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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: RickyD

Absolutely they were conscious of their actions, but as kids they are not conscious of the long term ramifications..


That’s why minors can’t do some things legally..


There isn’t really a debate on “if rape is bad”..


What is interesting is the grey area..


A 23 year old with a 17 year old..


Or a 19 year old with a 15 year old.


I think a firm rejection is literally THE ONLY thing that changes consent from a grey area to rape.


There isn’t much the guy can be expected to do if she won’t actually speak up and say no..

Bollocks.

There is a lot more to consent than just the absence of the word no.

So other than a person explicitly communicating they don't want to have sex what works be some examples of both giving and not giving consent.

As I said it's based on what a reasonable person would believe. There are almost limitless different scenarios and each would have to be judged on its own merits. I don't think most guys find it particularly difficult to judge if consent is given.

It seems like it is difficult when one party can decide after the fact that even though they said yes they really felt no in their heart of hearts.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder
How do we determine if the judge or members of the jury are reasonable? I suggest we have the government approve each individual sex act confidential before committed.

Now you are just trolling. I have no intention of wasting my time further on your posts.

. I am sorry that you feel that I am trolling you. I am just trying to figure out short of third party witnesses or legal contracts how we can really prove it was consentual after the fact.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder
How do we determine if the judge or members of the jury are reasonable? I suggest we have the government approve each individual sex act confidential before committed.

Now you are just trolling. I have no intention of wasting my time further on your posts.

. I am sorry that you feel that I am trolling you. I am just trying to figure out short of third party witnesses or legal contracts how we can really prove it was consentual after the fact.

In the spirit of you bring genuine the answer is that it is very difficult. Rape has one of the lowest conviction rates of any crime as in the majority of cases it is one person's word against the other.

Most rape convictions will rely on some other evidence (physical evidence of assault for example).

That doesn't mean all rape accusations are false nor does it mean they are all true. It is one of the most complicated crimes to deal with.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder
How do we determine if the judge or members of the jury are reasonable? I suggest we have the government approve each individual sex act confidential before committed.

Now you are just trolling. I have no intention of wasting my time further on your posts.

. I am sorry that you feel that I am trolling you. I am just trying to figure out short of third party witnesses or legal contracts how we can really prove it was consentual after the fact.

In the spirit of you bring genuine the answer is that it is very difficult. Rape has one of the lowest conviction rates of any crime as in the majority of cases it is one person's word against the other.

Most rape convictions will rely on some other evidence (physical evidence of assault for example).

That doesn't mean all rape accusations are false nor does it mean they are all true. It is one of the most complicated crimes to deal with.

I agree it is very difficult. For all parties sake I think we will get to a point where things must be documented and legal. It seems like sex should be like any other transaction. We should assume the other side is both a potential rapist and rape accuser at all times. Therefore, just like buying a house or a business, it should be based on contracts for each transaction so to speak. We could even add clauses that each party gives up their right to decide it wasn't consensual at a later date and even limit what sex acts are consensual and which ones are not on any given transaction. So a couple or a husband and wife could keep a stack of contracts in the night stand or on their person and right before they commit the transaction they could take a brief break, check off the things they approve, check off the things they forbid, initial each check, the sign the document while the other photographs them signing it. I think we can all agree that any other way is just he said, she said, or he said, he said, or she said, she said, or those people said, I said.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder
How do we determine if the judge or members of the jury are reasonable? I suggest we have the government approve each individual sex act confidential before committed.

Now you are just trolling. I have no intention of wasting my time further on your posts.

. I am sorry that you feel that I am trolling you. I am just trying to figure out short of third party witnesses or legal contracts how we can really prove it was consentual after the fact.

In the spirit of you bring genuine the answer is that it is very difficult. Rape has one of the lowest conviction rates of any crime as in the majority of cases it is one person's word against the other.

Most rape convictions will rely on some other evidence (physical evidence of assault for example).

That doesn't mean all rape accusations are false nor does it mean they are all true. It is one of the most complicated crimes to deal with.

I agree it is very difficult. For all parties sake I think we will get to a point where things must be documented and legal. It seems like sex should be like any other transaction. We should assume the other side is both a potential rapist and rape accuser at all times. Therefore, just like buying a house or a business, it should be based on contracts for each transaction so to speak. We could even add clauses that each party gives up their right to decide it wasn't consensual at a later date and even limit what sex acts are consensual and which ones are not on any given transaction. So a couple or a husband and wife could keep a stack of contracts in the night stand or on their person and right before they commit the transaction they could take a brief break, check off the things they approve, check off the things they forbid, initial each check, the sign the document while the other photographs them signing it.

Nope that's just frankly absurd nonsense.

And no people don't have the right to change their mind about it being consensual later. What matters is was consent given at the time.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder
How do we determine if the judge or members of the jury are reasonable? I suggest we have the government approve each individual sex act confidential before committed.

Now you are just trolling. I have no intention of wasting my time further on your posts.

. I am sorry that you feel that I am trolling you. I am just trying to figure out short of third party witnesses or legal contracts how we can really prove it was consentual after the fact.

