's rape. Implicit threats, for instance, are dead simple, and could be as basic as you being a big guy, in a bar/party with a lot of friends, and the girl you single out is alone and feeling scared. Yeah, you're supposed to figure out she's uncomfortable and not abuse the situation.

Yeah, but that's...REALLY fucking shaky legal ground.

I'm sorry, but there's no way if I'm on a jury I'm voting to convict someone of rape if they didn't threaten someone, didn't attack them, wasn't in a position of any power or authority, behaved normally, got an affirmative consent, and then later gets hauled into jail because, "I was secretly scared, officer."

Edit: And yes, I fully agree that there needs to be protections in place for all the various situations where someone might consent but reasonably feels forced or coerced. I just don't think the threshold for that can be something like, "He was just so tall."

At some point that simply becomes the individual making a bad decision and regretting it. Every single sexual encounter that a woman feels was a mistake or undesirable in the morning isn't a rape.

(And at some point there needs to be a discussion about the intersection of this concept and the infantilization of women and removal of agency, but I guess we're already beyond the scope of this thread.)

[Endus]

Yeah, but that's...REALLY fucking shaky legal ground.

That's a matter for the courts and the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

But at that point, we're discussing whether you can escape conviction for the rape you literally committed, not whether you raped someone in the first place. That's a different question.

(And at some point there needs to be a discussion about the intersection of this concept and the infantilization of women and removal of agency, but I guess we're already beyond the scope of this thread.)

This shit isn't gendered, and you trying to do so says way more about your consideration of women than the law's.

[Ghost of Cow]

Nevermind. I forgot who I was talking to.

You dodged the topic and went right into the labels as usual, so we're done here.

[Endus]

What? So your assertion is that any given defendant did, in fact, rape someone regardless of the legal findings?

I mean, you'll say no, but that's literally what you just said. Because this is always what you do. Lead with something insane and then backpedal.

It's literally not what I said. I described the law in Canada, you said "that's really shaky legal ground", and I presumed what you meant was "shaky" was the difficulty in establishing how reckless or willfully you disregarded whether your partner was consenting. And as I said, that difficulty is a matter for the courts and the legal standards of evidence. It's entirely possible you might have recklessly ignored her feelings and pushed her into sex, but they can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And my point was that this situation is a rapist getting away with their crime, not the courts clearing your name and approving your actions.

I really don't think I was unclear.

It absolutely is, but nice try on the labels already.

Feel free to go over the law and point out to me where consent is only a matter for girls, then.

I need specific citations. Because no, none of this shit is gendered. And you know it.

I don't know why I even try engaging in any thread where you post, it's a one-way ticket to being accused of something within 3 posts.

Tons of people engage with me in threads and don't get things pulled out of their posts that demonstrate problematic viewpoints. Maybe take a little personal responsibility for the things you said, rather than blaming me for noticing them.

[Delever]

You could argue that in court. It might work, because our legal system tends to favor men over women, but it's not the law.

Of all the things that men enjoy privileges of over women, being favored in court is certainly not one of them. At least not for the average middle class men.

Edit: to the guy above trying to argue with Endus.... LMAO I commend you on your patience. At least he aint a mod anymore to throw infractions around for people that disagree with him.

[Nymrohd]

Yeah, but that's...REALLY fucking shaky legal ground.

I'm sorry, but there's no way if I'm on a jury I'm voting to convict someone of rape if they didn't threaten someone, didn't attack them, wasn't in a position of any power or authority, behaved normally, got an affirmative consent, and then later gets hauled into jail because, "I was secretly scared, officer."

Edit: And yes, I fully agree that there needs to be protections in place for all the various situations where someone might consent but reasonably feels forced or coerced. I just don't think the threshold for that can be something like, "He was just so tall."

At some point that simply becomes the individual making a bad decision and regretting it. Every single sexual encounter that a woman feels was a mistake or undesirable in the morning isn't a rape.

(And at some point there needs to be a discussion about the intersection of this concept and the infantilization of women and removal of agency, but I guess we're already beyond the scope of this thread.)

Homelander is ALWAYS in a position of power.

[Ghost of Cow]

Homelander is ALWAYS in a position of power.

You're absolutely right, and I apologize for being a part of dragging the thread off into an off topic discussion.

[TrollHunter3000]

That's rape. If you say yes because you feel the alternative is getting killed, that's rape. You cannot consent under duress.

I mean if they actually threaten, or even imply that, sure. And seeing as how super humans don't exist, hard to really know how people would feel in that situation. I don't think there's any reason she thought he was dangerous at the time unless he acted deranged or something in private during their encounter.

