Hockey Canada, CHL settle lawsuit over alleged sexual assault involving WJ players

[Locke]

It sounds like a Black Mirror episode. Everyone has to sign a consent contract before any physical contact. Then it has to be notarized, filed with the Courts and then you may kiss the stranger you just met in the pub.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

All of them should. But within the cultural context many of us are raised in, it's a messy and complicated.

Like really you should ask for permission to do x, to touch y. In a live fire situation you may touch y first then confirm that's okay. But Ideally it should be the former not the latter.

And considering various other factrs like power dynamics etc, someone might not want to say y is okay, doesn't want to do it, but feels compelled or coerced to

Sorry, but this was funny.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Locke

It sounds like a Black Mirror episode. Everyone has to sign a consent contract before any physical contact. Then it has to be notarized, filed with the Courts and then you may kiss the stranger you just met in the pub.

That's a little reactionary, but how you can see that straight line.

Basically, ask for if you can kiss someone, ask if they wanna bang, and either talk about the non vanilla stuff either before you have sex, or have that talk before you have sex again.


EDIT: I want to be clear that isn't intended to be glib, but to meet folks where they're at and provide tangible strategies for approaching dating etc based on my own experiences.
Obviously there is a different between the in theory cases I'm talking about and violent gang sexual assault, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. nor do I want to make light of anything.
I was trying to meet Locke and others where they were at with my quoted post and suggest a better way forward. I'm sorry I fell short. Leaving it up for accountability.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

That's a little reactionary, but how you can see that straight line.

Basically, ask for if you can kiss someone, ask if they wanna bang, and either talk about the non vanilla stuff either before you have sex, or have that talk before you have sex again.

I am appalled you guys are making light of this situation.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

"The jury is expected to hear from some witnesses that the complainant was at times offering to perform sexual acts or asking whether anyone was going to have sex with her, Donkers said. "

This is the part the defense is going to push on. If you're offering to perform sexual acts, doesn't that imply consent? I can see a scenario where the players can suggest "I thought the girl was really into nympho, exhibitionist, group sex and between what McLeod told me and what the girl said...it was implied consent."

There is no such thing as "implied consent". There is no such thing as "advance consent". The issue is whether the complainant was consenting to the sexual activity when it was happening.

If she was an active, willing participant to the sexual activity and had capacity to consent, she was consenting.

If she was not an active, willing participant (somewhere on the spectrum of passive acceptance and active resistance) and testifies that she did not consent, then the issue is whether the defendants honestly but mistakenly believed that she was consenting and whether they took reasonable steps to ascertain that consent in the circumstances.

(NOTE: I don't practice criminal law so fully expect [and invite] MBates or others to correct or refine my very brief summary.)

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

That's a little reactionary, but how you can see that straight line.

Basically, ask for if you can kiss someone, ask if they wanna bang, and either talk about the non vanilla stuff either before you have sex, or have that talk before you have sex again.

You don't have to ask your sexual partner for verbal consent before engaging in sexual activity. That is silly. You know when someone is consenting to sexual activity. They are actively and willingly participating. When your sexual partner is not actively or willing participating, you must take reasonable steps to ascertain that your partner is consenting.

This isn't actually rocket science and the vast, vast majority of people are able to navigate sexual activity without ever sexually assaulting another person.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So all consent must be explicit? What fraction of the people who have sex in Calgary tonight will get explicit consent from their partner?

You're talking about verbal communication of consent. The law does not require that (except in certain exceptional circumstances where that might be part of the duty to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So all consent must be explicit? What fraction of the people who have sex in Calgary tonight will get explicit consent from their partner?

No such thing in terms of a legal defence, but if we’re being pedants, look up what it means first. Implied consent is, essentially, “didn’t say no and didn’t resist,” so if you’re asking me how many people on any given night will engage in sexual activity with more than implied consent, or more than “they didn’t say no and didn’t stop me!” then my answer is the vast majority.

Originally Posted by Locke

It sounds like a Black Mirror episode. Everyone has to sign a consent contract before any physical contact. Then it has to be notarized, filed with the Courts and then you may kiss the stranger you just met in the pub.

