if you lean in for a kiss on the neck and she recoils or withdraws then that should indicate non-consent. I mean, it should be pretty easy to interpret, right? You don’t need to speak in legalese to set up boundaries.
Agreed, with the slight caveat that if one of the two people are impaired by drugs or alcohol, are in a position of authority over the other or has reasons to fear the other person, that changes things (especially if, instead of being an active participant, one person is just sort of passively accepting the sexual activity).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
But like, anecdotally, my wife had specifically told me that she loves when I do exactly what you’ve described. She’s provided consent, and hasn’t taken it away...
That’s not the way consent works legally. Precedent and positive reinforcement have no bearing. If you’ve kissed your wife 100 times from behind with positive affirmation that it was welcome, there is no implied consent to do it for the 101st time.
Again, happy for a lawyer to step in and correct me if I’m wrong.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
That’s not the way consent works legally. Precedent and positive reinforcement have no bearing. If you’ve kissed your wife 100 times from behind with positive affirmation that it was welcome, there is no implied consent to do it for the 101st time.
Again, happy for a lawyer to step in and correct me if I’m wrong.
Correct.
But its all about risk. Basically, any time you touch another person, you take the risk of doing so without their consent and therefore committing an assault (either common or sexual). This, I think, is the gist of MBates' concerns about the current state of the law). However, in the vast majority of cases, I have a basic level of trust in the people I choose to touch (sexually or otherwise) that I understand and can predict what touching they will consent to and also that I can recognize when they are and are not consenting to touching.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Last edited by Makarov; 05-28-2025 at 11:04 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
There was a time discrepancy between Formenton and Dube's interviews regarding Dube's turn with EM. Formenton said 10 minutes and Dube said 10 seconds. Seems like quite a big difference if you ask me.
Dube's interview doesn't sit well with me though.
Exert of part of Formenton's interview with the police.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Formenton tells the detective that after he and the woman had sex in the bathroom, she walked out naked. Then, he says, he had a shower to get ready for bed.
“I was pretty tired.”
He says he left the bathroom and saw the woman naked and giving oral sex to Hart again, before giving oral sex to Dillon Dubé “for 10 minutes.” Then, Formenton adds in the police interview, “she took a break for like, three minutes, and started crawling on the bed where McLeod was laying and started giving him oral sex.”
After that, the woman was on the floor “playing with herself” and seemed to get “frustrated” that no one was doing anything with her, Formenton says.
“She kind of took it personally, like she wasn’t hot enough, but really the guys just had girlfriends and didn’t want to do it in front of each other.”
That’s not the way consent works legally. Precedent and positive reinforcement have no bearing. If you’ve kissed your wife 100 times from behind with positive affirmation that it was welcome, there is no implied consent to do it for the 101st time.
Again, happy for a lawyer to step in and correct me if I’m wrong.
It’s not precedent or implied consent. It’s literal advanced consent. Verbally provided, “do that thing more”. Which can be withdrawn.
It’s not precedent or implied consent. It’s literal advanced consent. Verbally provided, “do that thing more”. Which can be withdrawn.
Canadian criminal law does not recognize "advanced consent". Indeed, I think relatively recent amendments to the Criminal Code expressly codify that.
The only thing that matters is whether or not a person is consenting (in their mind) to the activity when the activity is happening. End of story.
Now, a lot of this is dealt with by things like the credibility of the witness. For example, if a complainant testifies that she asked the accused to perform sexual activity X, and the accused proceeds to perform sexual activity X, and the complainant actively participated in sexual activity X, but also testifies that she did not consent to sexual activity X while it was happening (again, but was an active and willing participant), a trier of fact is almost certainly going to have a reasonable doubt about the credibility of the evidence that the complainant did not consent to sexual activity X.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Once again, very chauvinistic to presume you know what all women want.
I've definitely asked for verbal permission before making moves/switching positions, but definitely not every time, and I honestly don't think that everyone in here can say they've asked for permission every time without lying.
Man why are you being so anal and selectively reading here. The next line down acknowledges exactly that. I don't presume that's what all women want and say so in the post. But, again, this is the central point, how the f would you know if you're afraid of asking?!!? Trust me, no one is going to lose the "mood" or whatever it is you are thinking about from a question. If they do, you are probably greatly overestimating their willingness to engage in the situation in the first place.
I think you need to spend some time with a woman and less time online for today.
There was a time discrepancy between Formenton and Dube's interviews regarding Dube's turn with EM. Formenton said 10 minutes and Dube said 10 seconds. Seems like quite a big difference if you ask me.
