I don't understand the "Slutwalk"

[Superbeast]

I was under the impression that, in the case BRex21 is discussing, the woman was "provocatively dressed" at a party she had gone to with friends, and flirted with this man. When the subject of skinny-dipping arose, it was not alone, but this girl, her two friends, the man, and his two friends. He wanted to take it further, she said "no" and left, and then was chased down and forced to the floor, before raping her.

That's what came out of the media coverage at the time (as I recall from the large thread on the Escapist covering the incident). It is also in the category of date-rape, if my definitions are correct, which isn't quite what is being discussed here. In this case, and the judge's ruling, it was the alcohol that led to the rape, not the clothing - had the man not been drunk, and thus not been "confused" about the signals (apparently getting a kiss, but being told "no" are in the same category in terms of consent) then the rape would not have occurred - even if the woman was wearing identical clothing.

Thus, again we have another rape case where the "provocativeness" of the clothing has sod-all to do with the woman being raped, but rather being unfortunate enough to flirt with someone extremely pissed and wouldn't take "no" for an answer in the heat of the moment.

If you couldn't guess, I highly disagree with that ruling!

 

[BRex21]

I was under the impression that, in the case BRex21 is discussing, the woman was "provocatively dressed" at a party she had gone to with friends, and flirted with this man. When the subject of skinny-dipping arose, it was not alone, but this girl, her two friends, the man, and his two friends. He wanted to take it further, she said "no" and left, and then was chased down and forced to the floor, before raping her.

There were two ways the story was reported, either that he was a viscous rapist or he was convicted with no evidence, but the facts that weren't disputed by the prosecution they were not alone when she approached him but, she brought up the subject of skinny-dipping, she said she wanted to get him alone and party, she provided a designated driver to take her and the two men out into the middle of nowhere at which point they exited the car alone walking hand in hand and at the point where there were no witnesses and it was he said she said. Walking down the street flashing your genitals at passers by is not going to do anything to change societies views on cases like this.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.267274-Poll-Is-it-rape-if-the-victim-is-dressed-promiscuously-Manitoba-judge-says-no This is the only thread about it on the escapist i saw, and they even got the title wrong (the judge said yes and convicted the man), and peoples protests on this matter have largely been based on ignorance, But if you care about the facts in this case, the transcript of the sentence is here http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/50396234. I question if you disagree with the ruling on the basis that you don't know what it is.

 

[Pierce Graham]

You just said I objectify women, after saying you didn't say that. Your post is very confusing.

 

[Superbeast]

There were two ways the story was reported, either that he was a viscous rapist or he was convicted with no evidence, but the facts that weren't disputed by the prosecution they were not alone when she approached him but, she brought up the subject of skinny-dipping, she said she wanted to get him alone and party, she provided a designated driver to take her and the two men out into the middle of nowhere at which point they exited the car alone walking hand in hand and at the point where there were no witnesses and it was he said she said. Walking down the street flashing your genitals at passers by is not going to do anything to change societies views on cases like this.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.267274-Poll-Is-it-rape-if-the-victim-is-dressed-promiscuously-Manitoba-judge-says-no This is the only thread about it on the escapist i saw, and they even got the title wrong (the judge said yes and convicted the man), and peoples protests on this matter have largely been based on ignorance, But if you care about the facts in this case, the transcript of the sentence is here http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/50396234. I question if you disagree with the ruling on the basis that you don't know what it is.

Well, when I contributed (or at least read, I can't remember) to that thread, the woman's story was the only media release there was - and across quite a few at that.

The reason I disagreed with the ruling was that, according to the thread (I will read the transcript at a later point for the full story), the judge reduced the man's sentence because 1) clothing/flirting and 2) he was drunk, thus it wasn't really his fault - both of which I view as complete and utter bullshit, speaking as a man.

As I said (and thank you for not throwing a fit over what I posted - I realise now it could be read as quite abrasive), this is based on what was released to the media and discussed in the older Escapist thread.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You can easily infer from her reaction that she wants sex, but at no point in time does she give any form of consent.

Verbal consent.

We're getting into complicated specifics now, but basically here's the deal. Consent must be actively given throughout any act in order to be effective. A person does not have to say 'no' to deny consent, a person does not even have to struggle to deny consent. Since many cases of rape involve coercion and the threat of violence, passivity on the part of the victim cannot be read as consent. In a few cases it has, generally as the result of stupid legal decisions in places which probably still have sodomy laws, but that's a legal abberation. Consent is never assumed.

