Do we need a "YES MEANS YES" law in the UK?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Wade-
I read it the way it was written, in context it may make more sense but what you wrote was definitive and thus I took it that way
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Your fault for not reading the context. Even just reading the post I quoted would have given you the context.
Original post by TurboCretin
Retarded idea. What happened to presumption of innocence?
since when did feminism, or at least the "feminist" ilk that lurks on this site are about such things? When was the last time you saw any of them give a damn about innocence until proven guilty when it's a man being accused of rape?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by limetang
It seems the main issue with this law is that it assumes that rape and sexual assault are something men exclusively do to women. More it assumes that men are always consenting to any sexual activity and that women are not.
Rape is exclusively done by men, the amount of times people explicit state on this forum that this is so it is a wonder that people still think that in the eyes of the law a woman can be a rapist. The few "shemales" in the country that legally identify as women aside, it is a legal impossibility for a woman to be a rapist, after all, they don't have a penis.
As for the second sentence, I'm really not sure that the law assumes this at all.
No means no law sounds better to me.
Guys might mis-read the signals and think their gf is giving them permission when she actually isn't.
I think its better this way, its easier to be clearer saying 'no'.
Guys might mis-read the signals and think their gf is giving them permission when she actually isn't.
I think its better this way, its easier to be clearer saying 'no'.
Original post by limetang
It seems the main issue with this law is that it assumes that rape and sexual assault are something men exclusively do to women. More it assumes that men are always consenting to any sexual activity and that women are not.
I think its because guys can't get pregnant.
But I agree, I know some girls/ women who consent alot to it, not just the guys.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Rape is exclusively done by men, the amount of times people explicit state on this forum that this is so it is a wonder that people still think that in the eyes of the law a woman can be a rapist. The few "shemales" in the country that legally identify as women aside, it is a legal impossibility for a woman to be a rapist, after all, they don't have a penis.
As for the second sentence, I'm really not sure that the law assumes this at all.
As for the second sentence, I'm really not sure that the law assumes this at all.
The law was created in California. Rape is not exclusive to men in California. The fact UK laws are ridiculous doesn't change the fact that it is indeed possible for a woman to rape a man.
Additionally the OP grossly misrepresents the law [unsurprisingly] - Under it a woman can indeed be guilty, for example if she gives her boyfriend a blowjob whilst they are both drunk. It also doesn't require 'verbal consent' and is aimed at the campus legislative system, not the courts. It's a law for college campuses only.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by samba
The law was created in California. Rape is not exclusive to men in California. The fact UK laws are ridiculous doesn't change the fact that it is indeed possible for a woman to rape a man.
Additionally the OP grossly misrepresents the law [unsurprisingly] - Under it a woman can indeed be guilty, for example if she gives her boyfriend a blowjob whilst they are both drunk. It also doesn't require 'verbal consent' and is aimed at the campus legislative system, not the courts. It's a law for college campuses only.
Additionally the OP grossly misrepresents the law [unsurprisingly] - Under it a woman can indeed be guilty, for example if she gives her boyfriend a blowjob whilst they are both drunk. It also doesn't require 'verbal consent' and is aimed at the campus legislative system, not the courts. It's a law for college campuses only.
In the only truly relevant possible sense it isn't though. I agree it's poorly defined, but that doesn't change the facts.
Original post by Jammy Duel
In the only truly relevant possible sense it isn't though. I agree it's poorly defined, but that doesn't change the facts.
He said 'the issue with the law is' - you responded with 'it's not possible for a woman to rape a man'
Which is incorrect. In the jurisdiction where the law exists, it is indeed possible. Those are the facts.
The idea it could apply in the UK is frankly moronic, as we don't have a college kangaroo judicial system, and it would be handled by the courts, where 'yes means yes' isn't in existence. The fact a woman cannot rape a man according to UK law is not relevant in the slightest to what he said.
Original post by samba
He said 'the issue with the law is' - you responded with 'it's not possible for a woman to rape a man'
Which is incorrect. In the jurisdiction where the law exists, it is indeed possible. Those are the facts.
The idea it could apply in the UK is frankly moronic, as we don't have a college kangaroo judicial system, and it would be handled by the courts, where 'yes means yes' isn't in existence. The fact a woman cannot rape a man according to UK law is not relevant in the slightest to what he said.
Which is incorrect. In the jurisdiction where the law exists, it is indeed possible. Those are the facts.
The idea it could apply in the UK is frankly moronic, as we don't have a college kangaroo judicial system, and it would be handled by the courts, where 'yes means yes' isn't in existence. The fact a woman cannot rape a man according to UK law is not relevant in the slightest to what he said.
Well, you will find that he said, taking out a minor point in the middle, "The issue with the law is that it assumes that rape is something men exclusively do to women" which is almost trivially true, the only way in which it isn't true is that a man can rape another man, and given that the suggestion by OP was that it should be brought in here, what the law is where the laws have been enacted is, to be frank, irrelevant.
It's like saying that in arbitraryland they intend to bring in an element of our law relating to murder, but there it's only murder if the victim is under 50 and the killer is over 50. If a person online in arbitraryland made the suggestion "The issue with the laws is that it assumes that murder and manslaughter is something over 50s exclusively do to under 50s". Manslaughter may be an offense irrespective of age of the victim and accused, but that hardly changes that the comment on murder is trivially true, as that is the way that the law defines it. Would it be relevant to the discussion as to whether arbitraryland should enact this law that here murder is murder irrespective of age? Of course not. Whether murder should be changed in law is whole different debate.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 ?
