I don't understand the "Slutwalk"

[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.