Under what context was non-consensual sex legal?
Imagine a girl is drunk, but not so drunk she's passing out. A guy gets her alone, and then tries to take her clothes off. She tries to stop him, he pushes her hands away and continues. Too afraid to fight back, she lets it happen.
She's clearly not consenting. There was no violence, no threat of violence, and a court may not see that as exploiting a vulnerability, and thus not consider that rape, going by the old law. So a lot of date rape type situations, basically. That's what this change corrects for.
Consent is absolutely a binary concept. Either there is consent, or there is not. That's not a "false dichotomy", at all. There is no such thing as "half-consent". It's either consent, or not, and there is no in between.
Over philosophising is exactly what is being done. But I think more to the point, many Feminist activists merely want to have all sex be in theory rape. The point being that any woman can dispose of any man the minute she feels the need to and will have the legal and social tools to accomplish this.
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
One case that comes to mind is a gang rape where everyone was acquitted and the judge said she might have very well said no but that doesn't make it rape. They locked the door to the room and took her clothes as well and she didn't dare fighting back because they were 8 and she was alone. Didn't meet the prerequisites for violence(Because she didn't fight back and thus necessitating the use of violence on their part to do it.), threat of violence or abusing a vulnerable situation, so no possibility to convict them.
Last edited by Player Twelve; 2018-03-20 at 06:02 PM.
I'm kinda confused. So rape implies that there was violence, threat of violence, or the victim was in a vulnerable state right? How else would you have non-consensual sex without at least one of those 3 things?
Like if a guy is trying to have sex with you and you say no, then wouldn't the only way he could then proceed would be to get violent or threaten it (with the threat being physical or verbal)?
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi