Is it still rape if..?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ChickenMadness
I think bdsm is a pretty broad term though.
Go to a bdsm community like fetlife, present the op as an act of bdsm, and I'm sure they'll all laugh in your face. 50 shades really fed into ignorant ideas of what bdsm is.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by EC
What a case, so basically the decision was made on her being intoxicated, assuming she was responsible for how much she drank and not got drunk by someone else or would that apply as well as consent?
In England and Wales, if you know that you or someone else has intoxicated someone without their consent, it's to be taken that they do not consent and you know they do not consent.
If you're voluntarily intoxicated, it becomes a question of whether or not you have capacity to consent and whether or not the person who stuck their penis in you had a reasonable belief in your consent.
The Evans trials involved two men, him and his mate McDonald who was also charged with rape. In the first trial, the jury unanimously decided a) that she did not have capacity to consent, b) that McDonald (who'd actually talked to her outside the hotel room and gone to it with her) may have had a reasonable belief in her consent, and c) beyond any reasonable doubt, Evans (who'd arrived in the room unexpected, uninvited and unwanted) did not.
So McDonald was acquitted and Evans convicted.
Evans got off the second time because McDonald wasn't called as a witness so even though they asked for his statement, that jury wasn't allowed to know he has always said that Evans is lying about the woman being asked if she wanted to have sex with Evans too.
Without that evidence, it became possible to believe that he may have had a reasonable belief in her consent.
person B may do something like that again, imo person B is a rapist
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by EC
"Person A breaks up with Person B.
Person B does not allow Person A to leave, which escalates into Person B physically restraining Person A.
Person B begins to grope and then initiates sex with Person A. Person A does fight back and tell Person B to stop. This goes on for a while.
Near the end of the act, Person A realizes they're enjoying some aspect of what is happening. Assume it's unknown to Person A exactly what they're feeling as it is happening, and feel free to conjecture on it.
At the end of the act, Person A and Person B make up and remain together.
Person A doesn't suffer through the feelings of betrayal of their trust, even though they did intend to end the relationship and did mean it when they asked Person B to stop. Even though Person B used physical coercion that Person A objected to at the moment that it happened--holding them down, pulling them by their hair, biting, face slapping--Person A looks back on the act specifically (that is to say, Person A is looking at this specific event and not just at the acts if they were to happen between two consenting adults) and feels aroused. Person A doesn't feel anger toward Person B for it." (this is a hypothetical situation taken from another site)
-> one of the replies: "Both any physical response that would suggest enjoyment and any feeling of attachment can all happen with sex itself due to over flow of hormones and oxytocin, the bonding hormone. This is how many kidnapper rapists trap their victims and confuse them. The person may not feel anger or anything towards their rapist if they had a prior relationship. That combined with the hormone overflows can cause a false sense of attachment."
Would you consider this rape? Why/why not?
Person B does not allow Person A to leave, which escalates into Person B physically restraining Person A.
Person B begins to grope and then initiates sex with Person A. Person A does fight back and tell Person B to stop. This goes on for a while.
Near the end of the act, Person A realizes they're enjoying some aspect of what is happening. Assume it's unknown to Person A exactly what they're feeling as it is happening, and feel free to conjecture on it.
At the end of the act, Person A and Person B make up and remain together.
Person A doesn't suffer through the feelings of betrayal of their trust, even though they did intend to end the relationship and did mean it when they asked Person B to stop. Even though Person B used physical coercion that Person A objected to at the moment that it happened--holding them down, pulling them by their hair, biting, face slapping--Person A looks back on the act specifically (that is to say, Person A is looking at this specific event and not just at the acts if they were to happen between two consenting adults) and feels aroused. Person A doesn't feel anger toward Person B for it." (this is a hypothetical situation taken from another site)
-> one of the replies: "Both any physical response that would suggest enjoyment and any feeling of attachment can all happen with sex itself due to over flow of hormones and oxytocin, the bonding hormone. This is how many kidnapper rapists trap their victims and confuse them. The person may not feel anger or anything towards their rapist if they had a prior relationship. That combined with the hormone overflows can cause a false sense of attachment."
Would you consider this rape? Why/why not?
Original post by CookieButter
Any nonconsensual sexual act is considered rape by definition. Legally though if the person who is being coerced is male then no. Sadly, in this country, women cannot be charged with rape.
a) There's an offence with exactly the same maximum penalty if a woman penetrates, eg with a finger or dildo or..., anyone else without consent.
b) There's another offence with a maximum of ten years for any sexual assault, which would include forcing someone to penetrate her.
c) At least one woman has been found guilty of 'rape' - she held the victim down while a man inserted his penis in them.
