Shouldn’t consent laws be couched around a firm rejection??

a reply to: RickyD

Yes better safe than sorry. I did think of a good defense for when the woman said she after the fact changed her mind and now the next day doesn't consent. You claim that you also changed your mind and also retroactively don't consent. That way they cancel each other out or at least she gets to join you in prison.

It's like sexual Mutually Assured Destruction.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

you kiddin? you cant force my wife to do anything...she'd get me in my sleep!

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: ScepticScot

So do you confirm consent with feelings? How's that supposed to work?

Who said anything about feelings

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: skunkape23

I said black out drunk .. basically having sex with someone passed out..

Yeah...I have unconsciously endured the horror.
What if you are both blacked out?
Wake up on the floor.
It happens.
If someone consciously rapes a passed out person...that is wrong.
Maybe the victim should learn to control their drug consumption and find knew friends.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I am expecting for those accused to actually know he is committing a crime..


Doesn’t it seem strange that you can’t even imagaine a scenerio where just saying no wouldn’t take all the subjectivity out of the event...

a reply to: skunkape23

Ain’t no sex jumping off of both people are passed out..


One person may claim to not remember later.. but if you kill someone when your too drunk to remember. Being drunk is not a get out of jail free card.

a reply to: MRinder

That will definitely hold up in court lol..

a reply to: ScepticScot

When you say things are subjective you are inherently saying that feelings should matter.

If not then you are dealing with objective facts.

a reply to: RickyD

Absolutely they were conscious of their actions, but as kids they are not conscious of the long term ramifications..


That’s why minors can’t do some things legally..


There isn’t really a debate on “if rape is bad”..


What is interesting is the grey area..


A 23 year old with a 17 year old..


Or a 19 year old with a 15 year old.


I think a firm rejection is literally THE ONLY thing that changes consent from a grey area to rape.


There isn’t much the guy can be expected to do if she won’t actually speak up and say no..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

I am expecting for those accused to actually know he is committing a crime..


Doesn’t it seem strange that you can’t even imagaine a scenerio where just saying no wouldn’t take all the subjectivity out of the event...

I can easily imagine the scenario. What I don't believe is that is a fit for every scenario. The subject of consent is a lot more nuanced than that.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

When you say things are subjective you are inherently saying that feelings should matter.

If not then you are dealing with objective facts.

No what I am saying is that there is a lot of ground where things aren't as black or white.

For example an adult having sex with a 15 year is rape. However if the accused reasonably believed the person was over the age of consent it isn't. Judgement and common sense is required in what a reasonable person would believe.

In other raise cases fact alive don't tell you if rape was commuted. In most cases there isn't any argument over if a sexual act took place. The issue is if consent was given. The judgement on that again requires a view of what a reasonable person would believe.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

When you say things are subjective you are inherently saying that feelings should matter.

If not then you are dealing with objective facts.

No what I am saying is that there is a lot of ground where things aren't as black or white.

For example an adult having sex with a 15 year is rape. However if the accused reasonably believed the person was over the age of consent it isn't. Judgement and common sense is required in what a reasonable person would believe.

In other raise cases fact alive don't tell you if rape was commuted. In most cases there isn't any argument over if a sexual act took place. The issue is if consent was given. The judgement on that again requires a view of what a reasonable person would believe.

That sounds pretty subjective to me.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: RickyD

Absolutely they were conscious of their actions, but as kids they are not conscious of the long term ramifications..


That’s why minors can’t do some things legally..


There isn’t really a debate on “if rape is bad”..


What is interesting is the grey area..


A 23 year old with a 17 year old..


Or a 19 year old with a 15 year old.


I think a firm rejection is literally THE ONLY thing that changes consent from a grey area to rape.


There isn’t much the guy can be expected to do if she won’t actually speak up and say no..

Bollocks.

There is a lot more to consent than just the absence of the word no.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

When you say things are subjective you are inherently saying that feelings should matter.

If not then you are dealing with objective facts.

