Affirmative Consent Laws
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:25:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Affirmative Consent Laws
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: Are you for or against Affirmative Consent Laws? Explain
#1
For
 
#2
Against
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 67

Author Topic: Affirmative Consent Laws  (Read 6058 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 17, 2015, 03:35:25 AM »

Dude, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is from the French declaration of human rights. Do some basic research before trying to lecture me.
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,391
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 17, 2015, 07:22:48 AM »

I'm fairly sure you can just say "Should I grab a condom" or something

What if someone wants to withdraw consent in the middle of sex though? Under these laws, they do not have tell the other partner. The only way to be sure is to check in every 2 minutes.

Which is why we should be encouraging people to be fearless enough to say no, which activists think is too victim-blamey.

To believe that empowering people to say no would be a comprehensive fix I think ignores the basic fact that other psychological conditions could be placed upon a person who is under assault that stops them from saying 'no' or reacting negatively to the assault.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 17, 2015, 07:35:29 AM »

I don't think it would be a comprehensive fix, I just think we should be encouraging that just as much as asking the initiator to feel sure consent is present in some fashion. It's much more reasonable than effectively expecting the men (let's be honest here) to be the ones that have to figure out the parameters of an encounter. Hell, my whole point has been that this is a super complicated issue that has more than one solution. I actually included "just as much" in a draft of that post and then somehow it didn't make it in the end.

In any event consent is already, ideally, invalidated when the individual feels threatened, which is of course the way it should be. I just think we should be encouraging people to figure out what they want out of sex and defining that with the people they're with. Women aren't passive in all of this. Honestly I'm still super uncomfortable thinking about the fact that these laws make them out to be so. Nothing is doing more to reinforce traditional gender norms in sex than these laws.
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,391
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: July 17, 2015, 07:50:18 AM »

I don't think it would be a comprehensive fix, I just think we should be encouraging that just as much as asking the initiator to feel sure consent is present in some fashion. It's much more reasonable than effectively expecting the men (let's be honest here) to be the ones that have to figure out the parameters of an encounter. Hell, my whole point has been that this is a super complicated issue that has more than one solution. I actually included "just as much" in a draft of that post and then somehow it didn't make it in the end.

In any event consent is already, ideally, invalidated when the individual feels threatened, which is of course the way it should be. I just think we should be encouraging people to figure out what they want out of sex and defining that with the people they're with. Women aren't passive in all of this. Honestly I'm still super uncomfortable thinking about the fact that these laws make them out to be so. Nothing is doing more to reinforce traditional gender norms in sex than these laws.

I would argue against the idea that these laws encourage gender norms with regards to passivity. Affirmative consent means consent from both parties and I don't see any reasonable interpretation under these laws where if a woman propositioned a man and a man withdrew consent that the woman would not be committing assault. The problem that these laws are meant to address is that even if the individual is conditioned to say no and wishes to withdraw consent from the situation, that may not happen simply due to the power dynamics of the sexual act or other psychological factors affecting the victim.

I've personally worked with people who have worked on these laws and have some people very close to me who have undergone similar experiences, and if anything, I have noticed is a greater propensity to charge the victim with not doing enough to stop the assault, even from authorities, than there has been to hold the perpetrator responsible. We should question whether its more effective to teach prevention as opposed to attacking the root cause of the matter, which is the actual choice to commit assault. I see affirmative consent laws as the right step in the latter direction.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: July 17, 2015, 07:50:23 AM »

I don't think it would be a comprehensive fix, I just think we should be encouraging that just as much as asking the initiator to feel sure consent is present in some fashion. It's much more reasonable than effectively expecting the men (let's be honest here) to be the ones that have to figure out the parameters of an encounter. Hell, my whole point has been that this is a super complicated issue that has more than one solution. I actually included "just as much" in a draft of that post and then somehow it didn't make it in the end.

In any event consent is already, ideally, invalidated when the individual feels threatened, which is of course the way it should be. I just think we should be encouraging people to figure out what they want out of sex and defining that with the people they're with. Women aren't passive in all of this. Honestly I'm still super uncomfortable thinking about the fact that these laws make them out to be so. Nothing is doing more to reinforce traditional gender norms in sex than these laws.

