# Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules



## Deleted member 23 (Jan 29, 2015)

> Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated.
> 
> The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no” to recognise situations where women may have been unable to give consent.
> 
> ...




what if someone accuses you of raping them and you didnt even have sex?

is that it... you're just fucked, there's no way you would have evidence for anything


----------



## Zaru (Jan 29, 2015)

Won't this just INCREASE attempts at victim blaming? Because from now on it's basically the only way to innocence other than a watertight alibi proving that you were somewhere else.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jan 29, 2015)

A lawyer would make a killing by making consent to sex contracts.


----------



## Gunners (Jan 29, 2015)

I wonder, shouldn't women, in the interest of fairness, have to prove a man said yes?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 29, 2015)

Gunners said:


> I wonder, shouldn't women, in the interest of fairness, have to prove a man said yes?



Men can't get rape by women. What is this, the 21st century still? Noob get with the times.


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2015)

Because God forbid both parties practice responsibility and logic.

No one is excusing rape but ffs this opens the door to so many false accusations.


----------



## Naya (Jan 29, 2015)

> rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex





oh this it definitely going to improve the morals.


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2015)

Nana Tsu said:


> oh this it definitely going to improve the morals.



And people expect teenage/college women to all NOT take advantage of this?


----------



## Island (Jan 29, 2015)

klad said:


> what if someone accuses you of raping them and you didnt even have sex?


Uh.

You're aware that even if you use a condom, there is still trace evidence left in your partner's orifices, right? You're either going to find bodily fluids or traces of particulates, spermicide, and lubricant. Conversely, if you aren't using protection, there should be fluid on _you_.


----------



## Naya (Jan 29, 2015)

Mael said:


> And people expect teenage/college women to all NOT take advantage of this?



Drunk women always take advantage of modest men, didn't you know that?


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Jan 29, 2015)

Island said:


> Uh.
> 
> You're aware that even if you use a condom, there is still trace evidence left in your partner's orifices, right? You're either going to find bodily fluids or traces of particulates, spermicide, and lubricant. Conversely, if you aren't using protection, there should be fluid on _you_.


That's implying cops do a rape kit and get a good and clean search of the house and everything in it.

Not everything is as clear cut as law and order. People have accused others of rape and gotten them in jail without any of of the above.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 29, 2015)

[YOUTUBE]Jo4568PIRnk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jan 29, 2015)

Why is the burden of proof with men and not women ?


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 29, 2015)

You were warned
Yet nobody listened


----------



## Xiammes (Jan 29, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> A lawyer would make a killing by making consent to sex contracts.



Going to quote myself.



Xiammes said:


> >pick chick up from a bar
> >take her to my room
> >we both pull our contracts out for consent
> >several hours reading the fine print
> ...


----------



## Punished Pathos (Jan 29, 2015)

What you're seeing now is its normal state.

This is an SJW.

And this... This is known as an SJW that has ascended past an SJW.
Or, you can just call this a SJW2.

And this... Is to go... Even further beyond...!


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2015)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> Why is the burden of proof with men and not women ?



MUHSOJINEE!

Basically bitter cunts given too many rights of speech and the spineless male simps who defend them in fruitless hopes they'll just get to sniff their panties.


----------



## SaishuSoda (Jan 29, 2015)

> Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated.


The man is assumed to be a rapist until proven otherwise? I'm all for improving service in rape investigations, but the burden of proof shouldn't only apply to men.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 29, 2015)

when "guilty until proven innocent" is no longer just a rhetorical observation, but axiomatically ingrained into law itself

modern feminism really is a disease, and has, under the arrowheads of first world problems and self entitlement, penetrated its idiocy on a very large scale, past fringe level, where acamedia and even legal systems across the first world have raised a white flag to political correctness and reciprocate its garbage uncritically

women undoubtedly have the short end of the stick in various social and political issues, but so do men, and you don't achieve equality by creating inequalities


----------



## Smoke (Jan 29, 2015)

Man, this is gonna be so hard.


How am I supposed to get a yes out of her, if she's passed out drunk?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 29, 2015)

It's like they almost don't want us to rape women. Wtf man.


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2015)

afgpride said:


> when "guilty until proven innocent" is no longer just a rhetorical observation, but axiomatically ingrained into law itself
> 
> modern feminism really is a disease, and has, under the arrowheads of first world problems and self entitlement, penetrated its idiocy on a very large scale, past fringe level, where acamedia and even legal systems across the first world have raised a white flag to political correctness and reciprocate its garbage uncritically



The issues are many, but what stymies logical and sensible reactions against these sorts of things includes the explosion of Internet stupidity to the point of SJWs doxxing and shaming accomplished people, and more liberal media members like Stewart/Colbert as shills to these harpies.  Seriously, even stronger and smarter women like Sommers, Hirsi Ali, and Young are villainized by their own kind and men who shill to said harpies.  There's also white men who hate themselves (McIntosh) they fabricate their own as some cabal of racist rapists.

They're poisoning the well because the counterattack of sensibility is log jammed by gullible idiots and libtards.


----------



## Island (Jan 29, 2015)

klad said:


> That's implying cops do a rape kit and get a good and clean search of the house and everything in it.


"I've been raped." "Okay, let's take a look."

That's more or less how it goes.



klad said:


> Not everything is as clear cut as law and order. People have accused others of rape and gotten them in jail without any of of the above.


Not everywhere is Mississippi either, so this point is moot.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 29, 2015)

The smart move here would seem to me that if accused have your lawyer immediately request that the state file charges against the accuser as well and then make a 14th Amendment equal protection case against the state when the DA refuses to do so.

Oh, wait, UK.  No idea then, best of luck fellows.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 29, 2015)

If there was ever a post that said "delete this before the blenderites have a field day" that was it.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Jan 29, 2015)

It's her word against his. If you don't want to get raped while drunk, don't drink with people you don't trust around you.


----------



## GrizzlyClaws (Jan 29, 2015)

My wife is a witch.

Now in 21st century edition with reversed sexes.


----------



## Disquiet (Jan 29, 2015)

> The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no” to recognise situations where women may have been unable to give consent.


Okay, great.


> Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze and say nothing because they are terrified of their attacker.


Fantastic.


> Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”.


How?


----------



## Khyle (Jan 29, 2015)

This has been like this for a while in my country.

Things are pretty terrible here in this department. I feel bad for you, guys.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Jan 29, 2015)

Use camera phone and record her stating current date and agreeing to have sex with you. That's pretty much the only way to prove it.


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2015)

baconbits said:


> If there was ever a post that said "delete this before the blenderites have a field day" that was it.



I guess so?


----------



## Griever (Jan 29, 2015)

So basically, everyone and their.... father, is gonna be in the homemade porno business from now on, hmm. fair enough.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jan 29, 2015)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> Use camera phone and record her stating current date and agreeing to have sex with you. That's pretty much the only way to prove it.



He digitally altered that video, Your Honor. He hacked it with his computer skills.

That's good enough for me. 500 life sentences with no chance for parole.


----------



## kire (Jan 29, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> [YOUTUBE]Jo4568PIRnk[/YOUTUBE]



Lol might as well...love contracts.

This subject is just a mess..


