Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, it's all very simple... among rational, level-headed people. Unfortunately, there are certain women who will claim after the fact that a sexual encounter wasn't consensual when it very much was, whether in a drunk stupor or heat of the moment or what-have-you. So it's very flippant and facile to say consensual sex is acceptable, until someone decides to throw out a false narrative, either out of regret, embarrassment, anger, etc. Of course we should be teaching our boys to be respectful of women and when no means no. But our girls absolutely need to know that false accusations are completely unacceptable and IMO, should be strictly sanctioned. Did anything ever happen to "Jackie," of UVA fame? Any apology from her?

If you were in a drunken stupor, you cannot consent to sex, in which case the sex was not consensual.

Also, if we stop at teaching boys when no means no, we are not teaching our boys (or our girls) about consent. The absence of no does not constitute consent. Only consent constitutes consent.

Again: someone can give their consent (enthusiastically, even!) and then recant the next day. How do you propose teaching girls just how wrong this is?

Do you disagree with the idea that the absence of no does not constitute consent? The assumption is that the person is consenting, unless the person explicitly no?

I'm not going to worry about how to teach girls not to "recant consent" after the fact, because it's not possible to recant consent after the fact. In contrast, disagreement about whether somebody consented is possible. For example, Person A might say, "Person B thought I was consenting, but I didn't consent". And then Person B might respond, "I thought that Person A was consenting because [reasons]." The way to avoid such disagreements is to only have sexual contact with people who are clearly consenting and aren't going to regret having had sex with you the next day.

Anonymous wrote:All this screaming about consent, yet still no clear definition what consent would mean. Once the poster said grabbing arm without consent could be sexual assault I lost interest. Sometimes I go up to my friend and before I say hello I grab her arm to get her attention. This can now be sexual assault. Insanity.

Anonymous wrote:

I am aware the police need more training.
I am also aware that they quite often get false reports, more often than not.I actually think we need to educate women about what "real" rape is, because these false reports actually make it hard for police to trust women. They are working against themselves.

You are never going to get anywhere positive with this issue if you continue to believe that a couple getting drunk together then having consensual sex is rape on the part of 1 partner.

You are too far to the "everything is rape" side of the argument for anybody to take you serious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When a women believes she is raped, she goes to the cops (many don't, i know that) but many do and once they talk to the cops many realize that what they described is not a "real" rape.

And we have a woman hater here, ladies and gents! This post is the most over the top piece of bullshit I have read on here yet.

Not a woman or a man hater. Just a realist.

Nah. A realist would actually acknowledge the article that was linked showing how you have no clue what you're talking about and make a real comment about it. You're just a troll, and a woman hating one at that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When a women believes she is raped, she goes to the cops (many don't, i know that) but many do and once they talk to the cops many realize that what they described is not a "real" rape.

And we have a woman hater here, ladies and gents! This post is the most over the top piece of bullshit I have read on here yet.

Not a woman or a man hater. Just a realist.

Anonymous wrote:

When a women believes she is raped, she goes to the cops (many don't, i know that) but many do and once they talk to the cops many realize that what they described is not a "real" rape.

And we have a woman hater here, ladies and gents! This post is the most over the top piece of bullshit I have read on here yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When a women believes she is raped, she goes to the cops (many don't, i know that) but many do and once they talk to the cops many realize that what they described is not a "real" rape.

Yes, for practical purposes, for rapes reported to the police, the police decide what is a "real" rape and what is a fake rape. That's why the police, on the whole, need better training about rape, so that they can make better decisions. See, for example, this article published in the journal Criminal Justice in 2004: http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Beyond_Belief__Police,_Rape_and_Women_s_Credibility.pdf

Police suspiciousness regarding rape allegations originates within a
social environment characterized by a history of distrust towards women,
and is exacerbated within the masculine ethos of police organizations

Anonymous wrote:

When a women believes she is raped, she goes to the cops (many don't, i know that) but many do and once they talk to the cops many realize that what they described is not a "real" rape.

When a women believes she is raped, she goes to the cops (many don't, i know that) but many do and once they talk to the cops many realize that what they described is not a "real" rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is talking about sexual authoritarian dystopia? Or evil, or retraining? It's very simple:

-if you want to have sex with a person, be sure they are consenting
-if you aren't sure that they are consenting, don't have sex with them

Also, you don't get to decide -- nobody gets to decide -- who the "real" rape victims are, vs. the fake rape victims.

Actually that is not true. The cops/courts decide who is the "real" rape victim.

That is, IF it even goes to court, which is unlikely. So many rapists get away with raoe, and they do it over and over again.

Well, mostly it goes to the cops. Then they say, "Well that is not rape." So yes, it rarely gets to the court.

That is not even close to true. Women know they are the ones who will bear the brunt of speaking out, so they don't bother.

You know, I have a feeling that you are a creepy rapist yourself. I really do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is talking about sexual authoritarian dystopia? Or evil, or retraining? It's very simple:

-if you want to have sex with a person, be sure they are consenting
-if you aren't sure that they are consenting, don't have sex with them

Also, you don't get to decide -- nobody gets to decide -- who the "real" rape victims are, vs. the fake rape victims.

Actually that is not true. The cops/courts decide who is the "real" rape victim.

That is, IF it even goes to court, which is unlikely. So many rapists get away with raoe, and they do it over and over again.

Well, mostly it goes to the cops. Then they say, "Well that is not rape." So yes, it rarely gets to the court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is talking about sexual authoritarian dystopia? Or evil, or retraining? It's very simple:

-if you want to have sex with a person, be sure they are consenting
-if you aren't sure that they are consenting, don't have sex with them

Also, you don't get to decide -- nobody gets to decide -- who the "real" rape victims are, vs. the fake rape victims.

Actually that is not true. The cops/courts decide who is the "real" rape victim.

That is, IF it even goes to court, which is unlikely. So many rapists get away with raoe, and they do it over and over again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is talking about sexual authoritarian dystopia? Or evil, or retraining? It's very simple:

-if you want to have sex with a person, be sure they are consenting
-if you aren't sure that they are consenting, don't have sex with them

Also, you don't get to decide -- nobody gets to decide -- who the "real" rape victims are, vs. the fake rape victims.

Actually that is not true. The cops/courts decide who is the "real" rape victim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, all human interactions can lead to misunderstanding. We don't therefore ban human interactions. Nor do we require signed contracts before human interactions. Somehow everybody is able to figure this out countless times every single day -- except when it comes to sexual human interactions, at which point it apparently all becomes so complicated and nebulous that all of these poor pitiful well-meaning people are just completely at sea. I wonder why.

Also, grabbing somebody's arm actually is assault. So is hugging somebody who does not want to be hugged. Is it prosecutable assault, if so, should prosecutors prosecute it? Well, there are bigger fish to fry. Nonetheless, they are both assault. Don't do those things.

You just showed how ridiculous you are. Grabbing a persons arm and hugging someone depended on context and is not assault. In that case I am sure you have committed assault before. Exactly , there are bigger fish to fry. True incidents of rape, not these trumped up charges that everything is assault.