Up Front: All Together Now
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
I understand your point about pragmatic decisions about prosecution, but this has not been described as a general matter of truthfulness, rather of a (false) equivalence between fantasy and actuality - which you're perpetuating here.
It is only false if rape occured, if in fact consensual sex is what took place...
-
presumption of innocence?
-
Angus: What I don't understand is how a fantasy, something imaginative 'unrestricted by reality' would inform us of a person's credibility in regards to reality.
I would say that many, if not most people have fantasised about group sex. That doesn't mean many, if not most people want group sex in reality. But it seems as though that if people write down their fantasises they are no longer protectable by the law should someone force them into performing them. That's completely abhorrent to me.
To make it even more basic, writing down thoughts seems to create consent. It's unfair. No matter what thoughts this woman had of group sex, it doesn't prove she consented in a specific situation. How do we know that her fantasies were even real and not fabrications used for arousing the person she was talking too?
Seriously... the message is don't get drunk, don't dress provocatively, don't have an interesting sexual history and don't tell anyone your sexual fantasies. What will be added to the list next so that women can prove they weren't 'asking' for it?
-
and what a tired old message that one is - overdue for retirement
-
Vanilla privilege.
...we’ve examined vanilla privilege before.
I think that is a true concept, "vanilla privilege" exists. I agree with Emma and admire the succinctness of her argument in that regard and many others. So i keep reading this blog.
So here is a trial about to take place. The defence is that adults were behaving in a deviant, but entirely consensual practice of group sex. The prosecution is based upon the testimony of a woman who claims that the sex non-consensual. Whose side is "vanilla privilege" is going to harm most - the woman or the bunch of acknowledged sexual deviants?
-
My point is that "prosecution witnesses" are a smaller group governed by rules which I thought you were seriously debating the nature of. Prosecution witnesses are currently not allowed to lie or mislead the court or provide untruthful testimony, they should tell the truth. Someplaces even make them swear that they have to tell the whole truth. I think this system works well.
But Angus, she's not just the 'witness'. She is also, despite your insistence she's a lying whore, the victim.
What we're trying to say is that it's just possible, in the trauma of being assaulted, she didn't think of the chat. She certainly might not have been thinking about what turns her on, in the aftermath of a gang-rape. And even if she did, she might not have thought it was relevant to the fact that she turned up to one guy's house to have sex with him, and was confronted with 5 other people.
Of course a defence lawyer would use the chat in court. But doesn't she have the right to a trial still? To say 'yeah, I wrote that...but IT DOESN'T MATTER. I still have the right, at any point, to say, no, stop, and have them actually do that."
Seriously... the message is don't get drunk, don't dress provocatively, don't have an interesting sexual history and don't tell anyone your sexual fantasies. What will be added to the list next so that women can prove they weren't 'asking' for it?
And really, is that what the majority of men want? For us all to be wearing flannel dresses, and be scared to even talk about sex, let alone do it?
-
Whose side is "vanilla privilege" is going to harm most - the woman or the bunch of acknowledged sexual deviants?
The woman, because this scenario - unless it involves a great deal more gay sex than I think it ever has - makes her into "the slut".
And really, is that what the majority of men want? For us all to be wearing flannel dresses, and be scared to even talk about sex, let alone do it?
Well, it'd remove the danger of comparison.
-
Wow - reductio ad absurdum. Yes, Emma "witnesses" are people.
Angus, you made this thread about honesty and integrity. On the internet, even. And then you made a false statement about what you'd said. Do you not get that at all? Really? Or are you just not capable of admitting it?
So, you stand by your assertion that prosecution witnesses should not be allowed to not mention things they have forgotten?
These are direct questions. Like about half a dozen others back through this thread, it would be good if you actually answered them. You haven't been. That doesn't speak of integrity to me, to avoid direct questioning. For instance:
Why was she obliged to connect a consensual wish with a non-consensual assault?
Or
No, I mean she should not lie about her fantasies. She should inform the police/prosecution.
Uh ... okay. And I presume you believe all rape victims should be required to do this. That'd certainly change things.
And if not, why not?
Basically, you're conducting this discussion by repeated your initial assertion that she's a dirty lying whore, albeit rephrased, but not responding to any criticism of that position. After a while, it starts to look like you're not because you can't.
-
Basically, you're conducting this discussion by repeated your initial assertion that she's a dirty lying whore, albeit rephrased, but not responding to any criticism of that position. After a while, it starts to look like you're not because you can't.
This is cross-threading, but Emma should conduct interviews on TV around 7pm and pin elusive politicians to the wall. And use the 'greater crested fuckwad' line at least once a week.
-
If she said "no" a miscarriage of justice has occured. If she said "yes" a miscarriage of justice has been averted.
