Judges coming out against "yes means yes"

[Avani]

The entire law Infringes on the rights of due process.

In the constitution it says"innocent until proven guilty" not guilty until proven innocent. By forcing the accused to provide a yes, you are assuming guilt naturally. No means no works, because it puts the burden of proof on the accuser

Wait till you see exactly what the burden of proof putting on accused is:

Section 114A in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1[114A. Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape.—In a prosecution for rape under clause
(a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent.

 

[BrillyMac]

all your points seem like common sense



publicly claiming rape against a big celebrity would have serious consequences if you were proven a liar so i think these women are telling the truth

I heard around this time, Bill Cosby was trying about to buy nbc and a couple of other networks (yes he had the money). And as a way to tarnish his image and to prevent this, they hired people to do that. Some might be telling the teith, some might be lying but it's already been thrown out of court once

 

[Punk Hazard]

The first one is wrong as i've proven. You are manufacturing rapists. This is the hypocritical argument you're making. You are assuming that body language and actions of a girl are enough to give you a yes, while at the same time saying that if she just goes along with it it's rape. Women have a responsibility to let you know that your advances aren't welcomed. If they don't, it isn't rape because you didn't even give the guy a chance to not rape you. You gave him no idea that his advances weren't welcomed.

2. Why don't women get excused from drunk driving laws then? Any lawyer would shit all over this argument. Unconscious and really drunk are different. While in a state of consciousness, women are responsible for their actions. Unless you force feed someone alcohol or slip them pills, you can't "get someone drunk".

Drunk people do have a responsibility for the dumb decisions they make. Live with it

1. Except it's your responsibility to use common sense. If she is, of her own volition, returning the sexual acts, then it's clear you have consent. If she has an expression of fear, or is reluctant in her body movement, then you should be able to ask why, and be sure of the situation.

2. Because driving while drunk and being raped while drunk are two entirely different things. The entire thing falls back one, key concept: Once you are too drunk, your judgement and ability to reason go out the window. When you get drunk and drive, you are held accountable because it is your responsibility to either:
A) Not get so drunk that endanger lives. If you go out to drink and are incapable of controlling yourself so that you don't get drunk, you're more than likely an alcoholic and have serious problems.
B)Arrange that if you do get that drunk, someone who won't be is driving

That's why consent can't be given, for the same core reason: You aren't in your right mind. The difference is, you have a responsibility to not endanger others. You don't have a responsibility to not be raped. That's like having a responsibility to not be murdered, or robbed. It is the responsibility of others to not rape and take advantage of you, hence why it's illegal and punishable by law.

Also, this isn't just about women. Stop making it seem like this law only talks about women being the one raped. This applies for a man raping a woman, a woman raping a woman, a woman raping a man, and a man raping a man.

Funny that you say "THEY HAVE RESPONSIBILITY," but you are trying to shrug the responsibility off of you to not rape someone. How hard is it to simply not have *** with someone who is drunk? Are you that primitive that you are unable to control what you hump? Are you a simple-minded dog, or a human being with common sense and control?

 

[slimreaper]

Wait till you see exactly what the burden of proof putting on accused is:

That doesn't change the fact that here in America, that shits no bueno. That is essentially what the yes means yes law entails. If she says it's rape, it's rape till you prove you got a yes. That's unconstitutional.

 

[Avani]

That doesn't change the fact that here in America, that shits no bueno. That is essentially what the yes means yes law entails. If she says it's rape, it's rape till you prove you got a yes. That's unconstitutional.

Then why don't you file a case directly against the law itself for being unconstitutional and let SC give a verdict one way or another?

Posting such random cases which are not really affecting the law but only telling Universities to figure out better procedures for determining if rape occurred or not seems silly exercise if that's really the case. As far as I can see even those lawyers you linked are not challenging the law but the university's methods for reaching their judgement only. Why?

