Shouldn’t consent laws be couched around a firm rejection??

a reply to: ScepticScot

No actually the law is pretty black and white...that's why it is written with so many clauses and a definitions section. Maybe refrain from acting like you know what you're talking about when you don't...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Then you run into areas such as an 18year old kid having sex with a 17 or even 16 year old kid...so you feel like that's rape?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

When is the law being subjective a good thing?!?!

Because in criminal law it is quite rare for things to be a cut and dried as you would like to think. Discretion about circumstances and intent are required.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: ScepticScot

No actually the law is pretty black and white...that's why it is written with so many clauses and a definitions section. Maybe refrain from acting like you know what you're talking about when you don't...

From the guy who thinks adults having sex with children is OK if the child seemed to want it.

No the law really isn't that black and white. That is why we have trials.


Eta - my mistake I have mixed up who made post re statuary rape. Have left unedited to acknowledge my mistake.

a reply to: RickyD
Now your twisting it.. the initial example was an ADULT tatto artist trading 16 year olds tattoos for sex...


Most states hVe a 2 year grace period..


Not to mention it has nothing to do with the op

a reply to: ScepticScot

Please quote where I said that?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Consent is an interesting topic.
In a town near me a 25yr old tattoo artist was trading his work for sexual favors with 15 and 16 year old girls.

He's in jail for statutory rape.

Did the girls get raped?
No
Did the get prostitution charges?
No
We're they innocent little virgins being taken advantage of by an older man?
No

He's still in prison.

Right here.

It seems that the only fool proof way is to put us all in blue tooth chastity belts. Then we can connect them to our phones, which will have hardware to allow it to function as a breathalyzer, a drug test, a lie detector, a video recorder, and an app to sign off consent which will use a combination of fingerprint and other bio metrics as well as the video to confirm your identity.

Then once everyone agrees and we have proven they are not intoxicated or under the influence of any drugs it can simply place a call into a government approved call center. The government employee can then interview each party involved over video chat and if everything checks out they can unlatch the chastity belts remotely. I think maybe they should even watch the initial penetration in case someone changes their mind the last second. Also, this needs to be done every time you want to have sex, because you never know when someone can change their mind. Of course, this will not be free so each time their should be a fee associated with it.

We shall call it The Affordable Sex Act.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I just thought it was an interesting topic and was discussing right along with you. I think the laws on this cut both ways quite often because there are a lot of variables to these situations. There is also a heavy bias to the female side of most cases too.

Also I fully agree that the girls that gave the tattoo artist a piece for a piece are just as at fault...however being that he is the adult I fully agree his punishment should be more severe...but don't for a minute think those girls weren't fully aware of what they were doing and that he could get in trouble for it.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem confused if that reply was to me...as I didn't post that...me thinks you might wanna go back and do some editing while you still can.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: ScepticScot

Please quote where I said that?

Sorry just realised I have confused you with another poster.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem confused if that reply was to me...as I didn't post that...me thinks you might wanna go back and do some editing while you still can.

Won't remove as would rather own up to my error. Will add correction to my post.

a reply to: MRinder

That's the point I was making...there is just sooooo much going on that one has to watch out for concerning a natural act that by all means is promoted in a majority of aspects of life. So as a man I need to make sure I have recorded proof there was consent...that I checked ID and knew how to spot a fake...did a drug and alcohol test...was able to determine if all was well...and ensure there was no intimidation even if it turns out after the fact that she decided she wasn't ok with it then we got the well he looked like he could hurt me so I didn't say anything excuse. Its just insane...and makes me glad that I am happily with the same woman for 7 years now and I don't have to worry with any of it any more.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No worries...mistakes happen...just figured you might wanna clear it up before everyone coming in pointed it out again.

a reply to: ScepticScot

GOOD law is OBJECTIVE AND is considered cut and dry..


Establishing if they actually broke that black and white law is done by jury.. which are subjective, biased , stupid.. whatever you want to call them..

Feelings should never be legislated..


If I “feel” like you are gonna hit me. That should not be enough to establish that I was going to hit you.


All that should matter is if I was actually going to hit you.


To put it in the even money example..


Same some woman feels like if she says no. He will hit her, but he has done nothing to intentionally impart that.


Is it all in her head???

Is he really a psychopath???


So at that point if she says no and he is a psychopath. She will be raped and beaten..


If she says nothing he will only rape her, not beat her..



The difference in that equation is obviously the beating. Either way she is getting raped , unless she successfully fights him off.


Now situation number 2...


If he is not a psychopath and she says no. The encounter ends . Everyone goes home healthy.

If he is not a psychopath and she keeps quiet out of fear. Then she is raped by someone who had no intention of doing so and now has made an innocent man a rapist.


The difference in those outcomes are everyone leaving happy and healthy compared to an unintentional rape..



That is why subjective is the worst way to judge a situation..


People work stuff out in their own heads reguardless of reality.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

GOOD law OBJECTIVE AND is considered cut and dry..


Establishing if they actually broke that black and white law is done by jury.. which are subjective, biased , stupid.. whatever you want to call them..

Feelings should never be legislated..


If I “feel” like you are gonna hit me. That should not be enough to establish that I was going to hit you.


All that should matter is if I was actually going to hit you.


To put it in the even money example..


Same some woman feels like if she says no. He will hit her, but he has done nothing to intentionally impart that.


Is it all in her head???

Is he really a psychopath???


So at that point if she says no and he is a psychopath. She will be raped and beaten..


If she says nothing he will only rape her, not beat her..



The difference in that equation is obviously the beating. Either way she is getting raped , unless she successfully fights him off.


Now situation number 2...


If he is not a psychopath and she says no. The encounter ends . Everyone goes home healthy.

If he is not a psychopath and she keeps quiet out of fear. Then she is raped by someone who had no intention of doing so and now has made an innocent man a rapist.


The difference in those outcomes are everyone leaving happy and healthy..



That is why subjective is the worst way to judge a situation..


People work stuff out in their own heads reguardless of reality.

Random use of capital letters does not make things true.

Intent and what a reasonable person would believe are fundamental parts of how the law works.

On the topic of rape you seem to be a expecting the victim to behave in a totally rational way while experiencing a incredibly traumatic situation.

So no the absence of the word no is not even close enough to confirm consent.

I feel for you Ricky. It's hard to maintain an erection when you have to think through that much stuff. Just make sure to have your current partner sign off each time that she consents so you don't end up being labeled as a sex criminal.

a reply to: BlueJacket

You're not a DJ Khaled type of guy are you?

just curious.

a reply to: MRinder

Well I may as well get it notarized to be sure right...know any on call 24/7 notaries?

a reply to: ScepticScot

So do you confirm consent with feelings? How's that supposed to work?