In the spirit of you bring genuine the answer is that it is very difficult. Rape has one of the lowest conviction rates of any crime as in the majority of cases it is one person's word against the other.

Most rape convictions will rely on some other evidence (physical evidence of assault for example).

That doesn't mean all rape accusations are false nor does it mean they are all true. It is one of the most complicated crimes to deal with.

I agree it is very difficult. For all parties sake I think we will get to a point where things must be documented and legal. It seems like sex should be like any other transaction. We should assume the other side is both a potential rapist and rape accuser at all times. Therefore, just like buying a house or a business, it should be based on contracts for each transaction so to speak. We could even add clauses that each party gives up their right to decide it wasn't consensual at a later date and even limit what sex acts are consensual and which ones are not on any given transaction. So a couple or a husband and wife could keep a stack of contracts in the night stand or on their person and right before they commit the transaction they could take a brief break, check off the things they approve, check off the things they forbid, initial each check, the sign the document while the other photographs them signing it.

Nope that's just frankly absurd nonsense.

And no people don't have the right to change their mind about it being consensual later. What matters is was consent given at the time.

But the reality is that some people do change their mind after the fact or decide that yes wasn't really a yes. These very matters have been brought before a judge. Furthermore, without a contract how can you prove that consent was given or not given beyond a reasonable doubt without witnesses? I mean i will give you that there are rape cases that are cut and dry, such as a woman that has no relationship with the rapist whatsoever and her body shows the trauma and semen from a rape, but i am saying within a relationship you can never really prove it was consensual or was not without some form of documentation.

a reply to: ScepticScot

That is a fair example..

As long as she admits it is consensual and admits she lied.


That would not be rape for sure..

a reply to: MRinder

I’m thinking what matters most is if they said no at the time....


The way a normal “consent rape” goes down...

They start off making out. Then it goes to progress and for whatever reason. She doesn’t want to but remains silent.



Well in that scenerio a normal person would assume consent was given when they started making out..


Once one party decides things are going too far it would be the responsibility of the party who wants to stop to say “stop”...


Someone can’t just think “stop” and expect people to mind read..

a reply to: ScepticScot

What an easier way to let someone know you want to stop than by saying stop, lol??!!

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: MRinder

I’m thinking what matters most is if they said no at the time....


The way a normal “consent rape” goes down...

They start off making out. Then it goes to progress and for whatever reason. She doesn’t want to but remains silent.



Well in that scenerio a normal person would assume consent was given when they started making out..


Once one party decides things are going too far it would be the responsibility of the party who wants to stop to say “stop”...


Someone can’t just think “stop” and expect people to mind read..

What you said makes way too much sense. Apparently in today's world that is asking too much. We live in a world where if consent wasn't heartfelt at the moment or later the person regrets giving consent days later it is considered rape. The expectation is that men are mind readers and or fortune tellers. Since we barely understand our own feelings at any given moment let alone mind readers the only safe sex is sex under contract.

We must always view ourselves as potential rapists and our sex partners as future rape accusers.


I suggest even if you are specifically told to smack rear or pull hair you stop and have them sign consent to perform such an act. Good forbid your partner wake up feeling like a slut and then regrets giving verbal consent. Next thing you know you will be in cuffs and charged with rape.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Really to go even further you should have a contract signed any time you interact one on one with another human even if no sex occurred. You need documentation you didn't have sex because your friends male and female could accuse you of rape and how could you prove it didn't occur or if it did occur it was consensual otherwise.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

What an easier way to let someone know you want to stop than by saying stop, lol??!!

No one said it isn't. What you are fundamentally wrong in is your suggestion that saying no is the only thing that shows a lack of consent.

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Really to go even further you should have a contract signed any time you interact one on one with another human even if no sex occurred. You need documentation you didn't have sex because your friends male and female could accuse you of rape and how could you prove it didn't occur or if it did occur it was consensual otherwise.

Feel free to adopt that rule for yourself.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

That is a fair example..

As long as she admits it is consensual and admits she lied.


That would not be rape for sure..

Not quite.

Its based on what a reasonable person would believe.

If the guy picked the girl up from school and she looked underage then her saying she was older is unlikely to be much defence.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

They can in the UK aged 16

a reply to: ScepticScot

Obviously lol..

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your right..


It is the least aggressive, most universal way to impart a negative..

They could shoot you in the head I guess...


All I’m saying is for the person who wants to have sex. They are supposed to be able to mind read, but for the person who doesn’t want to. They cannot even be troubled enough to say “no”..

a reply to: MRinder

Only in rightwing world..

How many “consent experts” are elected officials??

None..


How many CEO’s are consent experts???


None..


How many or the rich and powerful that spend billions to effect legislation are consent experts..


None..


Fox News types go out and find random individuals spouting nonsense and pretend it is proof of some deeper trend that almost never existed..


The knock out game, tide pod challenge , exc, exc, exc..


Were all individual incidents that the media then pretended was the next big trend as click bait..


Is something sounds too stupid to be accepted by the majority of the public. It almost certainly is.

It is propaganda meant for stupid people to consume.

a reply to: grey580

I dont even know who that is, I just have a terrible sense of humor, particularly when drinking.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Just google dj khaled the rock