If you have sex with someone, it is your responsibility to confirm their consent. This means that if they stop moving, go limp, pass out or just don't react, you need to think very carefully before you continue to have sex with them. It doesn't matter if you were having penetrative sex at the time or if everything up to that point suggested to you that the person wanted to have sex because that's not how consent works. You are required legally to secure consent. It's not a flexible concept, in legal terms it's absolute and it ends as soon as someone stops giving it.

Now we get into the complicated part. It is possible to give consent non-verbally. Actively participating in a sex act (as opposed to lying still or squirming to get away) is likely to be read as consent pending exceptional circumstances. There is also a generally accepted legal grey area when it comes to interpretation, meaning that if the victim is in a position to indicate that they do not want to participate in the act and fail to communicate this in a way which might be reasonably understood a prosecution is very unlikely (even though it is still rape). But rape as a crime does not require premeditation. You can be guilty of it even if you don't realise you did it.

Now, going by the above case, it may be that your partner got sleepy and fell asleep and they wake up later and everything is fine, in which case you have not committed rape, and that's not what I'm suggesting so no hyperbolic 'what if' examples please. This is also the defence in cases of roleplay and BDSM practices in which the bottom partner pretends to deny consent, and for that matter in cases of date rape or deception in which the person is severely intoxicated or not informed about something relevant (that their partner knowingly has a severe STD for example). Consent is based on how the person would feel internally were they in a position to give informed consent. The difficulty and extremely danger of all the above situations is that they mask the free expression of that feeling, either through the victim not having the relevant information or through situational constraint of how they can express it. If the person's feeling is nonetheless that everything is fine, it's not rape. If the victim wakes up and is horrified, or if it turns out they actually weren't faking and didn't want to have sex, then pending exceptional circumstances rape has been committed.

The risks which you should be aware of long before you start lecturing women about their clothing choices is the essential risk that any time you put yourself in a situation where you are having sex without someone without specific confirmation at that second of their consent then you are at risk of committing rape. Not 'being charged with rape', committing rape according to the law. It is your responsibility to negotiate these situations before you get into them, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have consent for anything you do. Understanding and acting upon that is something you can do which will have a real positive effect. Lecturing women about wearing unflattering clothes is unhelpful.

But for the case you're talking about, it doesn't matter. As I said, consenting to one act is not consenting to another. Allowing someone to kiss you does not mean they have the right to fuck you. Engaging in 'foreplay' with some does not mean you have to have sex with them. This is absolutely fundamental and it's absolutely shameful that anyone still believes otherwise in the 21st century. I'll say from anecdotal experience that your line of thinking is exactly the reason a lot of guys rape women in the first place, and why a lot of women never report it.

Sex requires a degree of respect for your partners wishes, that's not an optional or negotiable standard, it's a basic thing which you need to adhere to. Stop blaming women for being naughty and tempting you with their sexy lithe bodies and shameful desire to be able to engage in sexual situations without fear, and think about your (and other men's) responsibility when it comes to negotiating consent, because if everyone did that there would be far, far, far less rape going on in our society than there currently is.

This clothing argument is fucking irrelevant in the face of that, nothing has ever indicated it makes a tiny skidmark of a difference.

The issue in this particular case is that everything up until they were alone was an emphatic yes,at least according to witnesses who by the way included friends of the alleged victim, until they had sex that she does not know if she actually, in any way, objected to and in fact hinted at by saying she wanted to get him alone, naked and "party", something that if you ask anyone on the street they would probably say it was a euphemism for sex.

How does any of that matter?

I think I've answered the rest of your points. Check the statues of your particular country if you require a more precise legal definition, but I'd be deeply surprised if it deviates significantly.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You just said I objectify women, after saying you didn't say that. Your post is very confusing.

I said you did in one particular, limited, extremely self-contained way.

That doesn't impact on you. It doesn't mean you think of women as objects. It doesn't mean you are a misogynist who doesn't like women.

It means you made one statement that it suggests a logical equivalence between an object and a person (which is kind of the definition of objectification).

Look through this post at all the other people who said the same thing. If I was saying that they all hated women and saw them as objects then I wouldn't be typing this, I'd be shooting Andy Warhol or something.

The logic you're using pre-dates you. It's a relic of time when women very much were seen as possessions. I pointed that out in the hope that as a mature 21st century guy who probably doesn't see women as objects you'll understand why it's so problematic to use that logic.