Who mentioned women in particular? Men get raped too, even if it's very rare. And in fact, the presumption against a rape victim will probably be even stronger if the victim is male, because it's widely expected that men never say no to sex. So, whatever help these laws will provide for victims might work to the benefit of men too.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: July 17, 2015, 08:22:44 AM »

Archangel I agree with you about the power dynamics of the situation, etc. That's a real issue, of course. My problem is that the scenario you're talking about is still against the law, it's just difficult to determine due to the ease of lying about it (which doesn't really change with these laws either) and though I agree with you about prevention being more sensible, I'm not sure how well these laws accomplish that either. Prevention tends to be something you do through education and awareness campaigns.

Antonio mentioned this before, but the larger issue (people not taking rape seriously enough) is difficult to solve through any law, and if you want to find an issue people care way less about then male-on-female rape, don't even bother with female-on-male rape, something large parts of the population don't even believe is possible. I trust courts even less to approach that issue with much maturity.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: July 17, 2015, 10:00:01 AM »

So you do agree with me that courts are too lenient toward rape defendants. In this case, why are you so concerned that they will interpret these laws broadly and end up convicting innocent people?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: July 17, 2015, 10:25:21 AM »

I don’t know why I missed this.

Ultimately, action against unwanted sexual advances is determined by what statistics say. And what statistics say on this issue is ultimately meaningless. So you have social science saying ‘a woman has a 1 in x chance of rape’ based on surveys and then the legal system spitting out statistics on arrests/convictions for said offences. And because they can never fit together and the arrest/conviction rate is low, the action is to evoke the law into ensuring that arrests/convictions increase. The problem with this is the assumption made that the correct course of action is to prosecute more men, when perhaps the more productive method is to increase education about appropriate sexual behaviour.

The idea that there is consent of any nature in a sexual act (and I’m not saying consent isn’t a real and tangible thing) is based on the legal definiton of consent. It pays little attention to actual social and sexual interactions that people have. It is for the very same reason that the age of consent itself is entirely arbitary and pays little attention to whether someone is physically/psychologically capable of sex and capable of consenting to that. However there is no other method that can be applied that can safeguard the vulnerable.

As Marokai touches upon in any human interaction, even those of a non sexual nature, verbal consent is not the only means by which someone consents to an action. From experience I’ve found myself in bed with someone without either of us muttering a word about it.

If you are arguing for affirmative verbal consent, you’re asking someone to clarify their intent in every step. The logical extension of this is that  you cannot chat someone up unless you both verbally agree. You cannot kiss them unless both parties agree. You cannot fondle unless both partes agree, no touching until both verbally agree, no oral until both agree, no penetrative sex until both agree. Do you check in in every few minutes to make sure it’s still okay? It’s absurd.

Saying no is much more powerful. And when you say no, even after doing all of the above, it is clear and is a strong expression of sentiment that you wish for the action to stop. And if you keep going after someone says no, there is absolutely no ambiguity about that and you can can rightly, and through legal means, throw the book at them if you have to.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: July 17, 2015, 12:52:50 PM »

I don't think it would be a comprehensive fix, I just think we should be encouraging that just as much as asking the initiator to feel sure consent is present in some fashion. It's much more reasonable than effectively expecting the men (let's be honest here) to be the ones that have to figure out the parameters of an encounter. Hell, my whole point has been that this is a super complicated issue that has more than one solution. I actually included "just as much" in a draft of that post and then somehow it didn't make it in the end.

In any event consent is already, ideally, invalidated when the individual feels threatened, which is of course the way it should be. I just think we should be encouraging people to figure out what they want out of sex and defining that with the people they're with. Women aren't passive in all of this. Honestly I'm still super uncomfortable thinking about the fact that these laws make them out to be so. Nothing is doing more to reinforce traditional gender norms in sex than these laws.

I would argue against the idea that these laws encourage gender norms with regards to passivity. Affirmative consent means consent from both parties and I don't see any reasonable interpretation under these laws where if a woman propositioned a man and a man withdrew consent that the woman would not be committing assault. The problem that these laws are meant to address is that even if the individual is conditioned to say no and wishes to withdraw consent from the situation, that may not happen simply due to the power dynamics of the sexual act or other psychological factors affecting the victim.