Original post by unprinted
a) There's an offence with exactly the same maximum penalty if a woman penetrates, eg with a finger or dildo or..., anyone else without consent.
b) There's another offence with a maximum of ten years for any sexual assault, which would include forcing someone to penetrate her.
c) At least one woman has been found guilty of 'rape' - she held the victim down while a man inserted his penis in them.
b) There's another offence with a maximum of ten years for any sexual assault, which would include forcing someone to penetrate her.
c) At least one woman has been found guilty of 'rape' - she held the victim down while a man inserted his penis in them.
Can you link your sources for these please.
Original post by StudyJosh
You learn the law because you clearly don't.
I've read 'The Sexual Offences Act 2003'. And it doesn't outlaw it.
But if you knew how cases and rulings worked, you would know drunken consent is still consent instead of doing zero research and saying 'Learn the law.' LMAO
2005 trial - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/drunken-consent-to-sex-is-still-consent-judge-rules-516722.html
Ched Evans trial - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-trial-not-guilty-hotel-teenager-judge-remarks-a7361956.html
I've read 'The Sexual Offences Act 2003'. And it doesn't outlaw it.
But if you knew how cases and rulings worked, you would know drunken consent is still consent instead of doing zero research and saying 'Learn the law.' LMAO
2005 trial - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/drunken-consent-to-sex-is-still-consent-judge-rules-516722.html
Ched Evans trial - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-trial-not-guilty-hotel-teenager-judge-remarks-a7361956.html
There's not exactly going be a blanket ban on alcohol related sex is there you ****ing idiot?
We're talking about severe drunkeness, not a girl opening her legs after a few shandies.
You claim you've read the sexual offenses act but either you're illiterate or unable to read between the lines.
Evidential presumptions about consent
(1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved—(a)that the defendant did the relevant act,(b)that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and(c)that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,
(2)The circumstances are that—
(d)the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
(e)because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;
(f)any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/75
Hmmm now none of those could be hinting towards drunkenness could they?
The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape.
However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.
So believe it or not, rape cases involving drunken consent aren't black and white. Making your post "You do know drunken consent is valid consent right? lmao" a complete and utter fallacy.
So i'll reiterate it again for you since you're obviously a little slow.
Learn the law you rapey ******* ROFL
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by RobML
Go to a bdsm community like fetlife, present the op as an act of bdsm, and I'm sure they'll all laugh in your face. 50 shades really fed into ignorant ideas of what bdsm is.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm talking about the things I highlighted in bold. And also I don't really care about being pedantic that much. Your average person lumps in hair pulling, biting, restraining into "bdsm" or just "kinky sex". I'm not an expert on fetishes so my vocabulary for all the different kinds isn't that big.
Was going to say 'rape fetish' but I only bolded a short part of the OP.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by EC
What a case, so basically the decision was made on her being intoxicated, assuming she was responsible for how much she drank and not got drunk by someone else or would that apply as well as consent?
Well in the 2005 case, she prosecuted him for rape because she couldn't remember if she had given consent or not and he claimed she did.
Prosecution withdrew the case because there was kinda no evidence and it was going nowhere. Judge agreed and ruled 'Drunken consent is still consent.'
-----
In the Ched Evans retrial, they used the 2005 ruling to decide whether his convinction for 'raping the girl' was actually correct and he is now cleared of that.
If you wanna know the story, search it up. But part of the reason Evans was cleared was because her two past ex-lovers were allowed to give evidence in court. They revealed that the drunk and consenting behaviour she conducted with them (this was in encounters that she never considered rape).
The behaviour corresponded with the behaviour she exhibited in sexual intercourse with Ched Evans.
Original post by SonoLuma
Those are some big assumptions youve just made there. I would say that youve not only over-extrapolated, but you've put words into my mouth as well.
As I say, You should try not being so defensive. While you're at it, try looking at my original comment again. Only without seeing what you want to see.
If you have any further problems, please feel free to send your thoughts to my absolutely real email address: [email protected]
As I say, You should try not being so defensive. While you're at it, try looking at my original comment again. Only without seeing what you want to see.
If you have any further problems, please feel free to send your thoughts to my absolutely real email address: [email protected]
This is what I would expect from someone who finds rape funny.
Original post by StudyJosh
But part of the reason Evans was cleared was because her two past ex-lovers were allowed to give evidence in court.
The main reason is that the retrial jury weren't allowed to know what the third person in the room has always said.
With the only evidence about what happened before them being Evans saying 'Yes, McDonald asked her if she wanted me to join in' - something McDonald has always denied, including on oath, despite the two men's friendship - it became possible for the jury to believe that Evans may have had a reasonable belief in her consent.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by 0to100
This is what I would expect from someone who finds rape funny.
Clearly, You would have to be psychic to find out if I thought rape was funny or not, because you certainly couldnt find that out from the comments Ive written on this thread. Anyone with intelligence would be able to see that
Keep going, your delicate tears fuel my indifference.
Original post by CookieButter
Can you link your sources for these please.
a) s2 Sexual Offences Act 2003.
b) s3 Sexual Offences Act 2003.
c) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1225124.stm is the one I was thinking of.