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 29, 2015)

afgpride said:


> when "guilty until proven innocent" is no longer just a rhetorical observation, but axiomatically ingrained into law itself
> 
> modern feminism really is a disease, and has, under the arrowheads of first world problems and self entitlement, penetrated its idiocy on a very large scale, past fringe level, where acamedia and even legal systems across the first world have raised a white flag to political correctness and reciprocate its garbage uncritically
> 
> *women undoubtedly have the short end of the stick in various social and political issues*, but so do men, and you don't achieve equality by creating inequalities


The 5th most powerful person in the world is a woman(Merkel)
Even Iran has Women parliament and Had a female minister.
The notion that women are still treated as second Class at the very least in first world countries (Except Japan I guess) is quite laughable.  
The funny thing is that women in first world countries don't even care about women rights movements in third world countries, If they were I would take them more seriously but they only care about silly things.


----------



## Gino (Jan 29, 2015)

Yeahhhhhhhhh fuck that shit.


----------



## BurningVegeta (Jan 29, 2015)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> It's her word against his. If you don't want to get raped while drunk, don't drink with people you don't trust around you.


Although I agree with this 100% ...I've had arguments that this is blaming the victim. 

I just want to point out this is a fair comment. Even still it is still the rapist/attacker's fault said person got raped. They (the victim) just created a situation where it could happen a lot easier from when she wasn't drunk.




...on the plus side to this... men should start having sex with women that they truly trust.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 29, 2015)

News like this make me glad I live in Mexico.



BurningVegeta said:


> ...on the plus side to this... men should start having sex with women that they truly trust.



Yeah except...... unlike woman who know a lot of people that would sleep with them if they asked, men don't have this advantadge yet.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 29, 2015)

In short feminism is not againt rape...... feminism is against men fucking woman with lowered standards. That's it. Which is completely bullshit and ridiculous of course.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

why are people itt so dumb?

obviously if you don't have sex the burden of proof is on her to prove that you did.

this new law states that if you did have sex (again this is on her to prove) that you must prove you did so with consent (assuming that she or the police actually takes you to court for rape).


----------



## Gino (Jan 29, 2015)

You make it sound so simple.


----------



## Xiammes (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> why are people itt so dumb?
> 
> obviously if you don't have sex the burden of proof is on her to prove that you did.
> 
> this new law states that if you did have sex (again this is on her to prove) that you must prove you did so with consent (assuming that she or the police actually takes you to court for rape).



This is how its has been, what this is changing is for people that did have consensual sex, but the women regretted it and called rape. Now instead of a investigation, its now up to you to prove she consented.

They are trying to change it to guilty until proven innocent, and that is bullshit down to the very core.


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> why are people itt so dumb?
> 
> obviously if you don't have sex the burden of proof is on her to prove that you did.
> 
> this new law states that if you did have sex (again this is on her to prove) that you must prove you did so with consent (assuming that she or the police actually takes you to court for rape).



And you have clearly been ignorant as to how these sorts of cases don't pay attention to that, instead tossing due process out.  And given recent events how hard is it to accomplish what you're saying?

Not very hard.


----------



## Gunners (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> why are people itt so dumb?
> 
> obviously if you don't have sex the burden of proof is on her to prove that you did.
> 
> this new law states that if you did have sex (again this is on her to prove) that you must prove you did so with consent (assuming that she or the police actually takes you to court for rape).



Why are you so dumb? It still amounts to asking people to prove their innocence. The first order of business should be the claimant proving that consent was not present; in that situation, the onus should be on the defendant to prove he had a reasonable belief that consent existed. 

People just need to flip the genders around to realise what horse shit the approach is. A man and a woman has sex, afterwards the man says he was sexually assaulted and the woman has to prove the existence of consent.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

I'd be okay with that too.

When X person says I had consent they should be required to prove this statement, in logical terms they are making a claim which they must then prove.

This should apply to both genders.


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> I'd be okay with that too.
> 
> When X person says I had consent they should be required to prove this statement, in logical terms they are making a claim which they must then prove.
> 
> This should apply to both genders.



But it doesn't. 

Ideals are shit in the face of judicial reality.


----------



## Disquiet (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:
			
		

> this new law states that if you did have sex ... that you must prove you did so with consent


How?

And if you can't supply proof of this, are you inherently guilty?


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> why are people itt so dumb?
> 
> obviously if you don't have sex the burden of proof is on her to prove that you did.
> 
> this new law states that if you did have sex (again this is on her to prove) that you must prove you did so with consent (assuming that she or the police actually takes you to court for rape).



It's easy to prove you two had sex, but it's hard to prove that it was consensual .

X is woman, Y is man, no biology references intended .

X has consensual sex with Y . X says to police that it wasn't consensual .

Under normal law, X would have to prove that Y raped her .

Under this law, Y has to prove that he is innocent .

That is against logic, you don't have to prove a negative . Let's say I say " I fucked Alexis Texas " and you say " No, you didn't ", would it be logical for me to say " Prove it " ? No, the one who made the positive(" I fucked Alexis Texas") is the one who has to prove the claim . This is called burden of proof, and it is the basis of " innocent until proven guilty ", because you didn't do anything until someone proves you did it . With this law, they are putting men into a position where they are " guilty until proven innocent " . And do you fucking know how hard it is to prove innocence in a rape case if you had sex with her ? They can just say " I didn't consent ", " I was drunk " and BAM they literally just fucked the guy's life . 

I remember a case though, where the girl was a fucked up person and for god knows what reason said a man who had consensual sex with her said he raped her under the same type of law, and he got off because HER FRIENDS showed text message that she sent them telling that she liked the guy and wanted to have sex with him . Now imagine if her friends stood " loyal " to her ? A innocent guy would be put in jail for nothing .


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> why are people itt so dumb?
> 
> obviously if you don't have sex the burden of proof is on her to prove that you did.
> 
> this new law states that if you did have sex (again this is on her to prove) that you must prove you did so with consent (assuming that she or the police actually takes you to court for rape).



Why do you have to be the one to prove you did it with consent? Why not her?


----------



## Punished Pathos (Jan 29, 2015)

Gino said:


> You make it sound so simple.



Thread title is funny enough to make a devil cry


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> I'd be okay with that too.
> 
> When X person says I had consent they should be required to prove this statement, in logical terms they are making a claim which they must then prove.
> 
> This should apply to both genders.



except in the case of rape accusations, you are literally being accused of having sex without consent 

why should the burden of proof not be on the accuser, as it is with everything else?

nobody is going to screen every couple that ever had sex


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jan 29, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> Why do you have to be the one to prove you did it with consent? Why not her?



Better yet, why the MAN has to convince the police that they had consensual sex when all the woman has to do is SAY, PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE FOR IT, that they didn't ?


----------



## Island (Jan 29, 2015)

So, what does this law actually say?

As in, what does the legal document outlining this actually look like?

I have trouble making an opinion on something like a law without actually having read that law in the first place. On one hand, if it shifts the burden of proof to a negative, then, yeah, that's total nonsense. On the other hand, if the law is actually something like "the chick must not be passed the fuck out" or something a lot more technical sounding, then, sure, sounds okay to me.


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 29, 2015)

So, basically woman doesn't need to back up her claim anymore but the man is the only one to prove his claim?

And they say women don't have rights when the law is so one-sided for them.


----------



## santanico (Jan 29, 2015)

in b4 "feminism is ruining the world"

oops too late


----------



## Agent of Chaos (Jan 29, 2015)

Oh this shits gonna be abused to fuck and back by collage students and manipulative over attached ex's, or chicks looking for an easy gain. 