For my part-

I had checked out that law and it hardly seemed to break any new ground and sounded like a cheap gimmick. But I understand instead of the consent being clear " yes", many people are thinking it means the " yes the rape happened". But if that was the case they wouldn't be following any procedure at all. So yea I still think most of you are missing something. Even if you are correct- you are failing to point the real problem with the law is any. Even the case you linked shows no light on it despite the suggestive heading.

 

[Multiply]

You are both partially right. Pointless debate is pointless.

 

[slimreaper]

1. Except it's your responsibility to use common sense. If she is, of her own volition, returning the sexual acts, then it's clear you have consent. If she has an expression of fear, or is reluctant in her body movement, then you should be able to ask why, and be sure of the situation.

2. Because driving while drunk and being raped while drunk are two entirely different things. The entire thing falls back one, key concept: Once you are too drunk, your judgement and ability to reason go out the window. When you get drunk and drive, you are held accountable because it is your responsibility to either:
A) Not get so drunk that endanger lives. If you go out to drink and are incapable of controlling yourself so that you don't get drunk, you're more than likely an alcoholic and have serious problems.
B)Arrange that if you do get that drunk, someone who won't be is driving

That's why consent can't be given, for the same core reason: You aren't in your right mind. The difference is, you have a responsibility to not endanger others. You don't have a responsibility to not be raped. That's like having a responsibility to not be murdered, or robbed. It is the responsibility of others to not rape and take advantage of you, hence why it's illegal and punishable by law.

Also, this isn't just about women. Stop making it seem like this law only talks about women being the one raped. This applies for a man raping a woman, a woman raping a woman, a woman raping a man, and a man raping a man.

Funny that you say "THEY HAVE RESPONSIBILITY," but you are trying to shrug the responsibility off of you to not rape someone. How hard is it to simply not have *** with someone who is drunk? Are you that primitive that you are unable to control what you hump? Are you a simple-minded dog, or a human being with common sense and control?

if she doesn't say no it is not rape. What is so hard about saying stop? The ****ing idiocy of this argument is truly astounding. You are seriously suggesting that because you assume someone will have a negative reaction that you should just let it happen (but he still raped). Look if he's gonna rape you, saying stop won't change his mind (you're already getting raped). If however he isn't raping you then he will stop. You need to learn the difference between a rapist and a person thinking their advances are ok. And honestly you won't find many heterosexual males on this planet to pull out without a no.

I'm not doing this again. Just tell me, would this argument hold up in court
" sir my defendant shouldn't be held accountable for the car she wrecked drunk, because her decision making was affected by alcohol".

You dug your own grave in this argument " you are held accountable because it's your responsibility to not get that drunk". How un feminist of you btw to suggest women don't have enough ability to say no when they get drunk, but men somehow do.

It doesn't matter because in the end its unconstitutional.

Then why don't you file a case directly against the law itself for being unconstitutional and let SC give a verdict one way or another?

I don't currently have the capital to sustain such a suit.

 

[Avani]

if she doesn't say no it is not rape. What is so hard about saying stop? The ****ing idiocy of this argument is truly astounding. You are seriously suggesting that because you assume someone will have a negative reaction that you should just let it happen (but he still raped). Look if he's gonna rape you, saying stop won't change his mind (you're already getting raped). If however he isn't raping you then he will stop. You need to learn the difference between a rapist and a person thinking their advances are ok. And honestly you won't find many heterosexual males on this planet to pull out without a no.

I'm not doing this again. Just tell me, would this argument hold up in court
" sir my defendant shouldn't be held accountable for the car she wrecked drunk, because her decision making was affected by alcohol".

You dug your own grave in this argument " you are held accountable because it's your responsibility to not get that drunk". How un feminist of you btw to suggest women don't have enough ability to say no when they get drunk, but men somehow do.

It doesn't matter because in the end its unconstitutional.


I don't currently have the capital to sustain such a suit.

You do not even have understanding of the law... your arguments are twisted. You cannot drive drunk and get freedom from responsible if you cause an accident. Nor you can hit a drunk pedestrian and claim it was alright to hit him for being drunk. That's how drunk driving argument goes. Rape is a general intention crime not specific intention. But you wouldn't bother to understand the difference...

