The Boys

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

gotcha,so not being able to read minds is rape,interesting

No, you don't have to be able to read minds... you just can't use "She didn't say no" as a defense for raping someone.

[deenman]

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".

yes,the person being afraid of me and saying YES,when they think no,isnt coercion on my part,i didnt use threats or violence etc,i guess she could be suffering from mental illness,in that case yeah,it could be rape legaly if shes so mentaly disabled,but that kinda sucks for me if i didnt know it before hand,oh well...we all know the law isnt always fair and just

[jonnysensible]

anime avatar

[Endus]

was it not obvious?do you think homelander just droped his pants and she got in position without saying anything? ofc she gave some form of verbal/physical consent,its not his fault shes afraid of him and wouldnt say no

Yeah, you're not describing consent at all. And yes, it is entirely his fault, and he's abusing the situation, to rape her. That's literally what's happening. And why she described it as "rape". Welcome to how consent works basically everywhere.

[deenman]

No, you don't have to be able to read minds... you just can't use "She didn't say no" as a defense for raping someone.

my point is,she said yes,but in her head she didnt want it,thats my fault somehow

[Endus]

my point is,she said yes,but in her head she didnt want it,thats my fault somehow

Yes.

I feel like you thought that was a criticism, but that's literally how consent actually works.

[deenman]

Yes.

I feel like you thought that was a criticism, but that's literally how consent actually works.

i actualy think you didnt understand what im saying here,or you have some serious mental issues

again,you saying one thing,and doing it,but THINKING something else...is MY fault?dude...get professional help holy shit

[eschatological]

hiting on someone,and them having sex with you out of fear,is not coercion,mister ''lawyer'',for something to be coercion,you would have to...persuade them by using force or threats

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

[deenman]

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

yes,every person who cant read minds is a rapist by default,good going champ,its a real shock to find out iv comited proly thausands of rapes by now,holy shit,the justice system isnt doing its job at all letting a monster like me run rampant

[eschatological]

yes,every person who cant read minds is a rapist by default,good going champ

I honestly am imploring you to not take this definition into real life. Your understanding of legality of sexual encounters is very warped and...well, frankly, morally abhorrent.

Regardless, Becca was raped by Homelander. Her going into his office when he literally has the power to kill her instantly when she's afraid of him is rape in any jurisdiction in the civilized world. She said it, to Butcher, and your "interpretation of what happened ont he video tape" doesn't change that. Only in regressive theocratic regimes is that not rape.

[deenman]

I honestly am imploring you to not take this definition into real life. Your understanding of legality of sexual encounters is very warped and...well, frankly, morally abhorrent.

Regardless, Becca was raped by Homelander. Her going into his office when he literally has the power to kill her instantly when she's afraid of him is rape in any jurisdiction in the civilized world. She said it, to Butcher, and your "interpretation of what happened ont he video tape" doesn't change that. Only in regressive theocratic regimes is that not rape.

so i asume you also think that a cop having sex with a non cop is also always rape?

[eschatological]

Getting into the weeds about your bizarre views on rape is fairly off-topic, since the question in this series was: Was Becca raped? Which was definitively answered: yes.

And then you tried to defend Homelander in that rape. Which is partially a result of your warped view of consent, but in terms of the media itself, holds no basis.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the discussion. Homelander raped Becca. My original point that Butcher can, narratively, hate Ryan because he the product of said rape still stands. That he doesn't is a narrative choice by the writers, and the whole idea of them trying to toe the line is narratively undermined by Butcher's actions in the finale.

[Endus]

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the discussion. Homelander raped Becca. My original point that Butcher can, narratively, hate Ryan because he the product of said rape still stands. That he doesn't is a narrative choice by the writers, and the whole idea of them trying to toe the line is narratively undermined by Butcher's actions in the finale.

I mean, I think it's pretty clear Butcher does hate Ryan, not for Ryan himself but for what Ryan continually reminds him of. He tries to be there despite his hatred out of love for his dead wife, but he's clearly unhappy when he's around Ryan and forcing himself to be there, IMO. He's trying to do the right thing, and it's noble, but if he could go back in time and have Ryan never exist, I 100% believe he'd take that option in a split fucking second, especially since his wife would probably be alive. Trying to be a dad to Ryan is for Becca, not for Ryan.