Fun Fact: I have a friend getting black mailed by his "gf" into staying with her otherwise she'll claim rape and make his life hell. Now this makes it easy to see why he didn't call her bluff (I think its a bluff anyways).


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2015)

starr said:


> in b4 "feminism is ruining the world"
> 
> oops too late



You do realize that from a litigious perspective this is still very fucked up.

If not, I dare you to come up with a good defense.  Giving us some Beyonc? level of feminism doesn't work either.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 29, 2015)

Agent of Chaos said:


> Oh this shits gonna be abused to fuck and back by collage students and manipulative over attached ex's, or chicks looking for an easy gain.
> 
> Fun Fact: I have a friend getting black mailed by his "gf" into staying with her otherwise she'll claim rape and make his life hell. Now this makes it easy to see why he didn't call her bluff (I think its a bluff anyways).



If he can get proof of that threat he'll win that you know.


----------



## Agent of Chaos (Jan 29, 2015)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> If he can get proof of that threat he'll win that you know.



I imagine the problem would be getting proof in the first place. She's a bit smarter than him, but then again everyone slips up eventually.


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 29, 2015)

Agent of Chaos said:


> Oh this shits gonna be abused to fuck and back by collage students and manipulative over attached ex's, or chicks looking for an easy gain.
> 
> Fun Fact: I have a friend getting black mailed by his "gf" into staying with her otherwise she'll claim rape and make his life hell. Now this makes it easy to see why he didn't call her bluff (I think its a bluff anyways).



Can he just use the black mail as proof for his innocence?


----------



## Agent of Chaos (Jan 29, 2015)

Hachibi said:


> Can he just use the black mail as proof for his innocence?



It's oral black mail (She told him to his face) I imagine to prove inoccent he has to record her, or get physical evidence.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jan 29, 2015)

Island said:


> "I've been raped." "Okay, let's take a look."
> 
> That's more or less how it goes.



But what if the person accuses the investigator of rape for trying to ascertain whether or not that person was really a victim of rape?


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 29, 2015)

Agent of Chaos said:


> It's oral black mail (She told him to his face) I imagine to prove inoccent he has to record her, or get physical evidence.



Oh, then the only ways to prove his innocence is either to record her or to have a trust-worthy witness, which won't be easy.

That just show you how feminism's influence suck


----------



## Agent of Chaos (Jan 29, 2015)

Hachibi said:


> Oh, then the only ways to prove his innocence is either to record her or to have a trust-worthy witness, which won't be easy.
> 
> That just show you how feminism's influence suck



Personally I think she's bluffing and won't actually go through with her threat. But this law makes those type of threats so very fucking real if anyone would be willing to abuse it that way.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 29, 2015)

starr said:


> in b4 "feminism is ruining the world"
> 
> oops too late



Are you going to actually bring an argument to the table?  Or just complain and defend this with no arguments?


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 29, 2015)

Agent of Chaos said:


> It's oral black mail






Agent of Chaos said:


> I imagine the problem would be getting proof in the first place. She's a bit smarter than him, but then again everyone slips up eventually.



Try to get her to make the threat again under the guise of being stupid and forgetting through non-oral means?
It is probably a bluff, but that might change once he calls it.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

afgpride said:


> except in the case of rape accusations, you are literally being accused of having sex without consent
> 
> why should the burden of proof not be on the accuser, as it is with everything else?
> 
> nobody is going to screen every couple that ever had sex



It's not though.

Lets say you kill someone in self defense that is not immediately clear to the crown. The Crown charges you with murder, they prove you killed someone, you then claim that this is self defense, the burden of proof, to prove that it is self defense initially rests on you.

It's a similar case here, the crown alleges you raped someone, they prove you had sex, you then claim that you had consent, it is then up to you to prove that you had consent.

This is how the legal system works and I don't get how people don't understand this.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

Now you're going to need to get a contract signed by both parties and then get it notarized just so you can have sex.  Thanks, Emma Watson.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> It's not though.
> 
> Lets say you kill someone in self defense that is not immediately clear to the crown. The Crown charges you with murder, they prove you killed someone, you then claim that this is self defense, the burden of proof, to prove that it is self defense initially rests on you.
> 
> ...




Except your completely underestimating the automatic bias, in favor of the woman, that exists in this in the Western world. The odds are alrerady stacked against men, when it comes to things like getting custody of a child, let alone actual accusations of rape. 

This is simply ripe for a spiteful woman, or one with second thoughts, to essentially ruin someone's life and get off scott free, since aside from contract or filmed consent, there is no real way for a man to prove that she verbally consented, its his word against hers, even moreso if the accusations months or years after they had sex, in which its then impossible to use physical evidence to determine if a woman was raped or not.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

If there is bias then there should be further law reformation to target and remove that bias, not a twisting and manipulation of current law to try to mitigate that bias.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> It's not though.
> 
> Lets say you kill someone in self defense that is not immediately clear to the crown. The Crown charges you with murder, they prove you killed someone, you then claim that this is self defense, the burden of proof, to prove that it is self defense initially rests on you.
> 
> ...



This isn't even remotely similar - in the previous case they're trying to prove an _illegal_ act. Sex isn't illegal. _Rape_ is, so they should be trying to prove that you _raped_ someone.

Not that they _need_ proof anymore. Just ask Brian Banks.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> It's not though.
> 
> Lets say you kill someone in self defense that is not immediately clear to the crown. The Crown charges you with murder, they prove you killed someone, you then claim that this is self defense, the burden of proof, to prove that it is self defense initially rests on you.
> 
> ...



alleging rape is literally alleging a lack of consent 

killing someone is fundamentally a crime unless proven otherwise*, having sex isn't

asterisk: i might be wrong on that, hold on let me think a second


----------



## Zaru (Jan 29, 2015)

And a corpse can't make false accusations without any crime happening whatsoever.


----------



## Gino (Jan 29, 2015)

The word rape is somewhere in there.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

afgpride said:


> alleging rape is literally alleging a lack of consent
> 
> killing someone is fundamentally a crime unless proven otherwise*, having sex isn't
> 
> asterisk: i might be wrong on that, hold on let me think a second



Exactly.

When you allege rape you allege that a) a person had sex with a victim and that b) they did it without the victims consent

When you allege murder you allege that a) a person was killed (not illegal) and b) they did so in an illegal manner.

You can have legal killings by the way, self defense, insanity plea, duress, etc are all legal methods of killing (in a manner of speaking).

Essentially what this law does (as I understand it) is make consent a defense rather than a presumption which makes sense to me.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> Exactly.
> 
> When you allege rape you allege that a) a person had sex with a victim and that b) they did it without the victims consent
> 
> ...



Consent has always been the defense, though - they've just made it harder to actually plead it because when it's word v. word, the word of the woman (plaintiff) is taken at face value, whereas the man (defendant) is always lying.

Some people - courts and all - still don't admit that some flat-out *lie* about these things when making the accusations.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> Exactly.
> 
> When you allege rape you allege that a) a person had sex with a victim and that b) they did it without the victims consent
> 
> ...



What the law should do is start with a neutral stance.  If its just he said she said then the two words should cancel each other out.  Our justice system is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty because above all we should protect the innocent from being sent to prison.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

Are you all missing that the crown still has to prove the case initially or what?