I've personally worked with people who have worked on these laws and have some people very close to me who have undergone similar experiences, and if anything, I have noticed is a greater propensity to charge the victim with not doing enough to stop the assault, even from authorities, than there has been to hold the perpetrator responsible. We should question whether its more effective to teach prevention as opposed to attacking the root cause of the matter, which is the actual choice to commit assault. I see affirmative consent laws as the right step in the latter direction.

If someone WOULD stop if their partner said no but their partner doesn't, there is no choice to commit assault. The "choice to commit assault" therefore cannot be "the root cause of the matter" in that situation.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: July 17, 2015, 03:04:17 PM »

Dude, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is from the French declaration of human rights. Do some basic research before trying to lecture me.


Oh, I have, but you really seem to need the lecture. 

And the phrase originated with an English attorney.  The concept predates him, though.  I think the code of Justinian had this phrase in some form 1500 years ago.

I suppose my objection goes beyond that.  It's just a little too orwellian for my tastes.

Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: July 17, 2015, 03:11:04 PM »

Dude, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is from the French declaration of human rights. Do some basic research before trying to lecture me.


Oh, I have, but you really seem to need the lecture. 

And the phrase originated with an English attorney.  The concept predates him, though.  I think the code of Justinian had this phrase in some form 1500 years ago.


Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

It is from the writings of this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Paulus_Prudentissimus
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: July 17, 2015, 03:14:40 PM »

I have never advocated a shift of the burden of proof onto the defendant, and to claim so is to ridiculously distort my posts.



Wow, this guy's family name was literally "Very Prudent"! LOL Tongue
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 18, 2015, 01:31:18 PM »

I don’t know why I missed this.

Ultimately, action against unwanted sexual advances is determined by what statistics say. And what statistics say on this issue is ultimately meaningless. So you have social science saying ‘a woman has a 1 in x chance of rape’ based on surveys and then the legal system spitting out statistics on arrests/convictions for said offences. And because they can never fit together and the arrest/conviction rate is low, the action is to evoke the law into ensuring that arrests/convictions increase. The problem with this is the assumption made that the correct course of action is to prosecute more men, when perhaps the more productive method is to increase education about appropriate sexual behaviour.

The idea that there is consent of any nature in a sexual act (and I’m not saying consent isn’t a real and tangible thing) is based on the legal definiton of consent. It pays little attention to actual social and sexual interactions that people have. It is for the very same reason that the age of consent itself is entirely arbitary and pays little attention to whether someone is physically/psychologically capable of sex and capable of consenting to that. However there is no other method that can be applied that can safeguard the vulnerable.

As Marokai touches upon in any human interaction, even those of a non sexual nature, verbal consent is not the only means by which someone consents to an action. From experience I’ve found myself in bed with someone without either of us muttering a word about it.

If you are arguing for affirmative verbal consent, you’re asking someone to clarify their intent in every step. The logical extension of this is that  you cannot chat someone up unless you both verbally agree. You cannot kiss them unless both parties agree. You cannot fondle unless both partes agree, no touching until both verbally agree, no oral until both agree, no penetrative sex until both agree. Do you check in in every few minutes to make sure it’s still okay? It’s absurd.

Saying no is much more powerful. And when you say no, even after doing all of the above, it is clear and is a strong expression of sentiment that you wish for the action to stop. And if you keep going after someone says no, there is absolutely no ambiguity about that and you can can rightly, and through legal means, throw the book at them if you have to.

This is a great post that really sums up my thoughts almost precisely.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2015, 02:37:09 PM »

I don’t know why I missed this.

Ultimately, action against unwanted sexual advances is determined by what statistics say. And what statistics say on this issue is ultimately meaningless. So you have social science saying ‘a woman has a 1 in x chance of rape’ based on surveys and then the legal system spitting out statistics on arrests/convictions for said offences. And because they can never fit together and the arrest/conviction rate is low, the action is to evoke the law into ensuring that arrests/convictions increase. The problem with this is the assumption made that the correct course of action is to prosecute more men, when perhaps the more productive method is to increase education about appropriate sexual behaviour.