I didn't mean you personally but people in your country.

As for the law-- I am starting to think we have better judicial remedies than you guys, if you cannot do so. We have a system of Public Interest Litigation Writs in such cases, directly involving the SC and skipping the costs. Don't you have something similar in such cases to help you people out?

Besides Law firms love to fight such cases on their own. There are many politicians too who don't mind picking the cause for upholding the constitution. Feminists aren't the only ones with voting right, are they? Are they all dead?

 

[slimreaper]

You do not even have understanding of the law... your arguments are twisted. You cannot drive drunk. Nor you can hit a drunk pedestrian and claim it was alright to hit him for being drunk. That's how drunk driving argument goes. Rape is a general intention crime not specific intention. But you wouldn't bother to understand the difference...

As for the law-- I am starting to think we have better judicial remedies than you. We have a system of Public Interest Litigation Writs in such cases, directly involving the SC and skipping the costs.

Right you cannot drive drunk. But if you do you aren't absolved of the consequences just because you were drunk. You can't just make the argument that you didn't know what you were doing.

That said the same applies for drunken consent. If you're drunk you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you get drunk and then have consensual *** you wouldn't normally have, tough shit don't get drunk next time.

Can the same argument be made for a man trying to avoid child support bills? Can he just say he was drunk and be let off from his responsibility?

 

[Avani]

Right you cannot drive drunk. But if you do you aren't absolved of the consequences just because you were drunk. You can't just make the argument that you didn't know what you were doing.

That said the same applies for drunken consent. If you're drunk you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you get drunk and then have consensual *** you wouldn't normally have, tough shit don't get drunk next time.

Can the same argument be made for a man trying to avoid child support bills? Can he just say he was drunk and be let off from his responsibility?

Whether it's he or she - the "sexual aggressor" is the supposed to be the driver- the one who was actively moving the thing with general intention of "driving" regardless of conditions and trying to make it happen. If s/he wasn't driving positing then s/he wasn't the rapist.

So you do not even understand the drunken driving argument. Unless you are implying that *** can happen only if " she" lets it regardless of circumstances and that she is the driving force or driver just be existence. And then we know who is the problem here. Law or...

A perfect example of why they have been trying to write "yes mean yes" laws... they are trying to make people like you understand what not to do since they failed with "no means no" and failing anyway...

 

[slimreaper]

Whether it's he or she - the "sexual aggressor" is the supposed to be the driver- the one who was actively moving the thing with general intention of "driving" regardless of conditions and trying to make it happen. If s/he wasn't driving positing then s/he wasn't the rapist.

So you are do not even understand the drunken driving argument. Unless you are implying that *** can happen only if " she" lets it regardless of circumstances and that she is the driving force or driver just be existence. And then we know who is the problem here. Law or...

A perfect example of why they have been trying to write "yes mean yes" laws... they are trying to make people like you understand what not to do since they failed with "no means no" and failing anyway...

You are trying to make one person the driver and one person a passenger. That works if one is passed out or is actually being forcefully raped. If it's just two drunk people, then they're both in control and thus both have their own metaphorical car.

No means no works just fine. A rapist is gonna rape no matter the law, as i've said before you're just hurting the innocent dude who thinks the *** is consensual.

 

[Avani]

You are trying to make one person the driver and one person a passenger. That works if one is passed out or is actually being forcefully raped. If it's just two drunk people, then they're both in control and thus both have their own metaphorical car.

No means no works just fine. A rapist is gonna rape no matter the law, as i've said before you're just hurting the innocent dude who thinks the *** is consensual.

That narrows down the list to a very small number of cases among all of the reported cases. And in the end it becomes responsibility of the court to decide who was responsible to what extent based on other evidences and prior records and decide accordingly. Since individual cases and circumstances are different it cannot be generalized.

More importantly what you fail to understand that universities have a responsibility to provide a safe place and students are involved in more and more risk taking behaviour to get the stupid "cool" points instead of learning some discipline. I say ban alcohol on university campus altogether since students do not understand what not to do. That too won't get down well with.. I guess... it's an old argument..