Theoretical case outline:

1. The crown alleges you raped someone.
2. The crown presents its evidence that you raped someone, if this is insufficient then a magistrate will not let the case proceed.
3. You then claim that you had consent so it's not rape. This is a defense, i.e you are presenting further evidence showing that while you committed the act (sex) you did not do so illegally.

Previously under UK law at this point the Crown would have to prove that you did not have consent, now the Crown sits back and lets you prove that you did have consent. When you plead consent you are not technically pleading not guilty, you are pleading a complete defense which removes the guilt from you but leaves you technically responsible for the act.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jan 29, 2015)

Guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> Are you all missing that the crown still has to prove the case initially or what?



No.

We are not.

That is literally what we are talking about, THAT is why this is a controversy - because just as many cases where the person is deemed guilty are *not* actually proven. All it is is, "She said it was rape, he didn't. Well clearly SHE must be right." There have been men convicted on no witness statements, not even evidence that a sex-act occurred, just solely on the woman's word.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

I don't see any of that in the article though.

this new law is british krorky, it's not american


----------



## LesExit (Jan 29, 2015)

starr said:


> in b4 "feminism is ruining the world"
> 
> oops too late


It's common knowledge now that feminism is going to cause this world to fall into total chaos 



With rape it seems almost impossible to prove it happened unless theres harsh abuse involved or witnesses....or a history of sexual assault I guess? I'm sure there are many women who've been unable to prove that they were, but making it so men have to prove they're innocent leaves room for manipulation too. How do you know who's telling the truth!? I want anyone who's been raped male or female to have a better chance at proving the awful fucking rapist guilty I don't really know how much of a positive impact this would have though?  but I'm still confused by the law exactly... What exactly is it!?


----------



## Agent of Chaos (Jan 29, 2015)

Look to make this simpler for why this law is stupid, you just have to think back to what happened a few months ago with the Student from Virginia who claimed to have been gang raped.

At the start she was taken at face value and the frat U-Va and its members were treated like shit and were essentially placed as guilty.

Guess what happened it turned out to be false, this type of law will allow those type of idiots more power and more difficult for its victims. While making actual rape victims be scrutinized to see if they are telling the truth. 



The thread that was made about that.



Couldn't find the original thread when people thought she was telling the truth. You can see the reactions of the media calling for the frat to be disbanded and treating them as guilty.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> I don't see any of that in the article though.
> 
> this new law is british krorky, it's not american



>False rape is only an American problem

Pshawwahah


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> Are you all missing that the crown still has to prove the case initially or what?
> 
> Theoretical case outline:
> 
> ...



And what if you have no way of PROVING consent?

Keep in mind a rape allegation even if proven false can utterly destroy someones life.  Making it easier to make a rape allegation on nothing but your word can be a very dangerous thing.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> Exactly.
> 
> When you allege rape you allege that a) a person had sex with a victim and that b) they did it without the victims consent
> 
> ...



do you not see a glaring difference in necessitating a defense for _having sex_ as opposed to necessitating a defense for _killing_? 

cases of death work from the ground up, where at least one victim automatically exists and an investigation is made to justify or compensate it in some fashion; applying that same principle to two people having sex is ridiculous


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that american laws that may or may not negate the burden of proof in some cases have no baring on a british law like this.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> I'm not saying that.
> 
> I'm saying that american laws that may or may not negate the burden of proof in some cases have no baring on a british law like this.



There is no law that negates the burden of proof, it's the fact that everyone - not just Americans - react on emotion when it comes to rape.


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2015)

Bearing*

And yes they do as both involve proper due process.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> And what if you have no way of PROVING consent?
> 
> Keep in mind a rape allegation even if proven false can utterly destroy someones life.  Making it easier to make a rape allegation on nothing but your word can be a very dangerous thing.



Then you are guilty of the crime in the eyes of the law?

The defendant is claiming that they should not be charged with a crime because of outside factors, namely they had consent, if they cannot prove this outside factor why should I believe it?



afgpride said:


> do you not see a glaring difference in necessitating a defense for _having sex_ as opposed to necessitating a defense for _killing_?
> 
> cases of death work from the ground up, where an investigation is made to justify it in some fashion, applying that same principle to two people having sex is ridiculous



Legally and Logically there should not be a difference, they're both serious indictable offences.

It's the same with rape though, they don't just let a woman in, hear the word rape and then go make arrests. They have to do an investigation, check facts and so on, if the crown believes it then has a case, just like with a murder it will take it to a magistrate, who will then decide whether there is enough evidence for the jury to convict.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> Then you are guilty of the crime in the eyes of the law?
> 
> The defendant is claiming that they should not be charged with a crime because of outside factors, namely they had consent, if they cannot prove this outside factor why should I believe it?



Sex is not a crime.  The woman is claiming there was a crime, its on her to prove that a crime was committed.

You both agree sex happened, that's legal, she is claiming it was nonconsensual, thats illegal.  She should have to prove her part in order for you to be actually charged with a crime.

I can't walk up and accuse you of something and then you have to prove you didn't do it.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> Legally and Logically there should not be a difference, they're both serious indictable offences.


rape and murder are, but that's not what i'm talking about

it's the underlying "having sex" vs "killing" that comes before the apparently necessary defense for either action 

legally and logically there should be a difference


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2015)

Law always follows in a few phase cycles behind real life trends, so this is not a surprise. Rather than assuming what will happen because I don't really think I can see the future, I see why people in the system felt the need to impose harsher penalties. It's more about creating a believable threat in minds of those who are thinking of conducting date rape. As long as the language defines the same action whether it's a guy or a girl on victim side, I'm ok with it.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Sex is not a crime.  The woman is claiming there was a crime, its on her to prove that a crime was committed.
> 
> You both agree sex happened, that's legal, she is claiming it was nonconsensual, thats illegal.  She should have to prove her part in order for you to be actually charged with a crime.
> 
> I can't walk up and accuse you of something and then you have to prove you didn't do it.



THE POLICE DON'T TAKE YOUR WORD AT FACE VALUE.

THIS LAW DOES NOT DO WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES.

All it does is make it so that after the crown thinks it has proven rape (through whatever method; bruises on her face, her being drunk at the time, whatever) and after the defendant has attempted to take the stance that they should not be convicted because they had consent, the onus rests on the defendant ONLY regarding the consent.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

afgpride said:


> rape and murder are, but that's not what i'm talking about
> 
> it's the underlying "having sex" vs "killing" that comes before the apparently necessary defense for either action
> 
> legally and logically there should be a difference



See above.

This law doesn't make having sex illegal, nor does it make it so any random woman can accuse you of rape and win because you can't prove consent.

It makes it so in a case where the crown already has sufficient evidence to prove a rape (in their eyes), the defendant can no longer make the claim that they had consent and then force the crown to disprove it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 29, 2015)

The sex contract will be an actual thing soon enough.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> THE POLICE DON'T TAKE YOUR WORD AT FACE VALUE.
> 
> THIS LAW DOES NOT DO WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES.
> 
> All it does is make it so that after the crown thinks it has proven rape (through whatever method; bruises on her face, her being drunk at the time, whatever) and after the defendant has attempted to take the stance that they should not be convicted because they had consent, the onus rests on the defendant ONLY regarding the consent.



This law says cops have to go into the investigation and make you prove you had consent.  If you can't prove it then what exactly is it that you think they do?  Do they just say "oh well, you couldn't prove consent, have a nice day"?

