Part of the issue with consent is that it's so fluid. You can't just sign a document at the start, check off some checklists and go. If the lady (or man) does that, signs everything and then decides "Man, that checklist scares me, this isn't happening" and says they are no longer interested, that signed document or checklist doesn't give the other party the right to continue along.
Active participation is usually considered 'active consent' but isn't always.
Visibly intoxicated is generally the standard. If you didn't know she was drunk you could possibly claim mens rea.
If visualy intoxicated is the standard then everyone who meets in a bar is raping eachother. 90% of people at the bar are visibly intoxicated. Essentially that standard would be if you cant drive home you cant consent. Is that really the legal standard?
I should also mention there were times my mind was saying no, but my body was saying yes, and I went through with it, and I took full responsibilities for my actions.
I think there is a few reasons. One is that being a rapist is the 2nd worse thing you can be behind child molesters. Far far worse then murder, assault, theft or other crimes.
I have to disagree. As disgusting as rape is, I think the finality of death will always make murderers worse.
Not to be contrary for the hell of it, but I dated a girl a few years back that had hardcore rape fantasies, and no definitely meant yes. It isn't that cut and dry.
Probably TMI, but that 'fetish' certainly exists.
It absolutely does, and there's a reason why BDSM is a fetish as well. But when done properly, there is plenty of discussion beforehand, there are safe words and things of that nature. The discussion is had before any of the acts begin, and thus consent HAS been given for future reference, with an out clause (safe word, etc) so if he/she changes his/her mind, that consent can be rescinded if he/she feels unsafe.
That kind of fantasy, in a healthy relationship, is a fully different situation.
I'm assuming this was established at some point ahead of time in the relationship? I don't think you just raped her one night and hoped she'd be into it.
If you don't just go for it, you miss out on opportunities like this!
The Following User Says Thank You to Stampede2TheCup For This Useful Post:
I don't believe false accusations are as bad as the act itself but I do think there needs to be severe punishment if that happens. That said, and I can't believe nobody has argued this yet but rube cube acts as if just getting consent is oh so cut and dry.
Talk about the epitome of he said she said.
"He raped me."
"She said she was fine with it!"
Uh oh. Now what?
It should be straightforward, but some people are idiots, some people are rapists, and some people are liars, and there are never exact situations when dealing with these different groups.
I don't believe false accusations are as bad as the act itself but I do think there needs to be severe punishment if that happens. That said, and I can't believe nobody has argued this yet but rube cube acts as if just getting consent is oh so cut and dry.
Talk about the epitome of he said she said.
"He raped me."
"She said she was fine with it!"
Where did I say that? Which do you think happens more frequently, people not getting proper consent and there being a sexual assault, or people getting consent and then being falsely accused? Again we're talking best practices here.
TY.
I'm ready to make a call on this one. He should learn to hold his breath longer or at least have a lighter more gentle thumb action when taking a breath. His chatter was very distracting for her and her orgasm.
She kept thinking I'm sooo drunk and he is doing this ... "SLUT" DID HE JUST CALL ME .... oh god that's the right spot...
But a lot of times with sex, consent is implied. Does everyone have to ask "hey, would it be ok to have sexual intercourse right now?"
Come on, this is the real world we're talking about, not hypotheticals.
No such thing as implied consent, see R. v Ewanchuk (1999).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
She can't give verbal consent if she's drunk. We went over this already. You can't legally consent to anything when intoxicated. If you're a sober dude who's cruising for waste cases at the bar, then you're pretty much a sexual predator.
Not exactly true...
Quote:
Originally Posted by R v. Cedeno(2005)
Mere drunkenness is not the equivalent of incapacity [citations omitted]. Nor is alcohol-induced imprudent decision making, memory loss, loss of inhibition or self control [citations omitted]. A drunken consent is still a valid consent. Where the line is crossed into incapacity may be difficult to determine at times. Expert evidence may assist and even be necessary, in some cases [citations omitted], though it is not required as a matter of law [citations omitted].
She willingly made the decision to do this while intoxicated. She clearly wasn't forced, she was conscious, standing etc.
She just needs to accept that she made a bad decision while drunk.
When someone blacks out and drives their car home, they may not remember doing it but are treated as if they willingly made that decision to drive.
I think being intoxicated can definitely lead to a situation where you can be taken advantage of ie: being passed out, barely able to walk/communicate, but that does not look to be the case here in any way.
I don't know, it doesn't look out of the realm of the possibility that she wasn't capable of consenting. She kinda looks hammered if you ask me. The guy, on the other hand appears to be very conscious. The video doesn't exactly undercut her story, IMO.
He looked hammered too. Maybe "eat my crotch" was a little intimidating and he was sexually assaulted and because of his intoxicated state ate her crotch even though he didn't want to.
Consent works both ways. Did he consent her to whip out her vagina and tell him to eat it?