There was a case an ancient Indian University from 900 century, I think , ( I maybe some 100 years off but you get the general idea )- alcohol was banned on campus - a student was found with one , he had received it from a staff member and administration kept arguing what to do with such violations some wanted the ban itself removed.... 1000 years later world is still discussing it.

@the bold: Crimes do not stop but we try to make laws to contain it.

 

[slimreaper]

That narrows down the list to a very small number of cases among all of the reported cases. And in the end it becomes responsibility of the court to decide who was responsible to what extent based on other evidences and prior records and decide accordingly. Since individual cases and circumstances are different it cannot be generalized.

More importantly what you fail to understand that universities have a responsibility to provide a safe place and students are involved in more and more risk taking behaviour to get the stupid "cool" points instead of learning some discipline. I say ban alcohol on university campus altogether since students do not understand what not to do. That too won't get down well with.. I guess... it's an old argument..

There was a case an ancient Indian University from 900 century, I think , ( I maybe some 100 years off but you get the general idea )- alcohol was banned on campus - a student was found with one , he had received it from a staff member and administration kept arguing what to do with such violations some wanted the ban itself removed.... 1000 years later world is still discussing it.

@the bold: Crimes do not stop but we try to make laws to contain it.

For the last statement, rape was(and still is where I live) illegal under no means no.

Banning alcohol won't work, the same way banning crack hasn't helped the ghetto

 

[Avani]

For the last statement, rape was(and still is where I live) illegal under no means no.

Banning alcohol won't work, the same way banning crack hasn't helped the ghetto

It would certainly reduce the cases of the drunken *** you have been so worried for months. Either people behave and show they are mature enough to take responsibility of their actions and make right choices or they lose their liberties to an extent. They can't have one without another.

 

[Punk Hazard]

if she doesn't say no it is not rape. What is so hard about saying stop? The ****ing idiocy of this argument is truly astounding. You are seriously suggesting that because you assume someone will have a negative reaction that you should just let it happen (but he still raped). Look if he's gonna rape you, saying stop won't change his mind (you're already getting raped). If however he isn't raping you then he will stop. You need to learn the difference between a rapist and a person thinking their advances are ok. And honestly you won't find many heterosexual males on this planet to pull out without a no.

I'm not doing this again. Just tell me, would this argument hold up in court
" sir my defendant shouldn't be held accountable for the car she wrecked drunk, because her decision making was affected by alcohol".

You dug your own grave in this argument " you are held accountable because it's your responsibility to not get that drunk". How un feminist of you btw to suggest women don't have enough ability to say no when they get drunk, but men somehow do.

It doesn't matter because in the end its unconstitutional.


I don't currently have the capital to sustain such a suit.

You are severely downplaying what a "negative reaction" is. There are times when, if someone throws themselves aggressively at another person, they feel too threatened to say no. There are times when a person doesn't say no because the negative reaction can be anger and violence. Consent through intimidation, whether intentional or not, is not consent. Once again, if speaking is so simple, if it's so simple to just say "No," why is it to so hard to just ask "Do you want to do this?" for clarity? If you get no answer or an answer less than a clear yes then don't proceed.

The only thing idiotic here is how incapable you are of understanding that this is not the same concept. The reason you are held accountable in drunk driving is because your decision to get drunk can lead to the harm of others by your doing. You are instructed by the law that you cannot get drunk and drive because being drunk tears apart your judgement(as well as motor control). While drunk, you are functioning mentally less than normal, putting others in risk of danger if you drive. Because being drunk decreases your judgement, consent isn't valid because you aren't in your right state of mind.

Are you stupid? You must be. I never suggested women don't have control of how drunk they get. First, stop making it seem like women are the only victims of rape, this is about any *** being raped and applies to men and women. Secondly, no, women do have a responsibility of how much alcohol is consumed. That doesn't make a person who takes advantage of her any less guilty. Think of it this way: it's up to you whether or not you walk through a dark alley late at night. You choose to do it, and someone attacks you and robs you. Would a court then say "Hey, it was your responsibility to not go through that alley" and let the thief get off free? No. The same applies for a drunk person. Just because it was their responsibility to not get drunk doesn't invalidate that they were taken advantage of.