No what I am saying is that there is a lot of ground where things aren't as black or white.

For example an adult having sex with a 15 year is rape. However if the accused reasonably believed the person was over the age of consent it isn't. Judgement and common sense is required in what a reasonable person would believe.

In other raise cases fact alive don't tell you if rape was commuted. In most cases there isn't any argument over if a sexual act took place. The issue is if consent was given. The judgement on that again requires a view of what a reasonable person would believe.

That sounds pretty subjective to me.

Yes that is what I am saying. The law is rarely as cut and dried as we might like think and that is particularly true in the subject of sexual consent.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

When you say things are subjective you are inherently saying that feelings should matter.

If not then you are dealing with objective facts.

No what I am saying is that there is a lot of ground where things aren't as black or white.

For example an adult having sex with a 15 year is rape. However if the accused reasonably believed the person was over the age of consent it isn't. Judgement and common sense is required in what a reasonable person would believe.

In other raise cases fact alive don't tell you if rape was commuted. In most cases there isn't any argument over if a sexual act took place. The issue is if consent was given. The judgement on that again requires a view of what a reasonable person would believe.

That sounds pretty subjective to me.

Yes that is what I am saying. The law is rarely as cut and dried as we might like think and that is particularly true in the subject of sexual consent.

Seems kind of unjust to ruin a person's life based on something so subjective.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ScepticScot

When you say things are subjective you are inherently saying that feelings should matter.

If not then you are dealing with objective facts.

No what I am saying is that there is a lot of ground where things aren't as black or white.

For example an adult having sex with a 15 year is rape. However if the accused reasonably believed the person was over the age of consent it isn't. Judgement and common sense is required in what a reasonable person would believe.

In other raise cases fact alive don't tell you if rape was commuted. In most cases there isn't any argument over if a sexual act took place. The issue is if consent was given. The judgement on that again requires a view of what a reasonable person would believe.

That sounds pretty subjective to me.

Yes that is what I am saying. The law is rarely as cut and dried as we might like think and that is particularly true in the subject of sexual consent.

Seems kind of unjust to ruin a person's life based on something so subjective.

It's based on what a reasonable person would believe. What alternative would you suggest?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: RickyD

Absolutely they were conscious of their actions, but as kids they are not conscious of the long term ramifications..


That’s why minors can’t do some things legally..


There isn’t really a debate on “if rape is bad”..


What is interesting is the grey area..


A 23 year old with a 17 year old..


Or a 19 year old with a 15 year old.


I think a firm rejection is literally THE ONLY thing that changes consent from a grey area to rape.


There isn’t much the guy can be expected to do if she won’t actually speak up and say no..

Bollocks.

There is a lot more to consent than just the absence of the word no.

So other than a person explicitly communicating they don't want to have sex what works be some examples of both giving and not giving consent.

How do we determine if the judge or members of the jury are reasonable? I suggest we have the government approve each individual sex act consentusl before committed or maybe have lawyers present for each party while the act is committed.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: RickyD

Absolutely they were conscious of their actions, but as kids they are not conscious of the long term ramifications..


That’s why minors can’t do some things legally..


There isn’t really a debate on “if rape is bad”..


What is interesting is the grey area..


A 23 year old with a 17 year old..


Or a 19 year old with a 15 year old.


I think a firm rejection is literally THE ONLY thing that changes consent from a grey area to rape.


There isn’t much the guy can be expected to do if she won’t actually speak up and say no..

Bollocks.

There is a lot more to consent than just the absence of the word no.

So other than a person explicitly communicating they don't want to have sex what works be some examples of both giving and not giving consent.

As I said it's based on what a reasonable person would believe. There are almost limitless different scenarios and each would have to be judged on its own merits. I don't think most guys find it particularly difficult to judge if consent is given.

originally posted by: MRinder
How do we determine if the judge or members of the jury are reasonable? I suggest we have the government approve each individual sex act confidential before committed.

Now you are just trolling. I have no intention of wasting my time further on your posts.