BRex21 said:
Then why are we discussing it? I brought up a case in which a slutwalk took offence to what they saw as offensive when they couldn't even be bothered to read the actual case and find out what the little snippet of text they got was in context and decided to go march around downtown and break indecent exposure laws with impunity.
No, they probably read it. What you describe in that case is incredibly problematic, I honestly don't see why you can't see that. I just hope you never rape anyone, because I clearly couldn't trust you to know whether you were or not. :S
BRex21 said:
The problem with this is it is pretty much the definition of IMPLIED CONSENT, which you have so nicely pointed out IS ILLEGAL to be taken as a signal.
No, this isn't very difficult.
Consent is a purely internal process. If someone has sex without (consciously and with sufficient information to make the decision) wanting to do so, regardless of the specifics, they've been raped. If someone is stabbed to death they've been murdered, the court ruling does not determine whether a crime actually happened. I've seen people with direct eyewitness testimony get off rape charges, it's very easy to do, and it doesn't reflect (or rather shouldn't) whether the court considers that a crime has been committed.
The legal issue is that the police investigating and the court judging a rape case must prove that crime beyond reasonable doubt. That means that the court cannot convict someone unless there is fairly compelling evidence that they broke the law. The court does not see someone's internal thought process to determine whether consent happened, so they must determine from the specifics of the situation whether a crime took place.
As you've said, certain actions can be considered autonomic. They happen regardless of individual will. However, plenty of actions are not autonomic and a court can interpret them (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, it doesn't matter) as evidence of wilful participation, and thus as evidence of consent. Evidence is not the same thing as certainty, but it's likely to mean you don't get a conviction.
The legal grey area, and the only acceptable grey area, is that the court cannot determine whether a crime has been committed without evidence. There is a massive difference between this and reducing someone's sentence because the woman he raped made advances on him before the event, which is what you're describing.
danielns13 said:
Most actions during sex are actually our bodies autonomous reactions, and I notice you either have yet to, or cant think of anything concrete that wouldn't be.
Wow.. maybe you're doing something wrong, because you really shouldn't completely lose control of your body during sex.
Arousal responses are autonomic. That's pretty well established. Pain responses can be treated as reasonably autonomic and could theoretically be misinterpreted but.. generally not. Seriously, what else?
I suppose if you only mount your partners missionary style and expect them to lie completely passively still while you fuck them and stick your tongue down their throat. Yeah, in that case there might not be a great deal of observable autonomous action from your partner, and yes, because of that you really have to be careful. Certain things will inhibit your partners ability to give a response, that makes it your responsibility if you're going to do those things to make sure you are not violating their consent. That's not so difficult to grasp.
danielns13 said:
There simply is no way to draw a nice clear line as to what constitutes nonverbal consent.
I agree, but it still has to be done because the alternative is implied consent. Or would you rather go to prison because your partner had a completely unobservable feeling which you could not possibly have recognized?
BRex21 said:
If there can be no progression without expressed consent, than what you saw in the video I posted early was illegal. What he did was take things a step further and gauge her reaction. Which as you put it previously, is non-verbal consent because she was actively participating. BUT as you said earlier "Kissing someone or petting with them does not represent consent to any subsequent penetration." essentially you have said it is alright to use nonverbal consent provided you are already having sex. IE nonverbal consent is actively participating in a sex act rendering it completely invalid as the sex act would have to be going on before consent would be given.
On the video.. nope, you're not getting it. Consent is an entirely internal act of will. You can't commit rape if a person wants you to do something, the case will not even get to court. The only issue is when someone doesn't internally want something and you do it anyway. Consent is not an observable phenomena, your attempts to make it so will only result in potential abuse.