But writing about a fantasy prior to the alleged rape does not constitute consent to anything. Consent needs to be given in the moment and can be withdrawn at any stage of proceedings.
-
I'm trying to figure out how anything that happens before someone says "no" is relevant.
But what about after the answer was 'yes'?
The Australians seem to have been having an at times similar debate over the sorry and sordid case of Matthew James Sloan. This case provides some further interesting (perturbing?) questions about 'consent'.
You can find this here - Outrage at judge's sex assault excuses
Or here - When yes means rape
-
If someone is not in a fit state to give consent then it is rape.
Consent is not a one-time thing - sex is only consensual as long as all parties continue to consent. The second anyone withdraws consent or is rendered unable to give consent then sex stops or it is rape.
-
This case provides some further interesting (perturbing?) questions about 'consent'.
Roger, who brought the rape complaint in that case? Was it the woman in question? Because if it was, that 'she probably would have said yes if she was still conscious' argument does start to sound a little unlikely.
Also, a warning, those links of Roger's aren't pleasant.
-
The second anyone withdraws consent or is rendered unable to give consent then sex stops or it is rape.
Word. And that column is all kinds of offensive.
-
Isabel, I completely agree (as does everyone else in that story) that it was wrong, but how do we properly accomodate the world's shades of grey?
-
how do we properly accomodate the world's shades of grey?
Well I think from reading those articles and comments there are two different things going on there.
1/ People don't consider it to be rape, because the woman consented to sex. She did NOT consent to him having sex with her while she was unconscious, and if she made the rape complaint, obviously then it was something she objected to. So I don't see that argument holding up at all.
2/ It wasn't as bad as some other rapes, so... something. That's what sentencing is for. We don't not charge people with assault because that particular assault wasn't as bad as another assault.
And really, is "Don't have sex with someone who's unconscious" such a terrible restriction?
-
Word. And that column is all kinds of offensive.
And the comments beneath fascinating!
But that case is MUCH more complicated than the story those two links convey.
-
And really, is "Don't have sex with someone who's unconscious" such a terrible restriction?
But... the Animalistic Penis-Brains! They cannot be restricted in such a manner!
And the comments beneath fascinating!
I had a wee skim. Many points on the MRA bingo card. 'Women want equal rights but not equal responsibilities' is like a mantra to those douches.
-
Prosecution bungle allows man to change plea in rape case
In July, defence counsel Laura Finnegan told the District Court that Sloan's alleged victim went with him into the parklands and consented to sex acts.
She said Sloan continued to perform sex acts after noticing the woman appeared to be unconscious.
At the time prosecutors had agreed to those facts, but a month later admitted the victim was never unconscious and did not consent to sex with her attacker - instead they said the victim had pretended to be asleep in the hope that Sloan would stop.
-
New twist in Matthew James Sloan 'technical rape' case
prosecutors said they had made a "mistake" in their handling of the case.
They insisted there had been no consensual sex between the pair and that the woman had "feigned sleep" in the hope Sloan would cease performing sex acts upon her.
-
When rape isn't actually rape - outrage at judge's sex assault excuses
She agreed and the two began to have sex but she fell asleep during foreplay - which Sloan continued despite her being unconscious. Both were drunk at the time, with the woman being "heavily intoxicated".
Prosecutors clarify technical rape
Sloan, 29, has pleaded guilty to raping the woman in Adelaide's eastern parklands by digitally penetrating her after leaving a city pub.
Prosecutors admit they made mistake in 'technical rape' case
and so on...
-
I had a wee skim. Many points on the MRA bingo card. 'Women want equal rights but not equal responsibilities' is like a mantra to those douches.
Do you know what? I give up. I can't read something like that and not punch my computer screen. And I didn't even get to the comments.
Here in Wellington, the sun is shining, the sky is blue. So I am going to take what faith I have left in the human race, and go for a swim.
Emma, Danielle, Jackie et al. You guys are awesome, and are pretty much the reason I have any faith left.
-
I'm trying to figure out how anything that happens before someone says "no" is relevant.
The safeword is applesauce?
But as a legal matter, it may be relevant in determining whether you believe the person actually said "no". Or even whether you believe it is reasonably possible the person didn't say "no".
If you conclude in a rape case that it is highly probably that a complainant withdrew consent, and made this known, the charge hasn't been proved and the person is not guilty.
-
Emma, Danielle, Jackie et al. You guys are awesome, and are pretty much the reason I have any faith left.
Seconding that in a big, big, big way.
-
Emma, Danielle, Jackie et al. You guys are awesome, and are pretty much the reason I have any faith left.
Can I just add the people (real ones even) who worked on the Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence, including Louise Nicholas.
The report itself is on the ministry website here. It seemed a little, well apposite, maybe?
This thread has convinced me that I need a break from this, and hence I have withdrawn to elsewhere.
All the best.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.