Gilette releases commercial criticising rape culture

You don't need a precedent. In real life in England and Wales the law says the woman has the right to withdraw consent so any continued penetration after that point is rape. The man must withdraw immediately or be liable to be convicted for rape. It takes a fraction of a second to withdraw and any delay is culpable.

Please tell me you aren't using a porn scene as a yardstick for what might be the case in real life.

The Kaitamaki defendant - the real life instance - was found guilty, of course, so his argument failed. As does yours.

in reality after being made aware consent had been revoked a court would find you have a reasonable period of time in which to withdraw your penis. I think 7 seconds is a reasonable period of time,

The wording of the statute is clear: penetration is illegal without consent, and there is no period of grace; the crime takes place upon the instant of penetration (no matter how deep) and ends when penetration ends. Courts have already opined that the man must remove himself immediately, not seven seconds later, or any other supposedly reasonable period of time. Women deserve clarity, and they have it.

No I’m not using a porn scene as a yardstick for real life, I’m applying real life law to a stupid scene (which I’ve already said is a ridiculous debate to get into but here we are).

I’ve already explained the difference between the two instances; in reality after being made aware consent had been revoked a court would find you have a reasonable period of time in which to withdraw your penis. I think 7 seconds is a reasonable period of time, especially given the circumstances. If you disagree with my opinion try actually constructing a legal argument as to why rather simply claiming it’s failed; you saying an argument has failed doesn’t make it so.

There's no 7 second grace period i'm afraid.
and in the scene in question, he clearly heard her say to take his penis out, but instead decided to think about it for a while and then continue thrusting.

That meets the definition of rape.


You clearly don't know anything about the law when it comes to rape.
and I hope this little porn scene and the discussion that followed has educated you, and should you find yourself in a similar position where your c0ck is inside a vagina and the woman tells you to take it out, you don't start to then thrust whilst looking at your stopwatch for 6.99 seconds .....because that excuse won't wash in court dude.

There's no 7 second grace period i'm afraid.
and in the scene in question, he clearly heard her say to take his penis out, but instead decided to think about it for a while and then continue thrusting.

That meets the definition of rape.


You clearly don't know anything about the law when it comes to rape.
and I hope this little porn scene and the discussion that followed has educated you, and should you find yourself in a similar position where your c0ck is inside a vagina and the woman tells you to take it out, you don't start to then thrust whilst looking at your stopwatch for 6.99 seconds .....because that excuse won't wash in court dude.

75 ... that the alleged offending conduct had been taken out of context; in relation to offence 1 that context was consensual sexual activity (undressing and lying naked on top of AA)) with the joint expectation that sexual intercourse would take place, followed by sexual intercourse taking place consensually, once he had used a condom. The offending conduct alleged was no more than a brief period, which could readily be seen as a mere misunderstanding. During that brief period, AA did not object to the continued naked contact as the apparent precursor to intercourse; AA did not wish to proceed immediately for a reason not immediately obvious but shortly thereafter rectified. It was also of importance in relation to the mens rea, since for dual criminality, the facts alleged had to impel the conclusion that Mr Assange had no reasonable belief that AA was consenting to what had happened.

76 It seems to us that the conduct described as offence 1 fairly and properly describes the conduct as set out in AA's statement in relation to what is complained of restricting her movement by violence. We accept that Mr Assange subsequently allowed AA to move so she could find a condom for him to use, but at the point in time to which the offence relates, we do not read anything in her statement to indicate consent to his restraining her. Indeed her statement indicates precisely the opposite at the point of time to which it relates. It of course might well be argued that his subsequent decision to let go of her might indicate a lack of coercion or consent to what followed, but at the point of time to which the offence relates, we consider the conduct of which he is charged to have been fairly and accurately described. As we have set out at paragraph 71.v) above, the matters alleged are sufficient, in our view, and to the extent relevant, to impel the inference of knowledge. The context does not change our view.

just stumbled upon another one. If over 18 google "stepmom trapped under bed"

1st link. Start watching from 1:30

the guy is at the very least sexually assulting her for ages [despite her pleas for him to stop], then later penetrates her without permission [he may have in fact done it earlier but due to camera angle i can't tell]

I'm sure underscore will stick his head in the sand and come up with some more rubbish [if he bothers to watch it]
but i shall leave this post here anyway, just to highlight that "rape" in porn is not rare at all ....and often leaves the impression that this sort of behavior is ok as the girl eventually starts to enjoy herself after non consentual penetration...........

Hmm, stumbled upon it...

Your argument on the prior video consisted of “you’re wrong”, as I said previously if you would like to construct a reasonable argument I’m willing to entertain it.

Even if we assume that both videos are rape (the second would certainly constitute a crime) you’re not proving that rape in mainstream pornography isn’t rare; you’ve cited examples of two videos out of the tens of thousands churned out by the most popular porn studios. The second video also doesn’t give any indication that’s it’s from a mainstream studio, my contention all along has been that mainstream studios don’t tend to make rape scenes.

Regarding the first video, Between myself and Good Bloke we have already told you and shown to you legal text surrounding the issue of consent yet you continue to spit your dummy out and refuse to admit you were wrong. I am not spending any more on that. Other people reading this thread will be able to see that you are wrong from our posts, so i'll just leave it at that.

and yes I stumbled upon it. How else would I have found it. It doesn't have the word "rape" anywhere to google. Porn studios don't tend to label their vids with the word rape.
I found it from viewing videos on the mainstream site that you just watched it on.

and it's clear you do not know the legal definition of "rape", ..so in all honesty you've probably come across such vids before and it's not even registered with you that what you are seeing would be rape if it happened in real life

update: Gillette's parent company P&G has written down it's value by $8bn
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/30/procter-gamble-writes-down-gillette-business-but-remains-confident-in-its-future.html

apparently it;s due to currency fluctuations, the popularity of hipster beards and disruptors like dollar shave club... and not at all because it put out an advert telling it's male customers that it thinks they are toxic.

update: Gillette's parent company P&G has written down it's value by $8bn
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/30/procter-gamble-writes-down-gillette-business-but-remains-confident-in-its-future.html

apparently it;s due to currency fluctuations, the popularity of hipster beards and disruptors like dollar shave club... and not at all because it put out an advert telling it's male customers that it thinks they are toxic.

They were already struggling so needed to do something, I guess. Trying to cash in on MeToo was a good idea in theory, but not if their implementation of that consisted of attacking the vast majority of their customers.

Currency fluctuations can have an effect, but they can't make that much difference. And for increased competition, that doesn't matter for non-perishable goods like razors. If they don't sell some of their razors in one year, they don't incinerate the lot and take a loss, they just slow down production and sell them the following years. Having said that, attacking your customers is a good way to get them to actively buy from your competitors instead.