The idea that there is consent of any nature in a sexual act (and I’m not saying consent isn’t a real and tangible thing) is based on the legal definiton of consent. It pays little attention to actual social and sexual interactions that people have. It is for the very same reason that the age of consent itself is entirely arbitary and pays little attention to whether someone is physically/psychologically capable of sex and capable of consenting to that. However there is no other method that can be applied that can safeguard the vulnerable.

As Marokai touches upon in any human interaction, even those of a non sexual nature, verbal consent is not the only means by which someone consents to an action. From experience I’ve found myself in bed with someone without either of us muttering a word about it.

If you are arguing for affirmative verbal consent, you’re asking someone to clarify their intent in every step. The logical extension of this is that  you cannot chat someone up unless you both verbally agree. You cannot kiss them unless both parties agree. You cannot fondle unless both partes agree, no touching until both verbally agree, no oral until both agree, no penetrative sex until both agree. Do you check in in every few minutes to make sure it’s still okay? It’s absurd.

Saying no is much more powerful. And when you say no, even after doing all of the above, it is clear and is a strong expression of sentiment that you wish for the action to stop. And if you keep going after someone says no, there is absolutely no ambiguity about that and you can can rightly, and through legal means, throw the book at them if you have to.

Beautiful
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2015, 03:27:28 PM »

I don’t know why I missed this.

Ultimately, action against unwanted sexual advances is determined by what statistics say. And what statistics say on this issue is ultimately meaningless. So you have social science saying ‘a woman has a 1 in x chance of rape’ based on surveys and then the legal system spitting out statistics on arrests/convictions for said offences. And because they can never fit together and the arrest/conviction rate is low, the action is to evoke the law into ensuring that arrests/convictions increase. The problem with this is the assumption made that the correct course of action is to prosecute more men, when perhaps the more productive method is to increase education about appropriate sexual behaviour.

The idea that there is consent of any nature in a sexual act (and I’m not saying consent isn’t a real and tangible thing) is based on the legal definiton of consent. It pays little attention to actual social and sexual interactions that people have. It is for the very same reason that the age of consent itself is entirely arbitary and pays little attention to whether someone is physically/psychologically capable of sex and capable of consenting to that. However there is no other method that can be applied that can safeguard the vulnerable.

As Marokai touches upon in any human interaction, even those of a non sexual nature, verbal consent is not the only means by which someone consents to an action. From experience I’ve found myself in bed with someone without either of us muttering a word about it.

If you are arguing for affirmative verbal consent, you’re asking someone to clarify their intent in every step. The logical extension of this is that  you cannot chat someone up unless you both verbally agree. You cannot kiss them unless both parties agree. You cannot fondle unless both partes agree, no touching until both verbally agree, no oral until both agree, no penetrative sex until both agree. Do you check in in every few minutes to make sure it’s still okay? It’s absurd.

Saying no is much more powerful. And when you say no, even after doing all of the above, it is clear and is a strong expression of sentiment that you wish for the action to stop. And if you keep going after someone says no, there is absolutely no ambiguity about that and you can can rightly, and through legal means, throw the book at them if you have to.

Logged
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: July 18, 2015, 10:08:12 PM »

I think afleitch summed up what's wrong with these laws well. They also seem to erode the concept of innocent until proven guilty by putting the onus of proof onto the defendant, to an extent.
Logged
Fubart Solman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,696
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: July 19, 2015, 12:56:45 AM »

As with others, I think that afleitch did a very good job summing things up.
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,391
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: July 19, 2015, 07:20:54 AM »
« Edited: July 19, 2015, 07:23:51 AM by Citizen (The) Doctor »

I don’t know why I missed this.

Ultimately, action against unwanted sexual advances is determined by what statistics say. And what statistics say on this issue is ultimately meaningless. So you have social science saying ‘a woman has a 1 in x chance of rape’ based on surveys and then the legal system spitting out statistics on arrests/convictions for said offences. And because they can never fit together and the arrest/conviction rate is low, the action is to evoke the law into ensuring that arrests/convictions increase. The problem with this is the assumption made that the correct course of action is to prosecute more men, when perhaps the more productive method is to increase education about appropriate sexual behaviour.

The idea that there is consent of any nature in a sexual act (and I’m not saying consent isn’t a real and tangible thing) is based on the legal definiton of consent. It pays little attention to actual social and sexual interactions that people have. It is for the very same reason that the age of consent itself is entirely arbitary and pays little attention to whether someone is physically/psychologically capable of sex and capable of consenting to that. However there is no other method that can be applied that can safeguard the vulnerable.