 

[Pierce Graham]

Technically, I'm comparing rape to burglary. And rape applies to both men and women (though I know that it's far more common for women)

 

[BRex21]

Now we get into the complicated part. It is possible to give consent non-verbally. Actively participating in a sex act (as opposed to lying still or squirming to get away) is likely to be read as consent pending exceptional circumstances. There is also a generally accepted legal grey area when it comes to interpretation, meaning that if the victim is in a position to indicate that they do not want to participate in the act and fail to communicate this in a way which might be reasonably understood a prosecution is very unlikely (even though it is still rape). But rape as a crime does not require premeditation. You can be guilty of it even if you don't realise you did it.

Now this is getting really complicated, because it leaves a courtroom to decide what constitutes "actively participating in sex." Generally I can tell, or I like to assume I can tell, when a girl is enjoying it BUT using this as a legal basis for a crime is vitally impossible. Active participation is largely indistinguishable from autonomous muscle responses, if you stimulate a man or a woman correctly they WILL thrust. This is dangerously close to the old if she self lubricates/orgasms it is consensual fallacy (or if he has an erection/ejaculates for men), and cant be used an any sort of valid determination of consent. There is no way to draw a nice line in the sand and say once you do this its consent without going by a case by case basis, which is impossible until we all start having sex on camera or in front of witnesses.

Now, going by the above case, it may be that your partner got sleepy and fell asleep...

In my example,in which no one was sleepy, there was no BDSM practice and the kinkiest thing involved was her being on top (I'm a big guy and feared hurting her), no rape occurred, it was as simple as that, that was the point. My girlfriend and me engaged in perfectly consensual sex without any words being exchanged. It is a perfect example of how you said "a linear progression of actions towards penetration," forming the basis of consent. Because both of us read the signals of the other and neither of us objected to any of the actions it was not rape. Had she wanted to stop any rational person, who has been up for everything prior only needs to say stop and I would stop end of story, but if she initiated sex by pulling me into the bedroom where we, as you put it engaged in "a linear progression of actions towards penetration" and gave only indications that she was enjoying it its kind of ridiculous to call that rape.

The risks which you should be aware of long before you start lecturing women about their clothing choices
... Blah blah blah totally missed the point...
This clothing argument is fucking irrelevant in the face of that, nothing has ever indicated it makes a tiny skidmark of a difference.

In this specific case there were several things she did to seduce a man only one of them, removing her bra before going to talk to him, had anything to do with clothing. The only people who said that that was what this case was about were the girls out doing there slutwalk and shock and awe media. The fact that she seduced him by teasing sex and provided a ride to get him alone was entirely ignored, as it would have cost them much of their support. At no point in time did I say that the clothing she was wearing was relevant to the situation, merely that she did everything in her power to seduce this man and get him alone and that protesting this by wearing a short miniskirt and no underwear in order to show passers by your genitals is a stupid and ultimately futile way to protest. The only thing they did to garner support was lie by omission, much like you are doing.

How does any of that matter?

It matters because once someone, in public around witnesses, imply to a man that they want to get him alone and have sex with him and the last thing anyone sees of said person is them walking away hand in hand, that it throws legitimate questions in place as to the validity of the charge and the possibility that sex was consensual but later regretted. Particularly in a case where the victim gave multiple conflicting statements and eventually admitted she had little recollection of exactly what happened. Its not that she doesn't have the right to change her mind, she does, its that if everything she says is yes there is no way for her assailant to know she changed her mind.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Now this is getting really complicated, because it leaves a courtroom to decide what constitutes "actively participating in sex." Generally I can tell, or I like to assume I can tell, when a girl is enjoying it BUT using this as a legal basis for a crime is vitally impossible.

Which is why that's not the legal basis.

This is dangerously close to the old if she self lubricates/orgasms it is consensual fallacy (or if he has an erection/ejaculates for men), and cant be used an any sort of valid determination of consent.

Not really no. If you can't distinguish between enjoyment and consent I'd advise not having sex. Self lubrication and orgasm are completely passive responses, they are outside of someone's control. There are certain things which are very clearly under a person's control, so those are things which determine non-verbal consent.

Theoretically, even if someone says 'I give my consent, please fuck me' the court still has to determine whether their response is actually consent (by reference to whether it is informed, uncoerced and that the person is acting of their own free will without deception or manipulation). What you're describing is an issue with consent in general, not specifically with non-verbal consent.

It has nothing to do with the case you're describing.

My girlfriend and me engaged in perfectly consensual sex without any words being exchanged. It is a perfect example of how you said "a linear progression of actions towards penetration," forming the basis of consent.

Seriously, couldn't you work this out yourself from the information I already gave?

And since when was a "linear progression of actions towards penetration" part of consent. My point was that it isn't. I don't care what you or your girlfriend agree to or consent to in that regard because the legal system isn't based around you, and thank God. Kissing someone or petting with them does not represent consent to any subsequent penetration. There is no progression which can be assumed.