The point here is the ACCUSATION not the conviction.  As I pointed out before, a false rape allegation can destroy someones life, even if its proven false at a later date.  An accusation shouldn't be taken seriously without proof.

Based on nothing but another human beings word the onus is put on you to prove they're full of shit, something which in this case may be functionally impossible.

That should never be the case just because you had sex with someone.


----------



## EJ (Jan 29, 2015)

Same people arguing about the same stuff. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> The sex contract will be an actual thing soon enough.



If this were even a thing, couldn't someone just state the contract was forged, or find some kind of loophole with it? I love speaking hypothetically.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2015)

Lets not act like men don't abuse legal loopholes



> The Guardian carries a warning that rapists are increasingly using social media to hide their tracks, following the first joint initiative on rape between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police.
> 
> They referred to "false narratives", such as where rapists contact their victim the next day by text or on social media to make things appear normal which can then be used in court should there be a trial.
> 
> The paper says there has been an increase in the number of rape cases coming to court, partly down to publicity over historical abuse cases and also because victims appear to have more confidence they will be believed.



http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-31032756


----------



## Leeroy Jenkins (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> Then you are guilty of the crime in the eyes of the law?
> 
> The defendant is claiming that they should not be charged with a crime because of outside factors, namely they had consent, if they cannot prove this outside factor why should I believe it?
> 
> ...



Generally consent is verbal or given with non-verbal actions, like initiating sex itself or making advances that signal interest in sex. If there's no recordings or video of this (which usually happens because it's fucking weird to record yourself gaining consent), then there is no way to prove it because it's simply hearsay at that point. If there is a burden of proof that men had consent and consent was given in a way that can't be documented, that essentially creates a fixed case against the defendant. The fact that sex itself has some facets where it's acceptable to blur the line of consent doesn't help the defendant.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 29, 2015)

adee said:


> Lets not act like men don't abuse legal loopholes
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-31032756



Thats not a legal loophole, thats just lying, this law thats being discussed _does_ provide legal loopholes to those who would accuse someone falsely of rape.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 29, 2015)

starr said:


> in b4 "feminism is ruining the world"
> 
> oops too late



Feminism in the west has become pretty toxic at least, so your attempt at sarcasm falls flat.


----------



## Thdyingbreed (Jan 29, 2015)

This is horseshit like what happens if the only form consent you had was verbal and in that case it's you're word against there word their's and like others have noted there's tons of room for abuse here with false rape accusations.

So glad that they don't have these kinds of ridiculous laws where I live.


----------



## EJ (Jan 29, 2015)

> The Guardian carries a warning that rapists are increasingly using social media to hide their tracks, following the first joint initiative on rape between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police.
> 
> They referred to "false narratives", such as where rapists contact their victim the next day by text or on social media to make things appear normal which can then be used in court should there be a trial.



What makes it funny here is that there are actual legit p*d*p****/rapist piggy-backing off this shit about "false accusations".


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 29, 2015)

Flow said:


> Same people arguing about the same stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> If this were even a thing, couldn't someone just state the contract was forged, or find some kind of loophole with it? I love speaking hypothetically.



Hire a lawyer to write the contract, and both parties' legal advisors be witnesses to the signing.


----------



## EJ (Jan 29, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Hire a lawyer to write the contract, and both parties' legal advisors be witnesses to the signing.



I can see this being a thing that just about no one uses.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 29, 2015)

Flow said:


> I can see this being a thing that just about no one uses.



I beg to differ, I would rather be accused of murder than rape. Don't underestimate the basically life ending effect that a rape accusation carries.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> This law says cops have to go into the investigation and make you prove you had consent.  If you can't prove it then what exactly is it that you think they do?  Do they just say "oh well, you couldn't prove consent, have a nice day"?
> 
> The point here is the ACCUSATION not the conviction.  As I pointed out before, a false rape allegation can destroy someones life, even if its proven false at a later date.  An accusation shouldn't be taken seriously without proof.
> 
> ...



the article consistently and routinely refers to prosecutors, i.e conviction.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2015)

Chelydra said:


> Thats not a legal loophole, thats just lying, this law thats being discussed _does_ provide legal loopholes to those who would accuse someone falsely of rape.


It's a loophole because it gets taken advantage of to show that there was familiarity leading to a greater chance of a judgment against the victim. The paper shows that this trend was in part responsible for a demand by the system to actually show consent _before_ the act and not familiarity after the act.


----------



## EJ (Jan 29, 2015)

Chelydra said:


> I beg to differ, I would rather be accused of murder than rape. Don't underestimate the basically life ending effect that a rape accusation carries.



I doubt many people would go through such procedures to have sex. This is something that's been going on since the dawn of mankind. Never did I doubt people would actually use methods such as 'contract-signing', but I still stand by my initial notion of this fear of this becoming a "common practice" that's the norm is absurd. 

It's straight up delusional.


----------



## Leeroy Jenkins (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> the article consistently and routinely refers to prosecutors, i.e conviction.



Prosecutors are intimately involved in building the case, after all. They are trying to prove the case, therefore if they have a standard of evidence that generally can go unfilled, their case is easier.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

Leeroy Jenkins said:


> Generally consent is verbal or given with non-verbal actions, like initiating sex itself or making advances that signal interest in sex. If there's no recordings or video of this (which usually happens because it's fucking weird to record yourself gaining consent), then there is no way to prove it because it's simply hearsay at that point. If there is a burden of proof that men had consent and consent was given in a way that can't be documented, that essentially creates a fixed case against the defendant. The fact that sex itself has some facets where it's acceptable to blur the line of consent doesn't help the defendant.



The crown still has to prove the Prima Facie case.

The mere fact that you did not have explicit consent is not enough to convict you of rape. All it does is remove "I had consent and you can't prove I didn't" as a defense.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 29, 2015)

Leeroy Jenkins said:


> Prosecutors are intimately involved in building the case, after all. They are trying to prove the case, therefore if they have a standard of evidence that generally can go unfilled, their case is easier.



Not the point.

Consent is a defense, agree or disagree?


----------



## Leeroy Jenkins (Jan 29, 2015)

Nightbringer said:


> The crown still has to prove the Prima Facie case.
> 
> The mere fact that you did not have explicit consent is not enough to convict you of rape. All it does is remove "I had consent and you can't prove I didn't" as a defense.



Doesn't help that there are enough cases that have been botched due to flawed DNA tests, false allegations, etc. By adding a requirement to the defense, it's become much more difficult to actually defend an accusation of rape because one of the standards of exculpatory evidence will generally be seen as missing then. Prosecutors can make that a point in trial, swaying jurists. This is more about the perception of the defendant than the actual crime itself, which makes this disturbing.


----------



## sworder (Jan 29, 2015)

boys, get those voice recording apps on your phones working


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 29, 2015)

Obviously, it's worthwhile to try and empower the gender that's more sexually dominated. Obviously, this is overcompensating. Sure, the real world still isn't the kind of place where doe eyed Billy can expect a random rape accusation to ruin his life. Crazy women are dangerous, but crazy women have always been dangerous, and guys always have to watch out for crazy women because they were dangerous even back in the days when women were third class citizens we locked in closets.