It's not the same white-hot hate he has for Homelander. It's a twisting of his guts he makes himself put up with out of love. But I wouldn't say Butcher loves Ryan.

[deenman]

Getting into the weeds about your bizarre views on rape is fairly off-topic, since the question in this series was: Was Becca raped? Which was definitively answered: yes.

And then you tried to defend Homelander in that rape. Which is partially a result of your warped view of consent, but in terms of the media itself, holds no basis.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the discussion. Homelander raped Becca. My original point that Butcher can, narratively, hate Ryan because he the product of said rape still stands. That he doesn't is a narrative choice by the writers, and the whole idea of them trying to toe the line is narratively undermined by Butcher's actions in the finale.

im not defending homelander lol,im just saying if a person gives consent verbal or otherwise,but is SECRETLY thinking no,that is not on the other person,how is this controversial? this not only cant have any legal basis,but it cant posibly even have a moral basis

[eschatological]

im not defending homelander lol,im just saying if a person gives consent verbal or otherwise,but is SECRETLY thinking no,that is not on the other person,how is this controversial? this not only cant have any legal basis,but it cant posibly even have a moral basis

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.

[deenman]

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.

its like you are not reading what i said,i said...when consent is given,but the person is thinking different,that has ZERO legal basis,i can tell you as a non lawyer for sure

im not talking about the homelander thing at this point

[Biomega]

its like you are not reading what i said,i said...when consent is given,but the person is thinking different,that has ZERO legal basis,i can tell you as a non lawyer for sure

im not talking about the homelander thing at this point

"I'm not a lawyer but I KNOW that if I just bully someone hard enough into saying 'yes' when I demand sex, that isn't rape! How was I to know they didn't mean yes, they SAID it, after all! IT'S SO OBVIOUS, GEEZ, who the fuck needs a law degree".

Literally you.

[deenman]

"I'm not a lawyer but I KNOW that if I just bully someone hard enough into saying 'yes' when I demand sex, that isn't rape! How was I to know they didn't mean yes, they SAID it, after all! IT'S SO OBVIOUS, GEEZ, who the fuck needs a law degree".

Literally you.

I remember ''bullying'' girls in grade school,it actualy got me pretty lucky with the ladies

[Endus]

its like you are not reading what i said,i said...when consent is given,but the person is thinking different,that has ZERO legal basis,i can tell you as a non lawyer for sure

im not talking about the homelander thing at this point

Let's check Canadian federal law about this; https://www.leaf.ca/news/the-law-of-...exual-assault/

Silence or passivity does not equal consent.

The Criminal Code also says there is no consent when:


* the consent is a result of a someone abusing a position of trust, power or authority

A person cannot say they mistakenly believed a person was consenting if:

* they were reckless about whether the person was consenting or;
* they chose to ignore things that would tell them there was a lack of consent; or
* they didn’t take proper steps to check if there was consent.

The responsibility for ensuring there is consent is on the person who is initiating or pursuing the sexual activity.

You're completely wrong about how the law works. Affirmative consent is required, and it's on you to ensure that the consent is honestly and freely given, if you're the one initiating.

What you keep describing is, literally, rape. The difference between what you're describing and a guy holding a knife on a jogger as he drags her into the bushes is basically that the knife guy will also face weapons and assault charges on top of the rape charges.

[deenman]

Let's check Canadian federal law about this; https://www.leaf.ca/news/the-law-of-...exual-assault/

Silence or passivity does not equal consent.

The Criminal Code also says there is no consent when:


* the consent is a result of a someone abusing a position of trust, power or authority

A person cannot say they mistakenly believed a person was consenting if:

* they were reckless about whether the person was consenting or;
* they chose to ignore things that would tell them there was a lack of consent; or
* they didn’t take proper steps to check if there was consent.

The responsibility for ensuring there is consent is on the person who is initiating or pursuing the sexual activity.

You're completely wrong about how the law works. Affirmative consent is required, and it's on you to ensure that the consent is honestly and freely given, if you're the one initiating.

What you keep describing is, literally, rape. The difference between what you're describing and a guy holding a knife on a jogger as he drags her into the bushes is basically that the knife guy will also face weapons and assault charges on top of the rape charges.

are you a bot? i specificaly said,yes affirmitive consent,but thinking otherwise,that has no legal basis and trying to compare it to actual physical threats is seriously making me question your mental sanity