 

[GreyWizard93]

I was told how these two people slept together at a party and after she regretted it and claimed, took him to court but everyone at the party knew she wanted to and my friend how to describe the sounds he had heard from the bedroom.

Just thought I'd add this in.

 

[Punk Hazard]

I was told how these two people slept together at a party and after she regretted it and claimed, took him to court but everyone at the party knew she wanted to and my friend how to describe the sounds he had heard from the bedroom.

Just thought I'd add this in.

This is why it goes to court.

 

[slimreaper]

You are severely downplaying what a "negative reaction" is. There are times when, if someone throws themselves aggressively at another person, they feel too threatened to say no. There are times when a person doesn't say no because the negative reaction can be anger and violence. Consent through intimidation, whether intentional or not, is not consent. Once again, if speaking is so simple, if it's so simple to just say "No," why is it to so hard to just ask "Do you want to do this?" for clarity? If you get no answer or an answer less than a clear yes then don't proceed.

The only thing idiotic here is how incapable you are of understanding that this is not the same concept. The reason you are held accountable in drunk driving is because your decision to get drunk can lead to the harm of others by your doing. You are instructed by the law that you cannot get drunk and drive because being drunk tears apart your judgement(as well as motor control). While drunk, you are functioning mentally less than normal, putting others in risk of danger if you drive. Because being drunk decreases your judgement, consent isn't valid because you aren't in your right state of mind.

Are you stupid? You must be. I never suggested women don't have control of how drunk they get. First, stop making it seem like women are the only victims of rape, this is about any *** being raped and applies to men and women. Secondly, no, women do have a responsibility of how much alcohol is consumed. That doesn't make a person who takes advantage of her any less guilty. Think of it this way: it's up to you whether or not you walk through a dark alley late at night. You choose to do it, and someone attacks you and robs you. Would a court then say "Hey, it was your responsibility to not go through that alley" and let the thief get off free? No. The same applies for a drunk person. Just because it was their responsibility to not get drunk doesn't invalidate that they were taken advantage of.

It doesn't and will never matter. If you don't clarify that you don't consent to sec, then it's not rape. Go cry to someone else because you'll get no sympathy from me. This will be 3 Times I've said it now, but ill say it again. If you don't give him a chance to not rape you then how do you know he's raping you.

I've already gone into why getting a yes is more difficult. Because in the real world (that feminists don't seem to grasp) if you ask permission it makes you look like a sniveling little *****. Ex. The frequent statistic is that 1/5 women on a college campus gets sexually assaulted. What they don't tell you is that they considered a dude going for a kiss without permission and getting denied sexual assault.

"Take advantage of"

You're constantly painting this picture of a pretty much sober person just going around ****ing drunk people. That's kinda low, but it's still not rape. If you are personally responsible for any crimes committed while drunk, then by default you are capable of giving consent. Just because your judgement is impaired, doesn't excuse the responsibility to either not do that to yourself, or be in enough control to make your own decisions.
You must not grasp the difference between drunk and incapacitated (which i've agreed is rape)

The theif analogy doesn't work because the theif equates to forceful rape. If you get drunk and thst guy in the all talls you into giving himm all your possessions, you're not gonna find any judge to convict him.

None of this matters, because putting the burden of proof on the defendant is unconstitutional. A class action suit would shit wll over this law.

 

[Punk Hazard]

It doesn't and will never matter. If you don't clarify that you don't consent to sec, then it's not rape. Go cry to someone else because you'll get no sympathy from me. This will be 3 Times I've said it now, but ill say it again. If you don't give him a chance to not rape you then how do you know he's raping you.