And yes, if your penis goes inside someone and they don't want it there, it's rape. It honestly does not matter what happened up until that point. There is a subtle distinction between reaction and consent, but generally speaking it's kind of clear-cut. You will not be convicted for it if you pull out immediately (unless the court can reasonably remove the possibility that your partner simply changed their mind at the point of penetration), and I'm happy to debate whether you should be convicted, but it should be pretty clear that you nonetheless violated consent, which is the definition of rape.
danielns13 said:
Are you doubting that "This is also a polite Canada where Manitoba Judge Robert Dewar can sentence a rapist to house arrest instead of prison, because of the way his female victim was dressed." fails to take into account that the woman suggested that a man come with her to go skinny dipping alone and then go back to her cabin to "party" arranged for transportation while teasing sex and making out? or that the sort of people who attend and support slutwalks would care?
I don't care.
I don't know how many times I have to say this. None of those things make a damn difference to the crime. If the crime can be proved, then sentence it properly. If the crime cannot be proved, then it cannot be proved. What you're describing is mitigation, which is not the same thing.
Mitigation implies that the crime is reasonably clear but was considered justified by the circumstances. That's a very different thing from there being doubt as to whether a crime was committed.
danielns13 said:
I never said it did, but I said that her intentions really couldn't have been more clear up until the point in which they got in the woods, I don't deny that she could have changed her mind once she got there but she admits herself, that she may have done nothing to communicate her discomfort and after.
And?
If there's doubt whether any crime happened, don't convict it. But if the guy raped her and that's reasonably clear, it doesn't matter what she consented to previously. How is this complicated?
danielns13 said:
The man was convicted on the basis that he didn't do enough to ensure there was still consent, but given the MASSIVE amount of signals she sent out, according to the court documents, including the old gem "i wonder what you will feel like inside me."
Again.. doubt, not mitigation.
If there's enough evidence to prove he raped her, why did he get a reduced sentence because she said some things earlier?
danielns13 said:
Im not sure why you threw the word hetero-normative in there, or why flirting, saying you want sex, taking someone back to your place and engaging in passionate kissing and petting is completely unrelated to sex, I would say there is a pretty strong correlation. Although this makes me question what homosexuals actually do in the steps up to sex.
I've bolded the enormous glaring justification for my use of the word.
danielns13 said:
Of course if she has freely given consent to perform sex acts and transports her partner somewhere with the expressed purpose of having sex with him, if even her friends who know her better than he did are willing to stand up and say she was putting out strong signals and sex was in the air, then there is pretty strong indication that she wants to have sex.
Irrelevant.
danielns13 said:
If someone goes into this situations being sure that someone gave consent, and this is backed up by everyone who witnessed it that said person gave consent
Your argument is horrible and irrelevant.
And we're surprised when married women can't secure convictions.
danielns13 said:
Its reasonable to assume that she did, after consent is freely and clearly given she has the right to retract it at any time, BUT and from the sounds of the court documents and even her final testimony she may have agreed to have sex, been unhappy during and only expressed this after. The problem here is that if he took her at her word, than its consensual sex, but if he read her mind, then its rape.
No, consent was not given. It has to be given at the time.. I can't go round my partners house and force her to have sex with me right now because she consented a week ago. Consent doesn't work like that.
If you don't believe a crime was committed, why did the court conclude it did and then mitigate it?
danielns13 said:
I don't think any country still uses reasonable doubt in rape cases, its all preponderance of evidence now or its sexual assault.
Sat through any recently?
It's a serious criminal prosecution. As I've said, I know of people who have been raped in front of eyewitnesses suffering permanent injury in the process and have not secured a conviction for it. In fact, the vast majority of rape convictions derive from confession.
danielns13 said:
There is a difference, but admitting you said you wanted sex, that you arranged transit to get your chosen partner alone and that you only protested to sex after it occurred kinda screams reasonable doubt.
Maybe.. so why convict the culprit of rape and then give him a lesser sentence because 'it's understandable'. If he demonstrably raped someone and the court felt comfortable in convicting him, then it's insulting to his victim and to anyone who has ever been in that position not to sentence accordingly.