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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Last edited by Ghost of Cow; 2022-08-18 at 03:20 PM.
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.
This shit isn't gendered, and you trying to do so says way more about your consideration of women than the law's.(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.)
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.
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.
Feel free to go over the law and point out to me where consent is only a matter for girls, then.It absolutely is, but nice try on the labels already.
I need specific citations. Because no, none of this shit is gendered. And you know it.
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.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.
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.
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 - - -
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 - - -
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 - - -
talk about moving goalposts lmao
- - - Updated - - -
people having superpowers isn't reality either lmao
- - - Updated - - -
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 - - -
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 - - -
people protesting about a weird make believe scenario when we're talking about a show where someone has fucking super powers. lmao
- - - Updated - - -
??????? 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
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.