Punishing the wrong person for a crime is another crime, and possibly more consequential than rape. Which is a fucked up thing to have to say about laws that are overcompensating so mightily. If some 20 year old gets drugged and banged by someone she doesn't know, that's terrible. If an innocent person is sentenced and put on the sexual offender list, that is, depending on the circumstances and outcomes, even more consequential. Which is messed up. I'm not supposed to feel more sympathetic to someone being accused of rape than I am to the person who was raped, but the more certain states and cultural subsets push this stuff, the closer that situation gets. There are tons of different ways that someone can feel forced into sex, and not all of them offend me. SJWs have finally made 'rape' a word that has to be clarified before I'm up in arms, because apparently there are all sorts of rape that don't really bother me, and that's a messed up context for the culture to be in. That means folks have to dial it back a little bit.

'Rape' shouldn't become the new 'racism', rephrased into too many contexts, applicable in too many scenarios, with too many victim complexes making too many people feel like they're being attacked. I don't ever want to get confused about this term the way I'm now confused about racism. I'm already used to people telling me about racism and interrupting to tell them that the same thing happened to me a few weeks back. I don't ever want somebody to be telling me about rape and I shrug, because the experience they're describing happened to me a few weeks back too.

That said, I get what the culture is trying to do. Things will probably balance out. It's good they're putting so much emphasis on this, but the pendulum has to start swinging back to the middle just a tad.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jan 29, 2015)

Okay... I get how someone preying on drunk people for sex should be an offense... 

Seriously though how is there no punishment for being a moron and drinking excessively around strangers? 

For fucks sake. You're telling me you didn't consider someone might try to take advantage of you if you get fucking drunk at a party? 

Please. There's 2 mother fucking people at fault, the dumbass who decided that it was a good and safe idea to get drunk in the company of questionable people and the son of a bitch who decided it was okay to take advantage of the drunk person.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

Kyokkai said:


> Okay... I get how someone preying on drunk people for sex should be an offense...
> 
> Seriously though how is there no punishment for being a moron and drinking excessively around strangers?
> 
> ...



There's also no punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape.  Even if that person ends up serving time and later found to be innocent.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jan 29, 2015)

krory said:


> There's also no punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape.  Even if that person ends up serving time and later found to be innocent.



Time to start liking men.


----------



## Krunch (Jan 29, 2015)

The crime of rape is one of a mens rea, looks like thats just been thrown out the window


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 29, 2015)

So, guilty until proven innocent is a thing now.

Love dat progressivism


----------



## Gino (Jan 29, 2015)

Kyokkai said:


> Time to start liking men.



that look like women.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> So, guilty until proven innocent is a thing now.
> 
> Love dat progressivism



It was always a thing.

They're just trying to cover their ass now.


----------



## Vermilion Kn (Jan 29, 2015)

So women have no agency ? Alright. Don't bitch about men dominating the vast majority of industries from now. 

If this law was truly unbiased every case would end in gridlock in the absence of evidence. 

woman: Your honor, I woke up in his bed naked and I have no recollection of what happened the night before.
Man: Uh, me too. 

Judge: So you raped each other. *bangs hammer* case closed. 

This obviously targets men since the dominant narrative is that women are perfect angels of infinite benevolence while men are the spawn of satan running around wanting rape and dominate everything. 

Wear a body camera while prowling for tail, or have a wing man film your pick up.


----------



## Disquiet (Jan 29, 2015)

Kyokkai said:


> Okay... I get how someone preying on drunk people for sex should be an offense...
> 
> Seriously though how is there no punishment for being a moron and drinking excessively around strangers?
> 
> ...


We generally don't confer punishment simply for being irresponsible, if the consequences of being irresponsible are limited to yourself. It _is_ stupid to drink to excess - let alone around strangers - but it shouldn't be a factor in a case against your attacker, because they shouldn't have taken advantage of you in the first place. I realise you likely weren't advocating for literal punishment, and that you weren't saying a rapist's responsibility is lessened by the victim's irresponsibility, but let's just not bring this conversation down that path at all. 


			
				krory said:
			
		

> There's also no punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape. Even if that person ends up serving time and later found to be innocent.


Really? Even if it's completely demonstrable that the accuser lied about it? Are you sure? I'm not all that well versed in legal shenanigans, but surely you could prosecute someone for knowingly falsely implicating someone in _any_ crime, let alone a serious one?

(This is a genuine inquisitive tone, I'm not being passive-aggressive.)


----------



## scerpers (Jan 29, 2015)

afgpride said:


> when "guilty until proven innocent" is no longer just a rhetorical observation, but axiomatically ingrained into law itself
> 
> modern feminism really is a disease, and has, under the arrowheads of first world problems and self entitlement, penetrated its idiocy on a very large scale, past fringe level, where acamedia and even legal systems across the first world have raised a white flag to political correctness and reciprocate its garbage uncritically
> 
> women undoubtedly have the short end of the stick in various social and political issues, but so do men, and you don't achieve equality by creating inequalities



lol i have no idea what you just typed fgt


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 29, 2015)

this law is homophobic.


----------



## Xiammes (Jan 29, 2015)

BrianTheGoldfish said:


> We generally don't confer punishment simply for being irresponsible, if the consequences of being irresponsible are limited to yourself. It _is_ stupid to drink to excess - let alone around strangers - but it shouldn't be a factor in a case against your attacker, because they shouldn't have taken advantage of you in the first place. I realise you likely weren't advocating for literal punishment, and that you weren't saying a rapist's responsibility is lessened by the victim's irresponsibility, but let's just not bring this conversation down that path at all.
> 
> Really? Even if it's completely demonstrable that the accuser lied about it? Are you sure? I'm not all that well versed in legal shenanigans, but surely you could prosecute someone for knowingly falsely implicating someone in _any_ crime, let alone a serious one?
> 
> (This is a genuine inquisitive tone, I'm not being passive-aggressive.)


 
No lawyer will prosecute for a false rape accusation, because it discourages actual rape victims from speaking up. Its complete bullshit, but that is how it works.

You might as well kill yourself, unless you have a strong support group, your life is over with if you are charged with rape, even if a proven false accusation.


----------



## Krunch (Jan 29, 2015)

I question the validity of the article. The courts would literally be swamped with cases about date rape if this actually is a thing, which just isnt feasible at all. Unless strict conditions are applied to the law itself, it wont be a thing


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 29, 2015)

Scerpers said:


> lol i have no idea what you just typed fgt



shut up and kiss me bb

no homo


----------



## scerpers (Jan 29, 2015)

afgpride said:


> shut up and kiss me bb
> 
> no homo



we're beyond the need for no homo 
the world should already know by now


----------



## Vandal Savage (Jan 29, 2015)

What a crock of shit but we knew stupidity like this was going to rear its ugly head sooner rather than later. 

The whole signed contract before sex thing won't even be a joke anymore at this rate.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

BrianTheGoldfish said:


> Really? Even if it's completely demonstrable that the accuser lied about it? Are you sure? I'm not all that well versed in legal shenanigans, but surely you could prosecute someone for knowingly falsely implicating someone in _any_ crime, let alone a serious one?
> 
> (This is a genuine inquisitive tone, I'm not being passive-aggressive.)



Brian Banks. He was jailed for 5 years and forced to pay his "victim" 2 million dollars for damages.

When it was found out she lied about the whole thing, she only had to give his money back and pay him only 600k for damages but was not convicted of any other crime otherwise.