Had she wanted to stop any rational person, who has been up for everything prior only needs to say stop and I would stop end of story, but if she initiated sex by pulling me into the bedroom where we, as you put it engaged in "a linear progression of actions towards penetration" and gave only indications that she was enjoying it its kind of ridiculous to call that rape.

Did you even read?

Rape is established through whether someone internally offers their consent. For the purposes of whether or not something is rape, the only issue is whether a person consciously consents to having sex. They don't have to express anything externally. They don't have to be awake. They can say completely the opposite. They can have an orgasm. The only thing that matters in terms of whether it is rape is whether they willingly give informed consent or not.

This is entirely separate from any issue of what a court operating on the principle of reasonable doubt might decide. The concern of the court is whether there is reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, so the burden of evidence is extremely high. Being cleared in court does not mean you're not a rapist, it means there is a lack of evidence to convict.

This doesn't mean the definition of rape is not extremely clear. Because the circumstances surrounding consent and how a person acts may be used in court to determine whether there is reasonable doubt (again, irrelevant to the case you're talking about because that's not what happened) does not change the definition or the risk you put yourself at by not maintaining an awareness of consent.

The fact that she seduced him by teasing sex and provided a ride to get him alone was entirely ignored, as it would have cost them much of their support.

Knowing some of the people who organized the slutwalks in the UK. I sincerely doubt that this was the case.

The principle is very very clear and maybe if you'd spent less time looking at T&A you'd have bothered to see it, because I've never seen a Slutwalk where it wasn't extremely evident. If you want to debate irrelevant distinctions between one shitty rape defence and another we can do that, but you're still disputing a very clear definition on the basis of some pointless heteronormative bullshit about how doing certain completely unrelated things always implies you want to be fucked.

Newsflash, it doesn't. If you assume it does I don't see how you can be terribly surprised if you end up raping someone.

It matters because once someone, in public around witnesses, imply to a man that they want to get him alone and have sex with him and the last thing anyone sees of said person is them walking away hand in hand, that it throws legitimate questions in place as to the validity of the charge and the possibility that sex was consensual but later regretted.

Fucking. Irrelevant.

It does not matter. It wouldn't matter even if she had written on her forehead 'I would like have to have penetrative sex with X'. The only thing that matters is whether she consented at the point of the act. A person never has the legal obligation to have sex with someone because they've implied at some point in the past that they want to.

Its not that she doesn't have the right to change her mind, she does, its that if everything she says is yes there is no way for her assailant to know she changed her mind.

Reasonable doubt. Look it up.

'Sex was in the air' is not 'reasonable doubt'. The latter is perfectly acceptable, the former is not for what should be very obvious reasons. Can you see the difference?

There's a reason I'm not protesting outside the courts and throwing eggs at judges at this minute and that reason is that there is a great deal of difficulty in determining reasonable doubt in rape cases, which in part explains the extremely low conviction rate. That's not what's being protested, the fact that I'm even having to explain this kind of forfeits your right to judgement regarding what is. Because you clearly don't have a clue.

 

[BRex21]

Now this is getting really complicated, because it leaves a courtroom to decide what constitutes "actively participating in sex." Generally I can tell, or I like to assume I can tell, when a girl is enjoying it BUT using this as a legal basis for a crime is vitally impossible.

Which is why that's not the legal basis.

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.

This is dangerously close to the old if she self lubricates/orgasms it is consensual fallacy (or if he has an erection/ejaculates for men), and cant be used an any sort of valid determination of consent.

Not really no. If you can't distinguish between enjoyment and consent I'd advise not having sex. Self lubrication and orgasm are completely passive responses, they are outside of someone's control. There are certain things which are very clearly under a person's control, so those are things which determine non-verbal consent.

Theoretically, even if someone says 'I give my consent, please fuck me' the court still has to determine whether their response is actually consent (by reference to whether it is informed, uncoerced and that the person is acting of their own free will without deception or manipulation). What you're describing is an issue with consent in general, not specifically with non-verbal consent.

It has nothing to do with the case you're describing.

First off youre right it has nothing to do with the case im describing. But then again it came up because you started talking about nonverbal consent

Now we get into the complicated part. It is possible to give consent non-verbally. Actively participating in a sex act (as opposed to lying still or squirming to get away) is likely to be read as consent pending exceptional circumstances.

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. This is because of the difficulty in determining what is expressed body actions meaning you want to have sex. 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. There simply is no way to draw a nice clear line as to what constitutes nonverbal consent. This is why the lawmakers, and we are talking about this from a legal standpoint, say implied consent is unacceptable.