See the line "Between 1997 and (2000) a total of 14 women were charged with rape in London alone" to show it's not a unique case.
Original post by IamJacksContempt
There's not exactly going be a blanket ban on alcohol related sex is there you ****ing idiot?
We're talking about severe drunkeness, not a girl opening her legs after a few shandies.
You claim you've read the sexual offenses act but either you're illiterate or unable to read between the lines.
Evidential presumptions about consent
(1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved—(a)that the defendant did the relevant act,(b)that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and(c)that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,
(2)The circumstances are that—
(d)the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
(e)because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;
(f)any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/75
Hmmm now none of those could be hinting towards drunkenness could they?
The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape.
However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.
So believe it or not, rape cases involving drunken consent aren't black and white. Making your post "You do know drunken consent is valid consent right? lmao" a complete and utter fallacy.
So i'll reiterate it again for you since you're obviously a little slow.
Learn the law you rapey ******* ROFL
We're talking about severe drunkeness, not a girl opening her legs after a few shandies.
You claim you've read the sexual offenses act but either you're illiterate or unable to read between the lines.
Evidential presumptions about consent
(1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved—(a)that the defendant did the relevant act,(b)that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and(c)that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,
(2)The circumstances are that—
(d)the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
(e)because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;
(f)any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/75
Hmmm now none of those could be hinting towards drunkenness could they?
The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape.
However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.
So believe it or not, rape cases involving drunken consent aren't black and white. Making your post "You do know drunken consent is valid consent right? lmao" a complete and utter fallacy.
So i'll reiterate it again for you since you're obviously a little slow.
Learn the law you rapey ******* ROFL
The fact you did a quick search and read your beliefs into them is funny seeing as you're reading them for the first time. Don't try and change it to 'severe drunkenness'.
I said drunken consent is still consent.
You presented a very black and white situation. You said 'everytime you have sex with your drunk and consenting partner, you're raping her'...
So I can assume that your partner is heavily drunk whenever you have sex with her which is kind of sad.
You then say this but all you've shown is that 'drunken consent is still consent' which is WHAT I QUOTED from the Judge's ruling.
'The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape.
However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.'
You failed hard and are left trying to change the goalposts but that fallacy isn't working right now, sorry m8.
When did your consenting partner suddenly not voluntarily take the alcohol and become very heavily drunk? LMAO more goalposting changing
Also, this isn't law not 'guess the hints'
Again, you failed hard. It's funny how you call me a 'rapey f***' even though you think having sex with a heavily drunk person who didn't take the alcohol voluntarily is okay? LMAO
Also what has this got to do with me quoting the judge's ruling? I quote you:
'So believe it or not, rape cases involving drunken consent aren't black and white. Making your post "You do know drunken consent is valid consent right? lmao" a complete and utter fallacy.'
Sorry how is the fact that rape cases involving drunken consent are not being black and white make my post a fallacy? It's a ruling. Get over it.
Again, you failed very hard. So I'll repeat it for you because your slow.
- You realised you messed up
- You went to go read the Act because you've never seen it before
- You 'read between the lines' just like psychopaths do when they want justification
- You convinced yourself you were right
- You looked at the black and white case and then said 'not all cases involving drunken consent are black and white'
- You then concluded that your self-proclaimed fact overruled the Judge's ruling and made my post a fallacy.
LMAO, you really are in a state. Are you sure you're not drunk? dumb rapist.
Original post by CookieButter
Convictions rates for rape are amongst the highest conviction rates of all crimes. In the UK the conviction rates for rape are roughly 20% higher than the national average.
The one who is doing the coercion would be charged with sexual assault.
The one who is doing the coercion would be charged with sexual assault.
It depends what definition of conviction rate is used. I looked into it last time when you were expressing your outrage. Other crimes are more straightforward in getting to courtand there is less of a weeding out process. All I got from last time was you are massively angry with women and feminists.
Original post by Abdukazam
Swedish cucks
Feel free to explain.
Basically you are saying 'is it rape it they enjoyed it'. Yes it is..
Original post by EC
If the pleasure wasn't there, it would have been quite clear. But considering that the reaction of the human body could even give you an orgasm even if you didn't consent to the sexual intercourse, it's questionable either way.
The entry is the tricky part here, since person A didn't consider it at all and it was not a predictable scenario at all considering the fight and the desire to end things for good. By law it is rape, I was just considering the other factors.
.
The entry is the tricky part here, since person A didn't consider it at all and it was not a predictable scenario at all considering the fight and the desire to end things for good. By law it is rape, I was just considering the other factors.
.
You are confusing yourself. The issue is nohing to do with pleasure. IT is to do with consent. Work out whether consent existed at the time of penetration. Ise the definition I gave you and its easy to decide if it was rape or not. If you didnt consent and they knew or had no reasonable belief you did consent then its rape whether you had a million orgasams after.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