As Marokai touches upon in any human interaction, even those of a non sexual nature, verbal consent is not the only means by which someone consents to an action. From experience I’ve found myself in bed with someone without either of us muttering a word about it.

If you are arguing for affirmative verbal consent, you’re asking someone to clarify their intent in every step. The logical extension of this is that  you cannot chat someone up unless you both verbally agree. You cannot kiss them unless both parties agree. You cannot fondle unless both partes agree, no touching until both verbally agree, no oral until both agree, no penetrative sex until both agree. Do you check in in every few minutes to make sure it’s still okay? It’s absurd.

Saying no is much more powerful. And when you say no, even after doing all of the above, it is clear and is a strong expression of sentiment that you wish for the action to stop. And if you keep going after someone says no, there is absolutely no ambiguity about that and you can can rightly, and through legal means, throw the book at them if you have to.


Well then let's look at the text of SB-967, the law that mandated affirmative consent practices be taken up by California university systems:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

If we look at Section 1, Clause 1, there is no specific legal requirement for "verbal" affirmative consent. It says "silence does not mean consent" which some would argue to be taken up as a predisposition that non-verbal consent is not valid. However, nowhere within the law itself does it mention that the agreement has to be verbal, only that it has to be somehow communicated (which can happen a variety of ways), only that the agreement has to be conscious, voluntary, and made with sound mind (i.e. sober). Conscious, voluntary consent can be communicated without verbal agreement (a nod of the head for example).

Furthermore, the actual text of the law itself requires all parties to enter into agreement of sexual activity, not just the initiator. So I believe that any argument that puts the law up to target males requires one to agree to the traditional gender dynamic that males have to be the ones initiating at all times, which I think is erroneous for obvious reasons.

Lastly, I want to tackle of the charge of absurdity regarding the need to check in to see if its 'okay' to do some act. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the idea that you asking if doing something specific is 'okay'. Hell, I would hazard that most partners consider this a positive action, if anything. Even BDSM, which would have one committing several sexual acts to a person, is done upon a standard of predisposed affirmative consent which could be taken away during any part of the sexual activity (e.g. safewords).
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: July 19, 2015, 12:14:28 PM »

I more just don't like the shift in culture as to what constitutes rape. Rape is a horrible crime and we're expanding the definition to include trivial things. If I'm dating a girl and I'm not really in the mood for sex but she is and I'm just like "whatever" and agree to go down on her because I like her, that should be fine. I have heard many otherwise sensible people call such a scenario rape though.
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: July 19, 2015, 03:22:38 PM »

Well, if you don't want that to be seen as rape, then DON'T ACCUSE HER OF RAPE. So many paranoid idjits miss out on the "accusation" part of "false rape accusation", I swear...
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: July 19, 2015, 04:59:06 PM »

Well, if you don't want that to be seen as rape, then DON'T ACCUSE HER OF RAPE. So many paranoid idjits miss out on the "accusation" part of "false rape accusation", I swear...

If I did want to accuser her of rape though, I'd be an idiot. Problem is lots of people wouldn't think I was an idiot.
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: July 19, 2015, 05:29:31 PM »

Yes? If you think something is stupid, then don't do it?
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: July 19, 2015, 08:27:46 PM »

Of course I won't do it. Other people might though. I think it's horrible that people will be labeled "rapists" (even if they aren't convicted in court) just because they had mechanical sex with a bored partner. Of course, I'm not saying marital rape isn't a thing, I'm not saying people can't be coerced within a relationship, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about coercion. I'm talking about the proliferation of "my ex-boyfriend doesn't even know he raped me!" stories you hear on college campuses today. Cases where it's pretty clear the perpetrator might have/probably would have stopped but the their partner never said "no" for whatever reason.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: July 19, 2015, 11:15:31 PM »

Well, if you don't want that to be seen as rape, then DON'T ACCUSE HER OF RAPE. So many paranoid idjits miss out on the "accusation" part of "false rape accusation", I swear...

The amount of "woosh" going over your head could power California for six weeks.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 13 queries.