Or you could just be a normal person and make sure you know the person you’re engaged in whatever activity with is mutually engaged in that activity.

[fotze2]

Women probably reading this thread thinking 'Oh great, a bunch of hockey nerds debating and mansplaining sexual consent legal theory.'

[TheIronMaiden]

A person can withdraw consent at any time, that includes in the middle of sex that was previously consensual. Continuing to have sex or pressuring someone to have sex after they've withdrawal consent is rape or sexual assault.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Women probably reading this thread thinking 'Oh great, a bunch of hockey nerds debating and mansplaining sexual consent legal theory.'

I'm confused. Consent to sexual activity isn't a uniquely female concept. Although sexual assault offenders are overwhelmingly men, their victims are both men and women (and of course every gender identity in between).

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Locke

It sounds like a Black Mirror episode. Everyone has to sign a consent contract before any physical contact. Then it has to be notarized, filed with the Courts and then you may kiss the stranger you just met in the pub.

No it doesn't, the rest is nonsense. If you're having casual sex or hooking up with someone new make sure they're comfortable and want what's happening to happen. Don't make up nonsense fiction pretending it's difficult.

[dustygoon]

What happened over lunch that led to jury being dismissed and judge saying she needs to think about it?

[Nyah]

I remember consent contracts being the 'joke' among some men (and women) back when Me Too was happening. It wasn't funny then, and it isn't funny now. I understand the impulse to try and bring in some levity and jokes/GIFs to this thread, but it's actually really inappropriate.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I am appalled you guys are making light of this situation.

I'm not?

I was trying to meet Locke where he was at in the post, but further explain why how relatively simple consent can be, compared to how important it is.

I'm not trying to make light of anything, but share how simple and important it can be.

I'd like to think that I've been posting on and off her long enough that folks know I'd never make light of the situation.

I'm sorry that my tone didn't match my intent, as I was trying to meet folks where they're at show them how simple obtaining enthusiastic consent can be

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

What happened over lunch that led to jury being dismissed and judge saying she needs to think about it?

They can’t report on it because the jury wasn’t present. That’s all we know for now.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by BigThief

No it doesn't, the rest is nonsense. If you're having casual sex or hooking up with someone new make sure they're comfortable and want what's happening to happen. Don't make up nonsense fiction pretending it's difficult.

I wasn't sure I could have been more sarcastic, but I'll be sure to use Green Text next time for the newbs.

[Lewis_D]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I'm not?

I was trying to meet Locke where he was at in the post, but further explain why how relatively simple consent can be, compared to how important it is.

I'm not trying to make light of anything, but share how simple and important it can be.

I'd like to think that I've been posting on and off her long enough that folks know I'd never make light of the situation.

I'm sorry that my tone didn't match my intent, as I was trying to meet folks where they're at show them how simple obtaining enthusiastic consent can be

FWIW I'm also not sure why that poster quoted you initially, you definitely did not come across as being insensitive or making light of the situation in this thread.

Although Fotze is not wrong, there's definitely posts in here making light of the situation or using it as an attempt to dunk on Edmonton which is pretty gross.

[Yeah_Baby]

sorry, I'm like kind of spiraling here.

I think there are a few general themes in the thread.
Those following the case, and those that have their own perspectives on the case though the lens of how they view society.

Then the thread that uses the above as a jumping off point for culture war stuff who thinks we're all snowflakes.

and then what I was trying to, and failed, do was use the culture war to have an important convesation about how important and simple and needed enthustic consent is.

I'll do better next time. Once again I am so sorry, and not that you have to have experianced anything to have this perspective, but fwiw I've been inapproachably touched at work, so please know I do take this seriously, as well as the call in.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I'm not?

I was trying to meet Locke where he was at in the post, but further explain why how relatively simple consent can be, compared to how important it is.

I'm not trying to make light of anything, but share how simple and important it can be.

I'd like to think that I've been posting on and off her long enough that folks know I'd never make light of the situation.

I'm sorry that my tone didn't match my intent, as I was trying to meet folks where they're at show them how simple obtaining enthusiastic consent can be

It's a touchy subject, but I understood your intent, for what it's worth.