My girlfriend and me engaged in perfectly consensual sex without any words being exchanged. It is a perfect example of how you said "a linear progression of actions towards penetration," forming the basis of consent.

There is no progression which can be assumed.

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.

Knowing some of the people who organized the slutwalks in the UK. I sincerely doubt that this was the case.

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?

but you're still disputing a very clear definition on the basis of some pointless heteronormative bullshit about how doing certain completely unrelated things always implies you want to be fucked.

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. 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." 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.

It does not matter. It wouldn't matter even if she had written on her forehead 'I would like have to have penetrative sex with X'. The only thing that matters is whether she consented at the point of the act.

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. 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 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.

Reasonable doubt. Look it up.

I don't think any country still uses reasonable doubt in rape cases, its all preponderance of evidence now or its sexual assault.

'Sex was in the air' is not 'reasonable doubt'. The latter is perfectly acceptable, the former is not for what should be very obvious reasons. Can you see the difference?

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.

There's a reason I'm not protesting outside the courts

And instead simply help organize "slutwalks" to do it?

 

[Terminal Blue]

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[danielns13]

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I've never posted in this thread, or said any of those things...

 

[Terminal Blue]

I've never posted in this thread, or said any of those things...

Altered..

Honestly don't know what happened there.

 

[BRex21]

First off, you didn't fix it, you fixed some of it. Danielns 13 is still listed in the quotes.

Consent is a purely internal process.

Where did you hear this? Consent is entirely external it is literally voicing your approval. There are two forms of consent, expressed and implied. both require the person to outwardly show their approval. Virtually every law was made with this definition and virtually every dictionary uses this definition. I honestly looked and found absolutely no one who uses your definition, i have to assume you made it up.

Wow.. maybe you're doing something wrong, because you really shouldn't completely lose control of your body during sex.

I suppose you completely lose control of your car if you drive one with an automatic transmission? Or you constantly lose control of your breathing because it is handled by your lower brain functions? If a woman is engaged in sex she would have to actively focus to stay still, hitting certain areas will cause movement in the hips, thrusting, moaning all that stuff a woman does when she is enjoying sex.

Consent is not an observable phenomena, your attempts to make it so will only result in potential abuse.

The problem is i have been arguing that consent IS an observable phenomena BECAUSE by definition it is an expression of approval. Why we are arguing is because you went ahead and said in an absolute that there is no such thing as implied consent, a standard that the vast majority of humanity does not live up to, but our courts expect us to. We continued the argument as you said that "actively participating in sex" is perfectly acceptable. This throws in the whole argument as to what is "actively participating" something by the way you haven't answered. The steps leading up to sex make a much better indicator of willingness, as you can make make a sleeping girl moan, but you cant make one drag you into the bedroom and jump on top of you.

I don't care.

Then you shouldnt have said anything, its a blatant lie of omission and you know it.

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.

The problem is the reason the judge gave for MITIGATING THE SENTENCE was lack of proof, and that actions she had taken could reasonably formed the basis for consent. In fact the defence is now getting the case reviewed on this basis. The ruling deserves protest, but not because a judge took into account the facts of the case when deciding if there was consent.

Your argument is horrible and irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant, if people witness consent being given immediately before the people go off to have sex, and the woman goes along with sex after giving verbal consent, it is a very good argument that she gave consent. Marrying someone is not agreeing to go have sex with them, stating that you would like to go have sex with them is, huge difference.

I'm 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 the steps up to sex.

I've bolded the enormous glaring justification for my use of the word.

I'm going with you don't know what hetero-normative means, unless of course you are saying that homosexuals don't engage in foreplay before sex then I guess the word makes sense, but otherwise its just a thinly veiled attempt to accuse me of being a homophobe, when in fact you are the only one who has brought up anything to do with homosexuality.

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.

No it doesn't work like that, of course that has nothing to do with this case, unless of course your partner gave consent, engaged in foreplay for the duration of the week while transporting you back to her place where you had sex, but I doubt that would be the case. but just for fun, ill bite, what is the maximum amount of time you can have between a verbal agreement to have sex and the actual sex itself? and how frequently after the initial penetration do you have to re-confirm? it would be nice to have all of this defined to avoid future misunderstandings.

If you don't believe a crime was committed, why did the court conclude it did

Because courts are not infallible. According to the innocence project more than half of false convictions exonerated are for rape and some 60% are due to proprietorial misconduct. some of these,mostly in the USA, cant get out of prison even after exculpatory evidence is revealed, google Robert Harkins if you don't believe me.

