Gilette releases commercial criticising rape culture Watch

Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#241
Report 1 month ago
#241
(Original post by Good bloke)
Well, we do, because we can read and understand clear English. Furthermore the act itself clarifies penetration to be a continuing act (section 79).

http://www.bestcriminaldefencebarris...w-on-rape.aspx

And several cases in common law countries are relevant; the defence has been attempted Read Kaitamaki (1984). This one will tell you that an initial accidental penetration or penetration when consent is reasonably believed to have been given will be rape if it becomes clear that consent is not actually given (or is withdrawn) and the male does not immediately withdraw.

It is also worth pointing out that neither depth of penetration nor period of penetration are relevant to rape. Any penetration without consent is rape, no matter how fleeting or shallow, and remaining inside the vagina for any length of time without consent is rape.
The difference between the two instances is that in Kaitamaki the defendant is essentially saying that as consent was given for the initial penetration continuing after a subsequent revocation of consent should not be held as rape. In the scene that’s been referenced the man was told to leave his penis inside of the woman less than seven seconds after being told to remove it. Your claim that ‘any length of time without consent is rape’ is utterly ridiculous, a yoctosecond is a length of time but if you managed to withdraw after one yoctosecond you wouldn’t be liable for any crime.

In my opinion failing to withdraw after less than 7 seconds without intentionally penetrating (I’m aware that penetration is a continuous act however the initial cause/intent of the penetration would be considered) would not be seen as rape.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#242
Report 1 month ago
#242
(Original post by Underscore__)
As I’ve said, based on my experience mainstream porn sites don’t make rapey videos. They’re usually silly doctor/patient, housewife/gardener, etc. situations

What do BDSM sites have to do with anything? I’ve consistently been talking about ‘mainstream’ porn sites.
That particular site i mentioned gets a **** load of views on pornhub on par with any of the normie stuff, so it was very much worth a mention. I'd possibly go as far as to say that one particular type of 'mainstream' pornography doesn't actually exist, given the variety it's got now.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#243
Report 1 month ago
#243
(Original post by Underscore__)
The difference between the two instances is that in Kaitamaki the defendant is essentially saying that as consent was given for the initial penetration continuing after a subsequent revocation of consent should not be held as rape. In the scene that’s been referenced the man was told to leave his penis inside of the woman less than seven seconds after being told to remove it. Your claim that ‘any length of time without consent is rape’ is utterly ridiculous, a yoctosecond is a length of time but if you managed to withdraw after one yoctosecond you wouldn’t be liable for any crime.

In my opinion failing to withdraw after less than 7 seconds without intentionally penetrating (I’m aware that penetration is a continuous act however the initial cause/intent of the penetration would be considered) would not be seen as rape.
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.
0
reply
rockrunride
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#244
Report 1 month ago
#244
Can't really be naffed to give a toss anymore.

Feels like the BBC and Graun among others have been towing the "men are *****" line for so long it gives you a sort of immunity to their moaning.

Procter and Gamble reckon they can get a few bob from this, why not, but I'd warn them that Trump supporters didn't suddenly vote for Hillary when she called them "deplorables".
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#245
Report 1 month ago
#245
(Original post by Good bloke)
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.
Agree with this.
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#246
Report 1 month ago
#246
Man that is quite the URL :laugh:
0
reply
CupDispenser
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#247
Report 1 month ago
#247
(Original post by Good bloke)
Well, we do, because we can read and understand clear English. Furthermore the act itself clarifies penetration to be a continuing act (section 79).

http://www.bestcriminaldefencebarris...w-on-rape.aspx
Oh my lawd.
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#248
Report 1 month ago
#248
Boo Hoo... why won't the nasty toxic males take us seriously when we tell them to stop objectifying women?

Name:  gillettespandex.jpg
Views: 11
Size:  38.2 KB
1
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#249
Report 1 month ago
#249
(Original post by Good bloke)
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.
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.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#250
Report 1 month ago
#250
(Original post by Underscore__)
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.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#251
Report 1 month ago
#251
(Original post by Good bloke)
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.
I’ve already explained to you why that would create an absurdity.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#252
Report 1 month ago
#252
(Original post by Underscore__)
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.
1
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#253
Report 1 month ago
#253
(Original post by ANM775)
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.
You can keep talking about the law until you’re blue in the face, you’re yet to support any of your claims by any case law, legislation or even reason argument so you’re opinion isn’t worth anything
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#254
Report 1 month ago
#254
(Original post by ANM775)
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.
To be honest, I don't find anything in a very quick review of Rook & Ward on what immediate means.

In Assange, counsel for Assange argued:

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.
The second underline is rather important. It implies the judge accepts that the actus reus of rape might not be formed by a brief period of "mere misunderstanding" and as that brief period is also of importance in relation to mens rea. You'd think that a misunderstanding would only be relevant to MR, not that it'd also be important to MR.

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.

The judge then does not object to the counsel's argument about the brief period. I think you have to remember the context of the Kaitamaki case, which did not rely at all on how fast the defendant was in "responding" to the withdrawal of consent. He did not respond to it at all. It wasn't in issue. Basically, the point of that case is to compel people to respond and to do so as reasonably practicable.
Last edited by Notoriety; 1 month ago
0
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#255
Report 1 month ago
#255
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...........
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#256
Report 1 month ago
#256
(Original post by ANM775)
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.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Underscore__; 1 month ago
0
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#257
Report 1 month ago
#257
(Original post by Underscore__)
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
Last edited by ANM775; 1 month ago
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#258
Report 1 month ago
#258
(Original post by ANM775)
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.
The other poster was the one actually arguing as a matter of law, your posts did not feature any legal argument. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that someone else supported the point I was making the ruling in Assange. The other poster literally said that no amount of time can elapse between being told to remove your penis and actually doing so, that’s obviously a ridiculous argument.

(Original post by ANM775)
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.
I’ve already addressed tube sites, anyone can upload anything they want on to them. My point has always been on mainstream porn studios.

(Original post by ANM775)
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
In what way is that clear?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (165)
18.46%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (91)
10.18%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (148)
16.55%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (131)
14.65%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (85)
9.51%
How can I be the best version of myself? (274)
30.65%

Watched Threads

View All