Men must prove a woman said Yes under tough new rape rules

Blackout0219 said:
Are you sure the daily telegraph isn't just making up bs?

Spooks_McBones said:


This aint no opinion piece this time asking for better measures, this is just informing us that they are now implementing these changes:

"Police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”.

Campaigners described the move as “a huge step forward” in ensuring fewer rapists escape justice."

Blackout0219 said:
I think what this law probably means is that the perpetrator or accused must prove that the victim consented when she was tied up, drank too much, was asleep, unconscious; there's situations the victim feels scared and starts feeling apathy and doesn't say no, but body signs show a clear "no"

Spooks_McBones said:
Regardless it will reflect badly on any accused if they can't produce the evidence and how exactly are all men who might be accused supposed to get verbal consent with witnesses so you can actually prove it (might as well have them prove they had a bowl movement that morning) and this also means now that all men are going to have to make sure they seek verbal consent with clear meaning and someway be able to save that as evidence in case the girl does turn around the next day and claim rape or you took advantage of her when she was too drunk. To her too drunk could basically mean she had beer goggles on and finds you unattractive in the morning.

I'm sure the daily telegraph is interpreting the rule the wrong way because it's impossible.

As for too drunk, that is not a lie however it's unlikely, most rape cases of drunk happen when you deliberately take advantage of her and she can't say no because she doesn't know what's happening. If you were raped while drunk you need to test your alcohol and prove you had alcohol to incapacitate you.

JonyJC said:
Please sign this consent form before I shove my dick in there must be the biggest turn of ever.

Immahnoob said:
California disagrees.
Most drunk cases are people just regretting after saying yes.

However I'm talking about when you are too drunk too consent

Do you haven any proof that most rape cases that involve being drunk are actually regrets? I have my doubts that it's really like that. But in my country we don't have college campuses so we don't have the problem of rape in college

Blackout0219 said:
If you have sex with someone who's too wasted to consent that's rape, if you can consent it's not rape

It must be the other parties fault if they are too drunk, indeed. Unless the other party forced them to drink, I don't see how this is a feasible law. Because it is your own volition to drink.

Your willful ignorance still persists after I refuted your arguments last time, it seems.

Spooks_McBones said:


What if say both were wasted, they start the process and the chick passes out 20% into it but the guy who is also wasted doesn't noticed, too busy with his head buried into the pillow or something. Next day woman wakes up says rape.

Who is right in that situation? who gets fucked in your eyes is that man a rapist?

thats whats always bothered me about these kind of things, its such an in the moment topic based on how people feel at the time and lots of vaguery that I can't see how its even possible to get a truth from it both parties believe they are right and who can say which it is.

So what? It doesn't matter how drunk you are, that's not really an excuse to rape someone who is not consenting. Do you think it's the victim's fault for being raped after drinking some beers? I have got wasted during my life, it's a way of enjoying parties, and if someone raped me I don't think it would be fair

something done by american conservatives?

Blackout0219 said:

Your situation is stupid because a man who is so wasted is almost surely incapable of even having an erection.

Blackout0219 said:
On the other hand, fucking a passed out person is rape. That's the law. And that case is actually one improbable situation

That's begging the question, claiming it's already rape. If one is drinking until passing out and then consents, I don't see how it's anyone's fault if they regret afterwards.

]Guilt by association.

American college students disagree, thats a falsehood Dr Blackout

Improbable? really. It happens all the time especially with couples who get drunk together there are a ton of times one side of the couple passes out before they finish intercourse. I see you would basically send a man to jail because you won't find a one off case to be standard enough to be looked into. Just call it rape and move on, you can't generalize cases like that.

In that case the man was not a rapist, he was not out to take someone by force or deliberately getting a woman drunk. as far as he knew he would have been having normal drunk intercourse with a woman who engaged him and yet you would have people brand him a rapist for life, someone who deliberately took someone without their consent, yeah thats fair.

No I'm not claiming but I'm not going to claim either that it's just regret, you saying that most cases of drunk rape are regret is an insult to all the people, men or women, who were just drinking for fun and were taken advantage

check out this

Blackout0219 said:
but I'm not going to assume either that he is guilt free.

Too bad they weren't taking advantage of, they consented. I think you don't see how easy it is to take advantage of this law.

Like the lack of sources helps this link a lot. I'm actually showing evidence that speaks about sources, and you show me this as a counter. Weak.

Spooks_McBones said:


"Innocent until proven guilty"

In those terms you do indeed have to assume he is innocent until evidence or accounts can cast doubt on him.

Thats there to stop people jumping to conclusions and ruining peoples reputations. Although not that it works as people who have been falsely accused are never looked upon the same way again. Even if it was proven people will still see him as an accused rapist and that will follow him forever. Even I would have a hard time feeling comfortable around someone like that even if it was 100% assured they didn't do it because of the stigma.