Dube's interview doesn't sit well with me though.
Exert of part of Formenton's interview with the police.
What, did he check his watch?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Man why are you being so anal and selectively reading here. The next line down acknowledges exactly that. I don't presume that's what all women want and say so in the post. But, again, this is the central point, how the f would you know if you're afraid of asking?!!? Trust me, no one is going to lose the "mood" or whatever it is you are thinking about from a question. If they do, you are probably greatly overestimating their willingness to engage in the situation in the first place.
I think you need to spend some time with a woman and less time online for today.
No people are going at me for not following the law of consent, by getting verbal consent for every act, which isn't actually the law.
Meanwhile, the law states that there's no such thing as open ended consent. So if you're going to purport the law requires "verbal" consent, that means you have to get it each and every time.
Newton asks Dubé to take him through the night of June 18 and early-morning hours of June 19, 2018.
Dubé doesn’t say much about being at the bar (although he thought it was Jack Astor’s, not Jack’s bar). He tells the investigator that when he walked into the hotel room, he saw a naked woman.
“At one point, I stood up and I thought, ‘I might as well,’ so I pulled my pants down and she came up to me and gave me oral for like, 10 seconds maybe, and I kind of knew it was a bad idea. I didn’t want to be part of this and I stumbled back,” Dubé tells the detective.
With his pants somewhere around his ankles or knees, he sort of fell, and Cal Foote helped him put his pants back on.
“I was like, ‘I don’t want to be here, let’s go,’” Dubé says in the police interview.
Spoiler!
Dubé tells the police officer he was one of the last guys to arrive at the hotel room and one of the first to leave, so he wasn’t there a long time.
In the recording, the detective asks him how he knew to go to Room 209.
Dubé says teammate Jake Bean texted, “‘Hey boys, I ordered pizza, room whatever,’” and nothing about a woman in the room.
Dubé says he didn’t look at his phone for the rest of the night.
“No mention of a girl in the text?” Newton asks? “No,” Dubé answers.
Court has previously seen texts from McLeod telling a group text that a woman was available for “a three-way” in his room.
Spoiler!
WARNING: This post contains graphic details.
The detective asks Dubé what he thought when he walked into the room and saw a naked woman there.
“I thought, ‘Holy, man! What the f–ck is going on?’” Dubé responds.
The woman was “coming at us. She was chirping us for not doing anything with her, which I thought was weird. I didn’t see that before,” he told the police officer.
Dubé tells the officer that the woman did not seem drunk “at all” and she was “talking normal.”
Asked again to describe the oral sex he received from the woman, Dubé says he “just kind of pulled down the front” of his pants, thought “this isn’t good,” and stopped things after “10 or 15 seconds.”
The woman didn’t seem like she didn’t want to be there, he says.
“I thought she wanted to be there more than us,” Dubé tells the detective. “I didn’t want to be there, to be honest. It’s not what I’m about. I don’t need that in my life. I feel like she wanted to be there.”
Spoiler!
Because Dubé was captain of the Canadian world junior team, he was a leader and in charge of the championship trophy.
“I had to take the trophy wherever I went and make sure it didn’t leave my side,” Dubé says in the police interview.
He says he dropped off the trophy in his hotel room before going to Room 209, making sure his roommate kept it safe.
He says he was really drunk and if he were in a different state, he probably would have left right away, but he was able to determine that things weren’t “really bad.”
“If things were different and really bad, I probably would have controlled the guys and kind of kicked the guys out, but I didn’t think anything of it at the time. I didn’t think that she [E.M.] was drunk or against her will by any means.”
With that, the audio recording being played in court ends.
The discrepancies between statements begin. I wonder if the defense counsels will break ranks a bit now if the stories are diverging.
Dube's testimony is fairly confusing in the context of the other statements, so someone among the defense is lying in their statements.
It does seem like he may be angling towards a thought that I brought up earlier in the thread. I don't like it, but I think it could be reasonable to assume that the same peer pressure that the prosecution is relying on to dismiss the "consent" videos can potentially be levied to explain why the accused acted in this way in this setting too. It's not a reasonable defense because they have less peril in the situation in general, but I think it can potentially explain some of the things we are hearing without attributing individual actions to psychopathy. Still wrong.
That’s not the way consent works legally. Precedent and positive reinforcement have no bearing. If you’ve kissed your wife 100 times from behind with positive affirmation that it was welcome, there is no implied consent to do it for the 101st time.