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.

I find this pretty hard to believe, this would mean that there are multiple recent cases where a rapist viciously attacked a victim in public in front of multiple witnesses without anyone thinking they should interfere or call the police. That said its irrelevant, laws have been changed and many free countries have adopted the policy of preponderance of evidence over reasonable doubt Including the UK, Canada and the USA.

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.

Its probably because the judge took the word of the victim, despite the fact that she changed her story multiple times and was contradicted by eye witnesses who largely included her friends. There was no evidence, but he felt bad for her, so he handed a token sentence to the guy using snippets of the victims various testimony.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Where did you hear this? Consent is entirely external it is literally voicing your approval.

No. It's really not.

You don't have say anything to deny consent. Very simple.

There are two forms of consent, expressed and implied. both require the person to outwardly show their approval.

Bullshit. Stop reading legal documents from the 70s.

Virtually every law was made with this definition and virtually every dictionary uses this definition. I honestly looked and found absolutely no one who uses your definition, i have to assume you made it up.

Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Consent occurs when a person "agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice". Nothing to do with vocalization.

Also, dictionary definition:

Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence.

Now look up acquiescence.

If a woman is engaged in sex she would have to actively focus to stay still, hitting certain areas will cause movement in the hips, thrusting, moaning all that stuff a woman does when she is enjoying sex.

1) I'm not talking about a pleasure response or an orgasm, neither is an indication of consent or even of enjoyment.

2) Even if I was, the vast majority of women do not find penetration alone particularly pleasurable or stimulating. The primary female sex organ is the clitoris, not the vagina, and penetration causes very little clitoral stimulation (unless you get the angle exactly right). 'Thrusting' is actually less likely to have anything to do with the level of enjoyment, and more to do with trying to get clitoral stimulation.

This is why a vibrator is better than you will ever be.

3) You know what does make people move autonomically? Pain and discomfort.

The steps leading up to sex make a much better indicator of willingness, as you can make make a sleeping girl moan, but you cant make one drag you into the bedroom and jump on top of you.

Moaning isn't what we're talking about. People occasionally have orgasms when they get raped, it's a physiological response to the vagina having to lubricate itself very rapidly. noone cares about 'moaning' or any of the bullshit you think I'm talking about, and its very existence as an autonomic function excludes it from definition.

Okay.. okay.. this isn't getting anywhere, so let's go back to current British law rather than the social theory behind it. In order to convict someone of rape in the UK, it needs to be demonstrated that they did not reasonably believe that their victim consented.

Despite its problems, this is far more acceptable than what you're suggesting and has not been protested by Slutwalk primarily because it isn't seen as part of the definition of consent. Even if an attacker does reasonably believe their partner has consented and feels she has actively validated that (for reasons the court agrees with), it says nothing as to whether she actually did consent. It is an entirely separate judgement, as it should be.

A lack of consent does not need to be acted upon to not exist.

Incidentally, part of the definition of whether belief is 'reasonable' is whether the defendent actively took any steps to ascertain whether the victim consented, so before you leap on this as justification for your position, it's a very different thing from what you're proposing. It is absolutely not the Morgan defence. If there is any kind of grey area, the impetus is very much on the person doing the penetrating to actively establish consent. This is true in most modern legal systems, and is probably the biggest step in the history of rape legislation reform in recent years.

What you're effectively saying is that noone has any right to decide whether you can stick your penis inside them if they agreed to do something else which you arbitrarily think is related. It's a vile argument, if you continue to make it I'm just going to write you off as a misogynist and move on hoping to god that you never, ever get put in the position where you actually have to deal with this stuff.

Its not irrelevant, if people witness consent being given immediately before the people go off to have sex, and the woman goes along with sex after giving verbal consent, it is a very good argument that she gave consent.

And you want me to believe you actually read any legal definitions of consent when you're coming out with crap like that?

You can't give consent preemptively. If someone sticks their cock in you and you don't like you are under absolutely no obligation to go through with anything because of what you said half an hour ago that you would want to. Once again, I'm genuinely revolted and sincerely hope you never get put in this situation.

Marrying someone is not agreeing to go have sex with them, stating that you would like to go have sex with them is, huge difference.

No, it isn't.

It's not a contract. What you do with your vagina is not determined by what you said you would do half an hour previously. To argue otherwise is getting close to being the most genuinely revolting argument I've ever heard on this forum.