I've already gone into why getting a yes is more difficult. Because in the real world (that feminists don't seem to grasp) if you ask permission it makes you look like a sniveling little *****. Ex. The frequent statistic is that 1/5 women on a college campus gets sexually assaulted. What they don't tell you is that they considered a dude going for a kiss without permission and getting denied sexual assault.

"Take advantage of"

You're constantly painting this picture of a pretty much sober person just going around ****ing drunk people. That's kinda low, but it's still not rape. If you are personally responsible for any crimes committed while drunk, then by default you are capable of giving consent. Just because your judgement is impaired, doesn't excuse the responsibility to either not do that to yourself, or be in enough control to make your own decisions.
You must not grasp the difference between drunk and incapacitated (which i've agreed is rape)

The theif analogy doesn't work because the theif equates to forceful rape. If you get drunk and thst guy in the all talls you into giving himm all your possessions, you're not gonna find any judge to convict him.

None of this matters, because putting the burden of proof on the defendant is unconstitutional. A class action suit would shit wll over this law.

I could give a shit about your sympathy.

That's not how it works. Once again, one may feel too threatened and intimidated to say no. If rape is analogous to murder, then rape in this case would be equivalent to manslaughter. Ignorance isn't an excuse. Which is why you should just simply clarify that she is giving consent.

The error you're making here is stupidly assuming asking for clarity of consent means walking up to a total stranger or interjecting into the middle of a brief conversation with "So, do you want to have ***?" The key is proper communication; build up conversation, establish familiarity, and see where it leads. Don't just jump in with "Hey wanna have ***!" And if you're seriously more concerned with not looking macho over not raping a person, then you're a ****ed up son of a ***** with a lot more to worry about than your orgasms.

No, that's not how that works either. If you do something that endangers the safety of others because of intoxication by a drug, then you are held accountable because you choose to take in that drug on your own free will. You need to wrap your mind around the key concept that intoxication leads to deteriorated judgement. You are held accountable for drunk driving because it is your responsibility to ensure that if you drink, you don't end up driving. It is not your responsibility to not be raped. A drunk driver is not the victim, they are the perpetrator. Consent can't be given because you are not in your right mind; you should not be driving because you are not in your right mind.

Apparently, you're incapable of reading. *Points to Jean Grey's post showing the law always says the accuser must provide proof they did not give consent.* Burden of proof lies on both parties. Get your selective reading ass outta here.

 

[slimreaper]

I could give a shit about your sympathy.

That's not how it works. Once again, one may feel too threatened and intimidated to say no. If rape is analogous to murder, then rape in this case would be equivalent to manslaughter. Ignorance isn't an excuse. Which is why you should just simply clarify that she is giving consent.

The error you're making here is stupidly assuming asking for clarity of consent means walking up to a total stranger or interjecting into the middle of a brief conversation with "So, do you want to have ***?" The key is proper communication; build up conversation, establish familiarity, and see where it leads. Don't just jump in with "Hey wanna have ***!" And if you're seriously more concerned with not looking macho over not raping a person, then you're a ****ed up son of a ***** with a lot more to worry about than your orgasms.

No, that's not how that works either. If you do something that endangers the safety of others because of intoxication by a drug, then you are held accountable because you choose to take in that drug on your own free will. You need to wrap your mind around the key concept that intoxication leads to deteriorated judgement. You are held accountable for drunk driving because it is your responsibility to ensure that if you drink, you don't end up driving. It is not your responsibility to not be raped. A drunk driver is not the victim, they are the perpetrator. Consent can't be given because you are not in your right mind; you should not be driving because you are not in your right mind.

Apparently, you're incapable of reading. *Points to Jean Grey's post showing the law always says the accuser must provide proof they did not give consent.* Burden of proof lies on both parties. Get your selective reading ass outta here.

Oh you mean the Indian law she posted that said if a woman says rape it's rape? She didn't post any proof that yes means yes doesn't make the accused provide a yes. If the accused must provide their own innocence before evidence is stacked against them then it's unconstitutional.

I'm sick of the rest of the argument. Good luck making innocent dudes rapists

Don't just take my word for it

You must be registered for see links