Again, happy for a lawyer to step in and correct me if I’m wrong.
It’s not the way consent works legally, for good reason.
Since you ignored the other question you said you’d answer, how about this:
Situation A:
You come up to your wife from behind, wrap your arms around her, and surprise her with a kiss on the neck. You’ve done so 100 times before (more I hope) with positive affirmation. She doesn’t feel like she was assaulted and enjoys the kiss (we’re in her mind here, not your perception), even if she gives no verbal or physical indication (she’s busy, or occupied, whatever).
Situation B:
A woman is running a kissing booth for charity. The rules are laid out: donate to charity, receive a kiss on the cheek. A stranger comes up to her from behind, wraps his arms around her, and kisses her neck. She hates it, and she feels like she was assaulted.
Situation C:
An abusive husband is drunk and comes up to his wife from behind, wraps his arms around her, and surprises her with a kiss on the neck. This has not been a regular, welcome occurrence for some time, but there was consent once upon a time for that kind of act. She recoils and pushes him away. She feels like she was assaulted.
In which situation was there consent? And in which situation would you reasonably expect the laws around sexual assault and consent to apply? In which ones do you think they should apply?
No people are going at me for not following the law of consent, by getting verbal consent for every act, which isn't actually the law.
Meanwhile, the law states that there's no such thing as open ended consent. So if you're going to purport the law requires "verbal" consent, that means you have to get it each and every time.
No one is "going at you", I think people (myself included) were just curious why you held this opinion that speaking during sex will ruin the mood and end the sexual encounter. That's not my experience, and I was trying to understand yours. I am sorry you felt attacked. No one is accusing anyone of rape here, we're all talking about an area of the law that is grey.
But I don't think asking a question during sex is a grey area... And perhaps that's where we are butting heads.
The Following User Says Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
There was a time discrepancy between Formenton and Dube's interviews regarding Dube's turn with EM. Formenton said 10 minutes and Dube said 10 seconds. Seems like quite a big difference if you ask me.
Dube's interview doesn't sit well with me though.
Exert of part of Formenton's interview with the police.
Holes and inconsistencies in the players stories are staring to come out now, another is McLeod texting about a 3 way, but saying he only invited players to his room for food.
I can’t believe people are discussing consent with your spouse vs what consent is during a one night stand/ g@ng b@ng. Those boundaries, and level of trust have evolved and been agreed upon over time with someone you love and respect. This is not the case during a one night stand or drunken group sex. Unless someone is asking for butt to be smacked you better not be smacking their butt.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
Last edited by Derek Sutton; 05-28-2025 at 11:49 AM.
Holes and inconsistencies in the players stories are staring to come out now, another is McLeod texting about a 3 way, but saying he only invited players to his room for food.
I can’t believe people are discussing consent with your spouse vs what consent is during a one night stand/ g@ng b@ng. Those boundaries, and level of trust have evolved and been agreed upon over time with someone you love and respect. This is not the case during a one night stand or drunken group sex. Unless someone is asking for butt to be smacked you better not be smacking their butt.
Dube's statement is that Bean texted about Pizza, and doesn't reference any text from McLeod. First time I've seen Bean implicated at this level, and if it's true it is quite bad imo. Why would Bean be inviting people to McLeod's room?
The Following User Says Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
No one is "going at you", I think people (myself included) were just curious why you held this opinion that speaking during sex will ruin the mood and end the sexual encounter. That's not my experience, and I was trying to understand yours. I am sorry you felt attacked. No one is accusing anyone of rape here, we're all talking about an area of the law that is grey.
But I don't think asking a question during sex is a grey area... And perhaps that's where we are butting heads.
I never said speaking during sex would ruing the mood, but speaking during certain points could ruin the mood. Big difference.
Not impressed wit the London cop (Newton) who did the first investigation. Seems he was neither thorough (didn’t look at tapes, test clothing etc) and seems to have formed an opinion before going too far down the road with examining players. No wonder the investigation went nowhere.
Not impressed wit the London cop (Newton) who did the first investigation. Seems he was neither thorough (didn’t look at tapes, test clothing etc) and seems to have formed an opinion before going too far down the road with examining players. No wonder the investigation went nowhere.
Keep in mind that the accuser said she did not want to go ahead with criminal charges at the point that these questions are being asked. She said she only wanted the police to talk to them. If she wasn't pursuing criminal charges, the detective wouldn't be launching a full investigation.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
