Rape And The issue of Consent. The Pundits Miss The Point.

TruthInTheNews

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
1,522
There has been a slew of articles in the main stream media since the rugby rape trial fulminating about the issue of consent and how consent needs to be made explicit. The latest is from Roe McDermott In the Irish Times. McDermott is a "Fulbright Scholar with an MA in sexuality studies from San Francisco State University" and she makes the same mistake as all the other pundits. The issue is not consent but rather proof of lack of consent. How does a woman prove that she withdrew consent to participation in a sexual act if there were no independent witnesses? McDermott did not address this question.

Most jurists commence their jury duty in a relatively lighthearted fashion but it soon dawns on them that a trial is a very serious process and that the future life prospects of the accused are in their hands. They become acutely aware that sending somebody down for seven years will probably ruin that person's life so they want to be damn sure that the right decision is made. Lack of evidence is the reason why most rape prosecutions fail and this will not change unless the rules of evidence are changed.

Feminists like McDermott need to understand that there is nothing wrong with the legal system. Women must realise that if they put themselves in a position where they are alone with a man then the circumstances may be such that it becomes impossible to prove lack of consent in a sexual encounter. Harsh but true.
 


making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,368
Feminists like McDermott need to understand that there is nothing wrong with the legal system. Women must realise that if they put themselves in a position where they are alone with a man then the circumstances may be such that it becomes impossible to prove lack of consent in a sexual encounter. Harsh but true.
It is all the fault of the woman :roll:
 

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,160
That's not what he said. As you know.
Okay, lets see what he said..

Women must realise that if they put themselves in a position where they are alone with a man then the circumstances may be such that it becomes impossible to prove lack of consent in a sexual encounter. Harsh but true.

I'm getting that women shouldn't be alone with a man, and if they are, they are asking for it, with a touch of, their skirts are too short.
 

Fr Peter McWhinger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
896
Rape in the UK is per the 2003 Act and turns on a Objective Standard


(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—


(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,


(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and.

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.


(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.


(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.


(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.


Rape in the Republic is per the Crown v Morgan and turns on the belief of the accused.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,361
Did I mention that 0.08mm thickness of latex film has been accepted in court as the difference between rape and pleasure..

In fact any procedure between otherwise consenting adults not agreed to in advance of sexual relations can be construed as sexual assault.

...So whatever you do, don't touch my bottom OK!
 

Fr Peter McWhinger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
896
If one or more people involved in a sexual act are negligent in ensuring consent was volunteered they leave themselves open to facing Criminal Charges with Guilt to be determined by a Jury.

Any party to a sex act is free to withdraw consent during the Act, and rape is committed where there is failure to abandon the act when consent is withdrawn
 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,673
Okay, lets see what he said..

Women must realise that if they put themselves in a position where they are alone with a man then the circumstances may be such that it becomes impossible to prove lack of consent in a sexual encounter. Harsh but true.

I'm getting that women shouldn't be alone with a man, and if they are, they are asking for it, with a touch of, their skirts are too short.
You’ve just explained how you chose to deliberately misinterpret and embellish what the OP said.

I get what he said as without any witnesses to sex between a couple (which to my knowledge is virtually always the case so by definition they’re ‘alone’ together), a subsequent dispute over consent boils down to a he said\she said hearsay argument hence impossible to prove in court.
 

the secretary

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
5,993
Very good point.
I fully agree with you.
 

Fats_Portnoy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
697
There has been a slew of articles in the main stream media since the rugby rape trial fulminating about the issue of consent and how consent needs to be made explicit. The latest is from Roe McDermott In the Irish Times. McDermott is a "Fulbright Scholar with an MA in sexuality studies from San Francisco State University" and she makes the same mistake as all the other pundits. The issue is not consent but rather proof of lack of consent. How does a woman prove that she withdrew consent to participation in a sexual act if there were no independent witnesses? McDermott did not address this question.

Most jurists commence their jury duty in a relatively lighthearted fashion but it soon dawns on them that a trial is a very serious process and that the future life prospects of the accused are in their hands. They become acutely aware that sending somebody down for seven years will probably ruin that person's life so they want to be damn sure that the right decision is made. Lack of evidence is the reason why most rape prosecutions fail and this will not change unless the rules of evidence are changed.

Feminists like McDermott need to understand that there is nothing wrong with the legal system. Women must realise that if they put themselves in a position where they are alone with a man then the circumstances may be such that it becomes impossible to prove lack of consent in a sexual encounter. Harsh but true.
No better alternative to an adversarial trial with the test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been advanced. Its a pity you don't link to the article as it sounded interesting.
 

the secretary

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
5,993
Okay, lets see what he said..

Women must realise that if they put themselves in a position where they are alone with a man then the circumstances may be such that it becomes impossible to prove lack of consent in a sexual encounter. Harsh but true.

I'm getting that women shouldn't be alone with a man, and if they are, they are asking for it, with a touch of, their skirts are too short.
Harsh but true.
And he didn't say women were asking for it. Those are your words.
He asked how can a woman prove that she withdrew her consent if there are no independent witnesses.
Thats the problem women face.
 

Lagertha

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
4,458
Without witnesses there is no way of proving or disproving consent, lack of consent or rape. When a case with no evidence or witnesses gets to court and I really don't think those cases should get to court, it's basically down to who has the most plausible story. Quite often there are stories in the media where a person who reports a rape does so after speaking to her friends, well I don't think anyone who had genuinely been raped would need to ''phone a friend'',so to speak.

How do you prove consent? It is easy to argue that the person wasn't capable of giving consent whether they've written or spoken that consent if they say they'd been drinking or taking drugs, whether or not they can prove that. If 2 people have consensual sex after a drunken night out why is the drunken man considered a rapist for having consensual sex with the consenting drunken woman? They were both drunk and incapable of making sensible decisions so why is one a criminal and one a victim?
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,430
There has been a slew of articles in the main stream media since the rugby rape trial fulminating about the issue of consent and how consent needs to be made explicit. The latest is from Roe McDermott In the Irish Times. McDermott is a "Fulbright Scholar with an MA in sexuality studies from San Francisco State University" and she makes the same mistake as all the other pundits. The issue is not consent but rather proof of lack of consent. How does a woman prove that she withdrew consent to participation in a sexual act if there were no independent witnesses? McDermott did not address this question.

Most jurists commence their jury duty in a relatively lighthearted fashion but it soon dawns on them that a trial is a very serious process and that the future life prospects of the accused are in their hands. They become acutely aware that sending somebody down for seven years will probably ruin that person's life so they want to be damn sure that the right decision is made. Lack of evidence is the reason why most rape prosecutions fail and this will not change unless the rules of evidence are changed.

Feminists like McDermott need to understand that there is nothing wrong with the legal system. Women must realise that if they put themselves in a position where they are alone with a man then the circumstances may be such that it becomes impossible to prove lack of consent in a sexual encounter. Harsh but true.
But.. but.. McDermott was/is indignant.
That has to count for something?
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
54,034
Not surprised shes from California.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top