Gotta love that justice system.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 29, 2015)

BrianTheGoldfish said:


> We generally don't confer punishment simply for being irresponsible, if the consequences of being irresponsible are limited to yourself. It _is_ stupid to drink to excess - let alone around strangers - but it shouldn't be a factor in a case against your attacker, because they shouldn't have taken advantage of you in the first place. I realise you likely weren't advocating for literal punishment, and that you weren't saying a rapist's responsibility is lessened by the victim's irresponsibility, but let's just not bring this conversation down that path at all.



Define "rape".

Because the way feminists are framing it, is that if you have sex with someone that have lowered standards it is rape and that is bullshit.

I am all for it to be called rape if you fuck a woman who can't even talk and you basically are fucking a carcass.

Unfortunately most of the cases where one is considered an "attacker" means the girl was simply dizzed and her standards were nuked and thus she said YES and CONSENTED to sex to a guy who she would had otherwise never consented. That is not rape, that is called entering a game of risk and then blaming others for the risk I took.


----------



## Eki (Jan 29, 2015)

NaS said:


> Men can't get rape by women. What is this, the 21st century still? Noob get with the times.



This one time I had thought I was going to raped by this chick who was drunk as fuck. It was my friends birthday weekend and we had all pitched in to rent a big ass house in Tahoe. The night before we were gonna leave everyone was drinking besides me (was already feeling sick and running on no sleep). I was laying on a couch in the living room and it's like 1am, I heard someone coming towards me. I see this chick and I ask her if shes alright, but she doesn't respond. 

So she comes over to me and tries to laydown with me? But she falls over and I grab her so she didnt hit her head on the coffee table (I was still somewhat laying down at this point). She struggles to get up for a second and I keep trying to talk to her but she doesnt respond. When she finally gets up she fucking like throws herself on top of me and is pretty much straddling me. So at this point my mind kinda just went blank. I was just like shocked and thinking what the fuck is going on right now?

So she stays on top of me for like 15 seconds or so and wiggles her way behind me where I was laying and just straight up death hugs me from behind. She then proceeds to like snuggle the shit out of my back all while im still asking her what the hell shes doing. I kinda just laid there for a min trying to wiggle away from this lifeless drunken bitch, still dumb founded at what the hell just happened. 

I tried to call for my friends but no one came. I eventually got away from her and went up stairs to go sleep in my friends room, but there was already like 4-5 of our other friends already passed the fuck out and no wheres for me to sleep (there was his parents room, but thats just fucking weird.) So I went back down stairs and threw a blanket on that drunk bitch and slept on the other couch. Which was probably even fucking weirder.

So yeah. Snuggle rapes are real.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 29, 2015)

Along with the article there was this photo, which I will post because it was the same face I did when I read this shit:


----------



## Мoon (Jan 29, 2015)

> Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”



Anyone else first read that underlined word as anus?

OT; Currently, men are slightly ahead in population between women. However, in the past, women have always had more of a population in the world back then due to men having a higher risk of dying. This risk isn't likely to drop, but rise. Especially after a one sided bias law like this. 

For virgins like me, we'll be sitting back, telling our adopted kids how we once used to not have to sign a paid contract for sex.


----------



## Magician (Jan 29, 2015)

Damn, Feminazi's are gaining power.


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

But don't worry, western feminism has never done anything wrong and don't you dare even imply they did or else you're raping them.


----------



## Мoon (Jan 29, 2015)

Critiquing feminism? That's easily 10 years


----------



## Krory (Jan 29, 2015)

Мoon said:


> Critiquing feminism? That's easily 10 years



And you're forever-labeled a misogynistic sex-offender and can never work again.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jan 29, 2015)

So does anyone have a template for the sex contract made yet? 

I don't want to get an attorney!


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 29, 2015)

What if they initially say yes and later change their minds?


----------



## Nep Nep (Jan 29, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> What if they initially say yes and later change their minds?



Isn't it obvious? You're fucked. 

Like I said, time to go gay or carry a folder of contracts in your car. 

Wouldn't be surprised these days if I went looking for statistics and found something like... 

"Look to your left, look to your right. All of those men will rape you. Maybe at the same time." 

or 

"There's only two certainties in life. You will die and if you're female you will be raped."


----------



## Shanks (Jan 30, 2015)

Boyfriend & Girlfriend love each other to death
They broke up. Girl hates the guy to death
Guy got over the break up after 6 months
Girl still hate guy and want him to suffer
Girl pretend to be cool and ask guy out for dinner to “catch up”
They fucked
Girl yell and scream “RAPE”, “HELP”, etc.
Neighbour calls police
Girl say the guy rape her
Guy can’t prove consense

Awesome new law 

Becareful of meeting up with your X again, guys.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jan 30, 2015)

Electra said:


> Boyfriend & Girlfriend love each other to death
> They broke up. Girl hates the guy to death
> Guy got over the break up after 6 months
> Girl still hate guy and want him to suffer
> ...



The apocalypse is here cause nobody will want to fuck anymore. Not with the threat of jail time. 

Well, at least for us Americans.


----------



## Smoke (Jan 30, 2015)

That's what spycameras are for.


_"Aren't you going to take your glasses off?

I need them to better see you.

Oh, ok"_


But the glasses are a decoy, to divert her attention from the camera you set up on her nightstand.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jan 30, 2015)

Smoke said:


> That's what spycameras are for.
> 
> 
> _"Aren't you going to take your glasses off?
> ...



Who am I to argue with the highest expert? 

Maybe we can even buy condoms with cameras soon, just point your dick at her face and ask her one more time.


----------



## Krory (Jan 30, 2015)

Kyokkai said:


> Isn't it obvious? You're fucked.
> 
> Like I said, time to go gay or carry a folder of contracts in your car.
> 
> ...



Actually there are people - including SJW men - who make the sentiment that all men are rapists and are just suppressing their rape-urges. Video game "journalist" Jim Sterling actually said this *unironically and unjokingly*, saying that the moment you - as a man - step on to an elevator alone with a woman, you are then struggling to not-rape.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jan 30, 2015)

krory said:


> Actually there are people - including SJW men - who make the sentiment that all men are rapists and are just suppressing their rape-urges. Video game "journalist" Jim Sterling actually said this *unironically and unjokingly*, saying that the moment you - as a man - step on to an elevator alone with a woman, you are then struggling to not-rape.



He really fucking said that? 

Shit, that ALMOST makes me wonder if terrorists are doing us a favor trying to wipe us out. 

Omg... link....


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 30, 2015)

> Actually there are people - including SJW men - who make the sentiment that all men are rapists and are just suppressing their rape-urges. Video game "journalist" Jim Sterling actually said this unironically and unjokingly, saying that the moment you - as a man - step on to an elevator alone with a woman, you are then struggling to not-rape.



This speaks to an enormous gulf of awkwardness and alienation with masculinity. I hate to sound like that guy because you don't want to say anything remotely similar to what War Machine raves about in his jail cell, but when you hear guys confuse their sexual urges and attractions with wanting to rape people, you're talking about someone who is removed from his masculinity (and largely the human social and sexual experience). Arousal, sexuality and attraction have nothing to do with rape. That some men and women in our culture mistake many of those actions to be rapey speaks a bit to the infantilism and disconnection so many people are getting into in this new day and age of the internet. Some folks are getting really out of practice with the real world biology of human interaction, and for some of those subcultures, it has become a frightening or dangerous thing. For example, admittedly, almost any day I'm out and about I see some woman and think about having sex with her, or I'm aroused by her body or her mannerism or just the object of the woman. I do not become a bumbling neanderthal. I don't zone out. I don't act shady. I don't automatically have a throbbing and uncontrollable erection. I don't do anything dangerous or threatening. That's not a dangerous or threatening interaction, and if I were to sit down and write about that experience as struggling not to rape some cute or pretty girl at the grocery store, that's an enormously disconnected interpretation of normal ever day biological going-ons.