Are you retarded? For your argument to be true that would mean all cases of drunk rape were consented, and they are not, there's cases of people so wasted that cant' even say "yes" or "no". If you think the norm is consent, prove it without bringing conservative sites.

Immahnoob said:
"I don't like your proof so it's not proof."

So if I quote you a conservative website to proves god exists do you have to accept the evidence?

Biased sources are not acceptable.

Lencurryboy said:
that sounds good

Blackout0219 said:

So if I quote you a conservative website to proves god exists do you have to accept the evidence? I don't understand your problem. Biased sources are not acceptable. if you think a conservative institution affiliated with bush administration and republicans is reliable then it's your problem - The same people who promote fuck the rest of the world capitalism and ignore the growing difference between rich and poor, probably the same people who would say Christianity is the religion of the american people.

Spooks_McBones said:


I won't accept bias opinion


Has bias opinion.






k....

Blackout0219 said:


No, it's not biased for me not to trust groups who claim there's a war on christmas, that global warming doesn't exist, that abortion is murder and that America is a Christian nation. If you think this is biased, then you will admit you accept anything as evidence..

Let me shift things - I'm presenting you the bible and claiming god exists - The bible is proof for god. See? This is the same as quoting a conservative website ;)

Spooks_McBones said:


But it is bias:

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, a political party, or a species. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.

your unwillingness to even acknowledge their point of view is in essence bias. I'm not trying to say that they are too not bias but I am pointing out the irony of saying one source of information is bias whilst everyone including yourself is also bias. So you must discredit any opinion pieces including ones you agree with.

ut I'm tired of arguing with people, specially Christians, who quote conservative websites to prove conservatives are right. Conservatives or ANY political group follow their ideology, so they twist the statistics to conform evidence;

Immahnoob said:

1. I'm not Christian, I'm an agnostic atheist.
2. I don't care about conservatives, I'm not a conservationist.
3. They point out why your statistics suck and why drunk rape law is bullshit, that's why I'm using them, not to push a conservationist

Also, you are being biased and illogical, they are wrong because they are conservationists? They are biased in our case because they're biased in other cases? CDC made a mistake with their statistics with the questions they asked, and got to some retarded conclusions with their rape statistics, not only that, the women interviewed answered positively to this type of question:
"“When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5 percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”"
This is ambiguous and based on emotion.

NudeBear said:
In the US i can get charged for rape simply because the chick regretted it the morning after.

Bullshit.

ImmahJosh said:
In the US you can get charged for murder simply because you were nearby when someone died.

Bullshit.

Both of those things could happen, in theory. But are they likely to happen? No.

I'm sorry but I've got sot tired of debating neo conservatives that I can't stand looking at their sources.. And yeah I may be biased, but so are you since you ignored my source about the perpetrator profile despite the fact it's backed up by previous studies.

Immahnoob said:
Also, about alcohol again, how come driving while inebriated is illegal and it is the fault of the inebriated that he was driving? Here it seems the one that is inebriated is the one that is at fault, but his judgement is impaired right? Shouldn't it be the same with this case then? It's not the drivers fault if we follow the drunk rape logic.

Immahnoob said:
Also, about alcohol again, how come driving while inebriated is illegal and it is the fault of the inebriated that he was driving? Here it seems the one that is inebriated is the one that is at fault, but his judgement is impaired right? Shouldn't it be the same with this case then? It's not the drivers fault if we follow the drunk rape logic.

Pirating_Ninja said:
One could draw a closer anology to buying things while intoxicated. It is true that you gave consent to pay for something but shouldn't they have to prove you weren't drunk? Is it fair to charge you for a $20 meal after a night of drinking at bars? You only consented to paying it because you were inebriated, there are plenty of things I wouldn't have bought if I was sober. I mean who goes to a sit down restaurant at 2:00 AM? If I wasn't out drinking I would have been asleep, and obviously not bought that meal. I do feel that if one is okay, then the other should be okay too, since it uses the same reasoning, certainly one could argue not on the same scale, but . . . I really want all that money I waste while drunk back.

Blackout0219 said:
Now if she ripped your clothes and told you "fuck me" - That's consent

you drank and you drove, that's illegal

you just can't have sex with someone who is so drunk they can't even get up from the floor and talk.

What is your point here? Are you trying to prove that all women who claim rape after being drunk are lying bitches?

Read the last study I linked you about repeated rapists who intoxicate victims

Spooks_McBones said:


Unless she has no memory of it in the morning, then its rape? ¯(°_o)/¯

Blackout0219 said:

According to the UK's stupid laws apparently yes. But the rest of the world doesn't have the same law.

you drank and you had sex, that's your fault, the same with how the driver is at fault.

It was their choice to drink and to say "yes".

Most of them are, yes.

Did they force the alcohol down their throats? Also, you do know I've already showed you proof on how "date rape" drugs are bullshit, it's in the video I sent.