I'm going with you don't know what hetero-normative means, unless of course you are saying that homosexuals don't engage in foreplay before sex then I guess the word makes sense, but otherwise its just a thinly veiled attempt to accuse me of being a homophobe, when in fact you are the only one who has brought up anything to do with homosexuality.

I have a masters degree in gender studies specializing in sexuality issues. If there's one thing I can claim, it's that I know what heteronormative means.

Again, look at the words I've bolded and think very hard.

I'll give you a clue.. what's the difference between those two words?

Because courts are not infallible. According to the innocence project more than half of false convictions exonerated are for rape and some 60% are due to proprietorial misconduct. some of these,mostly in the USA, cant get out of prison even after exculpatory evidence is revealed, google Robert Harkins if you don't believe me.

If you're going to use those statistics, research them first.

Look up the definition of a 'false' charge in rape cases. Look up the proportion of 'false' rape charges in rape cases which name an assailant. Also note that in a crime with an extremely high attrition rate, false charges are inevitable.

Do you want some examples of the kind of cases which form the majority of false charges (according to research commissioned by the British government)?

I find this pretty hard to believe, this would mean that there are multiple recent cases where a rapist viciously attacked a victim in public in front of multiple witnesses without anyone thinking they should interfere or call the police.

Who said anything about public? 'Witnesses' does not mean public.

I'm not giving you the specifics of the case because the victim died recently and I can't trust myself not to get myself suspended if you were to say something disrespectful about it. But don't assume anything.

Its probably because the judge took the word of the victim, despite the fact that she changed her story multiple times and was contradicted by eye witnesses who largely included her friends. There was no evidence, but he felt bad for her, so he handed a token sentence to the guy using snippets of the victims various testimony.

That's not how the law works, and you know it.

If there was no evidence then a slap on the wrist conviction is as insulting to the victim as it is to the seriousness of the crime. Sentencing for rape deserves to be handled on better grounds than pity.

We cannot judge people based on whether the judge feels sorry for them, because too many outside factors influence that emotion. Low conviction rates are acceptable if they contain no element of judgement, which increasingly they don't (a very welcome trend). Scaling the severity of a crime based on emotions like pity reduces the process to a judgement on the 'reality' of the situation, as opposed to the very acceptable grounds of whether there is enough evidence to convict a crime.

 

[BRex21]

You don't have say anything to deny consent. Very simple.

Interesting, because i never said that, but you did. I suggest YOU look up acquiescence. My argument has by and large been that she voiced her consent, and actively participated in every sex act, and that at some point she would have had to object in some way after giving every indication that she wanted this, including initiating.

Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Consent occurs when a person "agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice". Nothing to do with vocalization.

Yet SECTION 1 of the very same law that you are quoting states:

Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:

_ A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;

_ B does not consent to the penetration; and,

_ A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

And in fact at no point in time does the law actually draw out what IS consent, but instead goes about explaining the parameters in which consent is to be given, and that at some point consent has to be deemed reasonable. You may disagree but I would say that voicing your approval and proceeding to engage in foreplay is reasonable.

The primary female sex organ is the clitoris, not the vagina, and penetration causes very little clitoral stimulation (unless you get the angle exactly right). 'Thrusting' is actually less likely to have anything to do with the level of enjoyment, and more to do with trying to get clitoral stimulation.

The Clitoris is also largely internal, hitting it, particularly along the "front wall" will cause a woman to trust forward, this action helps ensure better depth so sperm is more likely to meet egg. This is autonomous thrusting.

This is why a vibrator is better than you will ever be.

Funny I think most people agree that sex is better than going solo regardless of gender, probably something to do with that whole human sexuality thing, Wait someone here studies human sexuality...
Besides who here keeps accusing the other one of trying to pin down what is "normal" sex using big fancy words. Does labelling one specific sex toy as "better" not imply that there is simply one mechanically correct way to enjoy sex. This is completely invalidated by the fact that there are successfully marketed toys that do not vibrate or are designed to simulate a human tongue. Or are these people just doing it wrong?
I suspect most people could stimulate themselves to orgasm faster and easier by hand than with a partner, you kinda learn all the tricks to your own hardware, but its really the human angle that makes us seek out a partner.

What you're effectively saying is that noone has any right to decide whether you can stick your penis inside them if they agreed to do something else which you arbitrarily think is related. It's a vile argument, if you continue to make it I'm just going to write you off as a misogynist and move on hoping to god that you never, ever get put in the position where you actually have to deal with this stuff.