- - - Updated - - -

Still doesn't make it less rape

So if a girl has sex with a guy then after she says it was just because she was worried he was going to pull out a gun and shoot her (even without ever threatening so) the it was rape?

- - - Updated - - -

Literally describing rape. And yes; you'd get charged in that kind of a circumstance; the only question at that point is evidence to prove the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Like any crime, so that's not a unique factor here. Let's say the girl you're intimidating is panickedly texting her friend about how scared she is and then she leaves with you, that'd be enough to make the case.

The only consent is affirmative consent. A girl passively letting it happen without resistance is literally what rape can look like.

That's dumb as fuck. How is someone supposed to know they're secretly afraid of you if you aren't doing anything to make them afraid of you?

- - - Updated - - -

Because expressing an explicit lack of consent is not the requirement. Active, affirmative consent is required. This is why if you rape an unconscious girl, even though she didn't fight back and never told you "no", it's still frickin' rape. This isn't complicated and it's frankly kind of horrifying you don't understand this.

talk about moving goalposts lmao

- - - Updated - - -

Oh fuck you.

You're literally constructing a situation in which NOTHING EVER HAPPENED on your side that you could POSSIBLY consider intimidating or coercive, yet SOMEHOW the other person felt so terrified they agreed to your demand for sex out of fear.

THAT'S NOT REALITY.

Stop trying to pretend that people who coerce others into sex just "couldn't read their mind".

people having superpowers isn't reality either lmao

- - - Updated - - -

Not getting open and honest active consent is rape. There's no need to be able to "read minds". Just stop forcing women into sex. It's real fuckin' easy. If you want to know if she consents, back off and ask her nicely, letting her know she can bail if she wants. It's not that frickin' hard.

wtf? no lmao you make a girl say yes with every thrust of your dick or something? otherwise you're a hypocrite with that logic.

- - - Updated - - -

I am telling you, as a lawyer of 13 years, that it does indeed having a legal basis. Consent which isn't freely given is literally the definition of coercion. In situations with wildly differing levels of power and authority (like a cop with a stranger they d on't know, or fucking HOMELANDER), a clear, affirmative consent is required, which can be revoked at any point in the encounter. Consent is an affirmative requirement, not a passive or assumed one. Furthermore, there's not even an indication that Becca gave affirmative, verbal consent, just that she went into Homelander's office seemingly of her own volition....which is not consent for sex. That should be blatantly obvious.

When you then consider the fact that 1) SHE SAID HE RAPED HER, 2) she immediately had a meltdown and went to an "authority" that could help her deal with the rape and escape Homelander, 3) she's still terrified of Homelander years later, and 4) Homelander is a known psychopath....well, if it quacks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

How is someone like homelander ever supposed to know if anyone's active affirmative consent is real then? Literally anyone could always just claim they were worried he would melt their eyeballs out.

- - - Updated - - -

you are missing his dumb point. he is making a magical scenario where person 1 is sitting at a bar, person 2 comes and sits next to them, person 1 says "wanna go have sex?", person 2 says yes, but in their had doesnt want to. they show this outwardly in no way what so ever.

in his weird make believe scenario nothing else took place and person 2 said yes for some unknown reason and proceeds to have sex even though in their head, they are thinking i don't wanna have sex. its a dumb scenario but if it ever did happen, and we have some sort of clairvoyant technology to show person 1 did nothing other then ask "wanna have sex", they would not be found to be a rapist.

people protesting about a weird make believe scenario when we're talking about a show where someone has fucking super powers. lmao

- - - Updated - - -

That's a matter for the courts and the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

But at that point, we're discussing whether you can escape conviction for the rape you literally committed

??????? what? ??? you say it's for the courts to decide then say they literally committed rape lmao you have no idea what you're talking about

[eschatological]

How is someone like homelander ever supposed to know if anyone's active affirmative consent is real then? Literally anyone could always just claim they were worried he would melt their eyeballs out.

With open, honest communication? Have you ever been in an adult relationship where one partner was more successful or powerful? It requires a lot on the part of the more powerful partner to ensure their partner feels happy and safe. That's the basis of a healthy relationship in any relationship, but is even more important in one where the partners have different levels of power and authority and success.

The whole point is Homelander is none of these things. He takes what he wants, because he can. He is the definition of a rapist in this case. This doesn't mean someone of Homelander's power level can never be in a good relationship.

[TrollHunter3000]

Homelander is ALWAYS in a position of power.

This is kind of why I have some empathy for like A list celebrities. I feel like they can never really know who is actually interested in them or not.

Well, they can know who isn't in some cases for sure. Just not so much know who is genuinely interested.