Once again the innocent man gets shamed.
Discussion
cookie118 said:
Seems a bit 'victim blaming' to say the girls should be educated too-they're not withdrawing consent at all, they're saying that they were never in a state to consent.
People need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
I agree.People need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
defblade said:
(I know, technically/legally, girls cannot perform rape due to lack of a penis, but you know what I mean)
Not sure on that one. A woman can rape a man. My wife and I once argued this. In the end I told her to try and get me aroused even though I didn't want to. Surface to say I proved my point even though I tried my hardest (pardon the pun) that I couldn't remain floppy even if I tried with the right persuasion. He was named without being charged. I'm not sure about the public interest there from the media.
Consent cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.
People can still be drunk and consent.
Not sure if you're being serious, but given the lack of emoticons I'll assume so.
Rape requires a penis in law. A woman can be guilty of the inchoate offences i.e. assisting, conspiring etc, but not of the direct act herself.
Consent cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.
People can still be drunk and consent.
Markbarry1977 said:
defblade said:
(I know, technically/legally, girls cannot perform rape due to lack of a penis, but you know what I mean)
Not sure on that one. A woman can rape a man. My wife and I once argued this. In the end I told her to try and get me aroused even though I didn't want to. Surface to say I proved my point even though I tried my hardest (pardon the pun) that I couldn't remain floppy even if I tried with the right persuasion. Rape requires a penis in law. A woman can be guilty of the inchoate offences i.e. assisting, conspiring etc, but not of the direct act herself.
La Liga said:
He was named without being charged. I'm not sure about the public interest there from the media.
Consent cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.
People can still be drunk and consent.
Not sure if you're being serious, but given the lack of emoticons I'll assume so.
Rape requires a penis in law. A woman can be guilty of the inchoate offences i.e. assisting, conspiring etc, but not of the direct act herself.
Apologies I stand corrected after a little research. Seems barmy to me though. Consent cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.
People can still be drunk and consent.
Markbarry1977 said:
defblade said:
(I know, technically/legally, girls cannot perform rape due to lack of a penis, but you know what I mean)
Not sure on that one. A woman can rape a man. My wife and I once argued this. In the end I told her to try and get me aroused even though I didn't want to. Surface to say I proved my point even though I tried my hardest (pardon the pun) that I couldn't remain floppy even if I tried with the right persuasion. Rape requires a penis in law. A woman can be guilty of the inchoate offences i.e. assisting, conspiring etc, but not of the direct act herself.
La Liga said:
He was named without being charged. I'm not sure about the public interest there from the media.
Consent cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.
People can still be drunk and consent.
Not sure if you're being serious, but given the lack of emoticons I'll assume so.
Rape requires a penis in law. A woman can be guilty of the inchoate offences i.e. assisting, conspiring etc, but not of the direct act herself.
Apologies I stand corrected after a little research. Seems barmy to me though. Consent cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.
People can still be drunk and consent.
Markbarry1977 said:
defblade said:
(I know, technically/legally, girls cannot perform rape due to lack of a penis, but you know what I mean)
Not sure on that one. A woman can rape a man. My wife and I once argued this. In the end I told her to try and get me aroused even though I didn't want to. Surface to say I proved my point even though I tried my hardest (pardon the pun) that I couldn't remain floppy even if I tried with the right persuasion. Rape requires a penis in law. A woman can be guilty of the inchoate offences i.e. assisting, conspiring etc, but not of the direct act herself.
cookie118 said:
Seems a bit 'victim blaming' to say the girls should be educated too-they're not withdrawing consent at all, they're saying that they were never in a state to consent.
People need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
Indeed.People need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
cookie118 said:
Seems a bit 'victim blaming' to say the girls should be educated too-they're not withdrawing consent at all, they're saying that they were never in a state to consent.
People need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
I think the point is that its 'too easy' for a woman to give consent at the time, or appear to give consent, behind closed doors, and then claim next morning that she was raped. It becomes one persons word against another and who will ever know who is right? The evidence will be there they had sex, so he cant deny that point. All the court can decide is if the woman is too drunk to consent, and then how do you define that? There will be no breathalyzer reading like you have for a drink driving conviction.People need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
Call me 'victim blaming' if you like, but as a 28 year old who regularly sees the state young women (and young men) get into, I really struggle with the concept of 'too drunk to give consent', especially after living with female students for 4 years and hearing the stories of the men they've gone home with after a night out. Most of the time they're not proud of it, but will freely admit to consenting at the time, it wouldnt take much for one of them to cry rape and potentially ruin someone's life.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff