|
Extreme0 posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/eton-pupil-andrew-picard-convicted-of-creating-and-sharing-child-abuse-images-a6896966.html The root source is the daily mail, so it's likely that 100% of the article is fake.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:I just googled that and apparently the jury acquitted after deliberating for only 30 minutes. That seems really insane. Like there had to be massive jury bribery going unless the girl was really, incredibly bad on the stand or there was some other fatal flaw in the prosecution's case. Yes, no, and bonus: Saudis really dont consider womens rights to be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Dehumanize yourself and don't have sex
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:No, what you are saying is outrageous enough that shock and incredulity seem like a totally appropriate response. You want to strip every last American citizen of fundamental rights rather than accepting the reality that many crimes go unpunished. You want us to live in a society where citizens can be totally stripped of liberty for the failure to prove a negative. It truly is an appalling proposition. quote:You want to strip every last American citizen of fundamental rights rather than accepting the reality that many crimes go unpunished. You hear one exception for something that will cause mistakes more rarely than your vaunted system of jury convictions does (check rates of convictions being overturned vs. false rape charges and get back to me). Your response is to jump to RIGHTS IN COURT GONE FOREVER JUST GONE. When people discuss ways to regulate gun violence do you immediately ask when Obama's taking all the guns?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:26
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You hear one exception for something that will cause mistakes more rarely than your vaunted system of jury convictions does (check rates of convictions being overturned vs. false rape charges and get back to me). Your response is to jump to RIGHTS IN COURT GONE FOREVER JUST GONE. When people discuss ways to regulate gun violence do you immediately ask when Obama's taking all the guns? Your logic applies equally to every crime, not just rape. Also, the rate of convictions being overturned is pretty meaningless in a system that gives incredible deference to the results at the trial level. I don't know if you realize this, but by the time a case gets to the appeals stage the facts are no longer up for discussion. With very few exceptions, appeals courts are only looking to see if the law was applied correctly, not if the correct conclusion was reached regarding the facts. And yes, I will gladly go on the record saying I would rather see 100 rapists put back on the street than see one person wrongly convicted of rape. See also: every other crime. I would rather see 100 murderers go free than see one person wrongly convicted of murder. So if you want to call me soft on crime go for it, Dirty Harry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So if I were to kiss my sleeping boyfriend on the head for example you'd consider that rape? It's physical contact without consent, which people should avoid. I don't want to hear about how common it is or how difficult it will be to change; fix it. menino posted:No it's ridiculous and completely unfeasible You know what else used to be ridiculous and completely unfeasible? The idea that a woman could refuse consent to sex with her husband. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:And yes, I will gladly go on the record saying I would rather see 100 rapists put back on the street than see one person wrongly convicted of rape. See also: every other crime. I would rather see 100 murderers go free than see one person wrongly convicted of murder. So if you want to call me soft on crime go for it, Dirty Harry. Me too. It'd be pretty cool if we could get a higher conviction rate for crimes in general without increasing the number of false convictions, but I see no evidence that it's particularly feasible for rape or any other crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So if I meet someone at a bar or a party, we hit it off, are getting a bit touchey feeling, and head somewhere more private, I'm supposed under this system to slow things down and ask the girl "if the condom breaks and you get pregnant will you be having an abortion?" I mean one might argue that that illustrates an inherent problem with casual sexual encounters and if you're not comfortable with the implications of that then you may not want to have them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
I always have a hard time understanding the typical complaints that are raised when there's a discussion about affirmative consent. Like the person on the previous page who seemed to suggest it was less anxiety-inducing to just up and start loving than to talk about loving. That's an utterly alien concept to me. Many people who are either LGBT or some kind of pervert have never had the option of not a) openly discussing what they like sexually, or b) developing a complex system of signs and symbols (like the hanky code) to communicate that while maintaining the spontaneity aspect that most heterosexuals take for granted. The assumption that once mutual attraction has been established, both parties share a spiritual understanding of what that will mean in terms of the acts they engage in together, does not make sense in a species that has sex for fun more often than it does to reproduce. Perhaps look towards what gay people do if you want to develop some methods of detailed sexual communication that aren't boner-killing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Changing standards will also change incentives. If you lower the requirements for guilt, then the system will be abused to settle petty disputes and, worse, used as a weapon by the powerful against the powerless. It also sets a legal precedent that's difficult to reverse and likely to spread, and that precedent is going to be used in...interesting ways. Shut up about fiddling with the legal system, it's not going to work. Also lets get real with consent here: the average person knows what it looks like when they see it. You don't need to play paperwork with courtship. Rapists don't rape because their not sure, but because they don't care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also lets get real with consent here: the average person knows what it looks like when they see it. You know it's remarkable how many times people assert that and then it turns out that they really don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also lets get real with consent here: the average person knows what it looks like when they see it. And it appears to be different for different people, which is all the more reason you should actually communicate with your partner. For example, a lot of men don't understand that consenting to one act doesn't mean consenting to another. quote:You don't need to play paperwork with courtship. Is this lifted from Cosby's deposition?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's physical contact without consent, which people should avoid. I don't want to hear about how common it is or how difficult it will be to change; fix it. You are wrong and dumb and dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You know it's remarkable how many times people assert that and then it turns out that they really don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Dumb or not I think there are plenty of people who do not view consent as their responsibility. Simply not saying no is sufficient to them. Which is not consent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also lets get real with consent here: the average person knows what it looks like when they see it. Literally every single poll and study about this proves that this is falseC and yet idiots keep claiming it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Literally every single poll and study about this proves that this is falseC and yet idiots keep claiming it. This thread has already clearly demonstrated that people have different ideas of what consent is, so it's no surprise that all polls, using any definition as their basis, are gonna come out with such results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:This thread has already clearly demonstrated that people have different ideas of what consent is, so it's no surprise that all polls, using any definition as their basis, are gonna come out with such results. "Having different ideas about what a thing is" is a very nice way to describe "being wrong".
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Having different ideas about what a thing is" is a very nice way to describe "being wrong". Some people in this thread are actually positing that you must get affirmative consent from your SO in order to kiss their forehead while they sleep, so yeah, lots of people on both sides of the issue are completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's physical contact without consent, which people should avoid. I don't want to hear about how common it is or how difficult it will be to change; fix it. You know who else couldn't consent to the Anschluss don't you? Garbage poster posts garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Some people in this thread are actually positing that you must get affirmative consent from your SO in order to kiss their forehead while they sleep, so yeah, lots of people on both sides of the issue are completely wrong. If you don't then it is entirely correct to say that you don't have consent in that case. You can make arguments about having general consent and you can argue that consent doesn't matter in that case, but yes, unless you ask every time, you don't have consent. Whether that is important to you is up to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You hear one exception for something that will cause mistakes more rarely than your vaunted system of jury convictions does (check rates of convictions being overturned vs. false rape charges and get back to me). Your response is to jump to RIGHTS IN COURT GONE FOREVER JUST GONE. When people discuss ways to regulate gun violence do you immediately ask when Obama's taking all the guns? Not every thread is about your gun fetish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you don't then it is entirely correct to say that you don't have consent in that case. You can make arguments about having general consent and you can argue that consent doesn't matter in that case, but yes, unless you ask every time, you don't have consent. Whether that is important to you is up to you.  I am going to strike out on a controversial track and say that a lot of the time, having explicit verbal consent is not relevant and being an empathetic human being who can pick up on non-verbal cues is preferable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
Perhaps, but I would suggest that far too often, people's ability to accurately judge the wishes of others is far less than they think it is, which is the reason for explicit verbal consent. You may feel comfortable that you understand exactly what the other party in your interactions wants, but it isn't about you feeling comfortable, it's about them feeling comfortable. And, unlike as has been suggested in this thread with depressing frequency, your desire to have sex does not at all make it necessary to rely on non-verbal consent, because your desire to have sex isn't actually a necessary thing, and does not justify putting other people in an unpleasant situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you don't then it is entirely correct to say that you don't have consent in that case. You can make arguments about having general consent and you can argue that consent doesn't matter in that case, but yes, unless you ask every time, you don't have consent. Whether that is important to you is up to you. Disagree. When I said to my SO "Wanna be my girlfriend, exclusively?" and she said "Yeah", and then later "Wanna move in with me" and she said "Yeah", she has given perpetual affirmative consent to all the behaviors we have exhibited during the relationship up until that point, including hugs from behind while one of us is cooking, kissing the other on the forehead while they slept, kissing them on the cheek while they worked at their desk, or coming into the bathroom to pee unannounced while the other is showering. If I kiss my girlfriend on the forehead while she sleeps, and she wakes up and is annoyed, it's not because I raped her, it's because I woke her up and she has work in the morning. It is, in that situation, a crime akin to playing loud music to disturb her sleep. The problem with people insisting on affirmative consent for every single and even the most benign of normal, standard, agreed contact (dating someone is an agreement to a standard of physical intimacy) is it waters down the definition of sexual abuse to the point people will start to roll their eyes when they hear someone complaining (of possibly much more serious instances) of it. I maintain the act of being in a relationship with someone stipulates at least on some level a tacit, affirmative agreement to at least small shows of "more than platonic" affection. Sure, someone is going to be dating someone somewhere who had a traumatic childhood and can't deal with unannounced physical contact without being triggered or whatever, but I'm fairly sure that would have (and should have) come up before these two people started dating exclusively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Dumb or not I think there are plenty of people who do not view consent as their responsibility. Simply not saying no is sufficient to them. Which is not consent. e: moved response to subsequent post. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Perhaps, but I would suggest that far too often, people's ability to accurately judge the wishes of others is far less than they think it is, which is the reason for explicit verbal consent. I followed up on your other post but I think what I wrote is more responsive to this. There's a certain amount of duty to be your own advocate, don't you think? If you don't want to be involved but do nothing to communicate that you want out as opposed to you want to get it over with so you can watch TV, go to bed, fulfill your partner's expectation so they'll like you, or w/e, you have a certain responsibility for sending the wrong signal. Maybe we should teach people to be assertive and have more self esteem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
This is the exact argument used to justify spousal rape and used by date rapists to justify their actions. "She was going along with what was happening. She didn't fight it. That must be consent!" But it's not, not always anyway. Someone might be going along with it because they feel intimidated by what they believe the other person's reaction will be. Or have been coerced or emotionally blackmailed or browbeaten into accepting it. And people are really good at seeing what they want to see, and can easily ignore signs that show the partner isn't fully willing while inventing cues that never actually happened in their memories. That's why clear, enthusiastic consent from your partners is important. John Oliver did a video about this and sex ed a few months back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0jQz6jqQS0 (The part about consent starts at around 14:36) Edit: wateroverfire posted:I followed up on your other post but I think what I wrote is more responsive to this. This is literally a half-step away, at most, for blaming rape victims for not fighting back and screaming at the top of their lungs. That is super hosed up. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I followed up on your other post but I think what I wrote is more responsive to this. the problem is that there is an overarching cultural expectation that is partly entrenched in gender roles that expects one party to just deal with it. like for dfucks sake there are sitcoms in syndication where this thing is a repeating gag nigga crab pollock fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Disagree. When I said to my SO "Wanna be my girlfriend, exclusively?" and she said "Yeah", and then later "Wanna move in with me" and she said "Yeah", she has given perpetual affirmative consent to all the behaviors we have exhibited during the relationship up until that point, including hugs from behind while one of us is cooking, kissing the other on the forehead while they slept, kissing them on the cheek while they worked at their desk, or coming into the bathroom to pee unannounced while the other is showering. I didn't say you sexually abused your SO by kissing them in their sleep, I said you didn't have consent to do it. The two acts are not commensurable but the nature of consent, however, is. You have consent when you ask and receive an explicit affirmation of consent. There are situations where doing something without consent is not a hanging offence, but the important thing is to recognise that how consent works is constant, and that you can reasonably expect forgiveness for kissing your SO without consent does not mean that you actually have consent. Consent, always, must be explicit and cannot be assumed or given generally. This is always true, and that someone who likes you will probably be a lot more forgiving of you being overly forward does not change that. wateroverfire posted:I followed up on your other post but I think what I wrote is more responsive to this. It would probably be helpful if everyone felt able to be assertive in every situation, yes, but that does not absolve you of responsibility. Some people are not assertive, saying that they ought to be and that absolves you of your responsibility to account for the fact that they might not be, is rather objectionable I think. You can understand that particularly between men and women and particularly on the subject of sex there is a great deal of inequality such that the woman involved is likely to be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to being assertive, and because you can understand that, you have a responsibility to act accordingly and invite consent. That it would be nice if you didn't have to is beside the point when there is a very good reason why you should and you're more than able to do so. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:you can reasonably expect forgiveness for kissing your SO without consent does not mean that you actually have consent. Isn't this just pointless worrying when the result is the same? Lack of consent is only an issue when one party feels violated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Isn't this just pointless worrying when the result is the same? Lack of consent is only an issue when one party feels violated. Not conflating "I didn't get into trouble for it" with "I had consent" is pretty important. Consent is not simply you being able to get away with doing something, and understanding the exact nature of consent is important when it comes to applying it in situations where it is extremely relevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
"of course, they're all snowy owls by the time I've finished with them" - Owl Fancier
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
One hoot for yes, two for no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Isn't this just pointless worrying when the result is the same? Lack of consent is only an issue when one party feels violated. And how do you know that one party doesn't few violated? Again, this is the exact same excuse used to justify spousal and some kinds of date rape; "They didn't fight back, they went along with it, what's the big deal?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And how do you know that one party doesn't few violated? Again, this is the exact same excuse used to justify spousal and some kinds of date rape; "They didn't fight back, they went along with it, what's the big deal?" Keep in mind the context we are discussing is "kissing one's partner on the forehead while they are sleeping."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
The result may be the same in that instance but it will not be the same in all instances, which is why it's important to distinguish between having consent and the other person not minding that you don't have it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I didn't say you sexually abused your SO by kissing them in their sleep, I said you didn't have consent to do it. The two acts are not commensurable but the nature of consent, however, is. You keep saying 'forgiving', as if there is a crime that happened that needed to be forgiven. My argument is that I do have consent to do those things with my SO, consent given in advance, on the basis that she is dating and living with me. Agreed, this does not extend towards activities that do require on any level some mutual participation (sex), but as a benchmark of normal, human social interaction in a sexual relationship, kisses on the forehead while the other is asleep does not in any world require affirmative consent (as alleged, moronically, earlier in the thread) in in a social construct where those displays of affection are universally understood to be par the course. Where would that leave parents who kiss their kids while they sleep, otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You keep saying 'forgiving', as if there is a crime that happened that needed to be forgiven. My argument is that I do have consent to do those things with my SO, consent given in advance, on the basis that she is dating and living with me. Agreed, this does not extend towards activities that do require on any level some mutual participation (sex), but as a benchmark of normal, human social interaction in a sexual relationship, kisses on the forehead while the other is asleep does not in any world require affirmative consent (as alleged, moronically, earlier in the thread) in in a social construct where those displays of affection are universally understood to be par the course. Where would that leave parents who kiss their kids while they sleep, otherwise? Which, again, is entirely a defensible position to hold. As I said, I don't take issue with you arguing that it doesn't matter whether you have consent in that instance, I take issue with you arguing that you do have consent. It not really mattering is not the same as having it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Keep in mind the context we are discussing is "kissing one's partner on the forehead while they are sleeping." You still don't have permanently affirmative consent but it is a different context than a random hookup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:09
|
|