No what i am effectively saying is that once consent is verbally expressed its up to that individual to say they changed there mind. She didn't say she wanted to do something arbitrarily related she said she wanted his penis in her, they then proceeded to find somewhere that they could be alone so that he could put his penis in her all the while engaging in the usual steps to ensure his penis would be ready to put inside of her when they get there. She by her own admission did nothing to signal that she had changed her mind. Seriously at some point there has to be a reasonable belief in consent... oh wait, the judge said there was, but he still convicted.

You can't give consent preemptively. If someone sticks their cock in you and you don't like you are under absolutely no obligation to go through with anything because of what you said half an hour ago that you would want to.

The issue here is that she said she wanted to have sex, and the only time between stating this and the act itself wall filled with going off to have sex and foreplay. You constantly try to twist this into something its not. If at any point in time she changed her mind she had every opportunity to say stop, but she shouldn't have lay back and gone along with it so that she could file charges later by making up stories and changing them to suit other peoples testimony.

If there's one thing I can claim, it's that I know what hetero-normative means.

Really? Use it in a sentence. because this one:

but you're still disputing a very clear definition on the basis of some pointless heteronormative bullshit about how doing certain completely unrelated things always implies you want to be fucked.

Can quite frankly do without it. In fact it changes the meaning so that the sentence is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
The issue at hand is verbal consent was given and the only action between verbal consent and sex was foreplay, which is defined as intimate acts designed to increase sexual arousal and create a desire for sexual activity. If you are trying to argue that foreplay and sex are different things then I would agree, and i never said that, i said that, particularly with verbal consent, foreplay is often used to gauge someones willingness for sex.
As I said before I bet you would find a very strong correlation between people who verbally communicate there desire for sex, proceed to engage in foreplay and find a nice spot that they can be alone and people who then have sex. I suspect you would find this behaviour normal in people of any sexual orientation. Your argument simply has nothing to do with the differences between orientations.

I have a masters degree in gender studies specializing in sexuality issues.

I get this, you spent a lot of money on a degree and feel the need to use these big words to show it off,

If you're going to use those statistics, research them first.

I gave you my source, something i notice you never do.

Look up the definition of a 'false' charge in rape cases.

Since you are obviously not familiar with the innocence project, they are a organization that specifically proves innocence after guilty verdicts, usually through DNA testing. It does not mean that no rape was committed but rather that the person was innocent of the charges. For example Robert Harkins who was convicted of rape despite being ruled out as a suspect due to an invalid DNA match. The District Attorney bribed the defence attorney not to bring this up and so he was convicted. Despite the fact that the DNA evidence proves it wasn't him he still sits in jail. The reason this is brought up is because you came out and said that this case couldn't have ended in a conviction for any reason other than the man being guilty. This is an example to the opposite.

Do you want some examples of the kind of cases which form the majority of false charges (according to research commissioned by the British government)?

Go ahead, but since you specifically site the British government i suspect all you have is the one done by The British Home Office study in 2005 that did no research and was completely discredited. Besides it is largely irrelevant as we are debating one particular case, one I should point out you have taken no interest in learning thing one about i doubt you would be able to make any sort of actual connections.

Who said anything about public? 'Witnesses' does not mean public.

It does not mean there is a public place, but pretty public for sex if multiple people are watching, besides you said you could site "cases" plural, how often does this happen and do all the victims die? Seriously there is just no way anyone is going to believe this.

That's not how the law works, and you know it.

That's not how the law SHOULD work, sadly prosecutor misconduct and idiocy are just as rampant in our justice system as ever.

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

I actually bothered to type out a reply.. but really, I'm done with you. Judging by everything you've said, it depresses me greatly that you should be allowed within 50 feet of anyone with a bodily orifice.

To clear up some of the loose ends very quickly.

* Heteronormativity has nothing essentially to do the differences between sexual orientations, so no point mentioning that. That said, since you're on those lines, I was pointing out that the foreplay/sex distinction only means anything if you consider a particular penetrative act to be the logical conclusion and central aim of all sexual activity. It doesn't work for many people.

* Internal clitoral stimulation has never been demonstrated to occur. You may be thinking of g-spot stimulation (which is a medical uncertainty itself) and which requires extremely specific positioning and in fact is kind of the opposite of random autonomous thrusting. Incidentally, why should vibrator = solo. See the above point.

* There is a specific case which I have read the court documents for, but which I also understand from experiences I have not been directly involved with has been common practice (certainly until very recently, if not up until the present day). Witness testimony can be disputed, and generally is very successfully in rape cases.

The fact that you didn't back off when I explicitly asked you to speaks incredibly poorly of you and is the main reason why I want no further part in this. At this stage you can believe whatever you want. I'm not going to get myself suspended by telling you precisely what it does to my opinion of you.