Speaking of feminists, there are some versions of the movement that aren't anti-male. They're uncomfortable or dysfunctional about sex, and don't interpret sexual interactions in healthy ways.


----------



## Мoon (Jan 30, 2015)

Guys don't fret, I just now thought of a solution that has seemed to be rolled back for quite a while. Let's bring back the lie detector s and polygraphs. No need to thank me


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 30, 2015)

Мoon said:


> Guys don't fret, I just now thought of a solution that has seemed to be rolled back for quite a while. Let's bring back the lie detector s and polygraphs. No need to thank me



You just have to be calm when taking one and you can spout as much BS as you wish without worry of detection.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Jan 30, 2015)

reiatsuflow said:


> This speaks to an enormous gulf of awkwardness and alienation with masculinity. I hate to sound like that guy because you don't want to say anything remotely similar to what War Machine raves about in his jail cell, but when you hear guys confuse their sexual urges and attractions with wanting to rape people, you're talking about someone who is removed from his masculinity (and largely the human social and sexual experience). Arousal, sexuality and attraction have nothing to do with rape. That some men and women in our culture mistake many of those actions to be rapey speaks a bit to the infantilism and disconnection so many people are getting into in this new day and age of the internet. Some folks are getting really out of practice with the real world biology of human interaction, and for some of those subcultures, it has become a frightening or dangerous thing. For example, admittedly, almost any day I'm out and about I see some woman and think about having sex with her, or I'm aroused by her body or her mannerism or just the object of the woman. I do not become a bumbling neanderthal. I don't zone out. I don't act shady. I don't automatically have a throbbing and uncontrollable erection. I don't do anything dangerous or threatening. That's not a dangerous or threatening interaction, and if I were to sit down and write about that experience as struggling not to rape some cute or pretty girl at the grocery store, that's an enormously disconnected interpretation of normal ever day biological going-ons.



That was an exceptionally long winded way of saying that Jim Sterling is as crazy as a bag of crack slathered weasels.


----------



## Krory (Jan 30, 2015)




----------



## Hachibi (Jan 30, 2015)

We need lie detector back.

Or they're just not use at all


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 30, 2015)

> *That was* an  *exceptional*ly long winded way of saying that Jim Sterling is as crazy as a bag of crack slathered weasels.



All I saw. 



/reject your reality and substitute my own


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 30, 2015)

Also, for what I learned form this thread, a woman can get off easily with a false rape accusation?


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Jan 30, 2015)

This law may have been passed with good intentions, but it likely shall have negative ramifications; in all legal proceedings in the United States, the burden of proof is upon the person who is making the accusation (i.e., the person being accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty), and changing that would be a severe perversion of the justice system of the nation. It would be far too easy for people to exploit this new law to simply be nasty toward other people whom they do not like, so I hope that it does not gain any traction.


----------



## blueblip (Jan 30, 2015)

Mael said:


> You do realize that from a litigious perspective this is still very fucked up.
> 
> If not, I dare you to come up with a good defense.  Giving us some Beyonc? level of feminism doesn't work either.


One very simple reason, Mael, that you are willfully ignoring.

Up until now, the burden of proof in rape cases fell entirely on the victim, and has history has shown far too often, women have had far higher standards to prove that they were raped. Defendants,  on the other hand, literally only had to reduce to slut shaming in court as their defense. I'm not making that up. All a guy had to do in court was convince a jury that the girl in question slept around with people, which almost all the time meant being promiacuous meant you somehow could never be raped. Literally the only way for a rape case to be an open and shut case was for there to be video or for the rapist to confess. Rape kits and other forms of forensic evidence rarely ever leads to a conviction.

Women, on the other hand, need a ludicrously large list of facts to establish rape, and even then, do I really need to talk about abysmal statistics of rape convictions?

Which brings up another point. You're whining as if false accusations greatly outnumber the number of cases where a rapist got away scott free. Are you arguing that this is exactly the case? Because that's bullshit. Unless you're saying you're far more concerned about the far, far less prevalent issue of false rape cases (which frankly almost always fizzle put because investigations unearth the bullshit) over the far more important issue of low conviction rates for rapists?


----------



## Мoon (Jan 30, 2015)

Hachibi said:


> Also, for what I learned form this thread, a woman can get off easily with a false rape accusation?



I don't find that hard to believe. Take this into account ; a man is 50% stronger then a woman in brute strength. With this logic, the only way a woman can be guilty of raping a man, is if that man is physically castrated or bound to the point where he is being forced to have intercourse BY this woman. Not to mention, that judge would lovvve to see the proof. for fap reasons


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 30, 2015)

blueblip said:


> Up until now, the burden of proof in rape cases fell entirely on the victim,



Which should be, the burden of proof as with science and law must fall in the one making the claim. If I drag you to court I am the one that is supposed to prove the statement I am making.



blueblip said:


> and has history has shown far too often, women have had far higher standards to prove that they were raped. Defendants,  on the other hand, literally only had to reduce to slut shaming in court as their defense. I'm not making that up. All a guy had to do in court was convince a jury that the girl in question slept around with people, which almost all the time meant being promiacuous meant you somehow could never be raped. Literally the only way for a rape case to be an open and shut case was for there to be video or for the rapist to confess. Rape kits and other forms of forensic evidence rarely ever leads to a conviction.
> 
> Women, on the other hand, need a ludicrously large list of facts to establish rape, and even then, do I really need to talk about abysmal statistics of rape convictions?
> 
> Which brings up another point. You're whining as if false accusations greatly outnumber the number of cases where a rapist got away scott free. Are you arguing that this is exactly the case? Because that's bullshit. Unless you're saying you're far more concerned about the far, far less prevalent issue of false rape cases (which frankly almost always fizzle put because investigations unearth the bullshit) over the far more important issue of low conviction rates for rapists?



So you are saying that because woman had in the past to face high standards, then is okay to turn the situation around and do it with men? Like righting a wrong with another wrong?


----------



## blueblip (Jan 30, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> Which should be, the burden of proof as with science and law must fall in the one making the claim. If I drag you to court I am the one that is supposed to prove the statement I am making.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that because woman had in the past to face high standards, then is okay to turn the situation around and do it with men? Like righting a wrong with another wrong?


You didn't address me point about abysmally low conviction rates. And yes, the current problem with low conviction rates IS the reas ok n this law has been trotted out. It wasn't created in a vacuum but due to an existing problem that hasn't been solved by prior legislation to improve it. You're acting as if this is something that's just randomly popped out of nowhere when it hasn't.

Also, I can answer your question with another question too.

Are you saying letting people who commit a crime scott free is in the best interest of the public? Or that not serving justice is more important? Or how about that under the current system, the bar to prove rape is so high that not even murder has a bar that high? You're claim about relying on forensic evidence falls flat when there are n number of rape cases which fail to gain a conviction despite forensic evidence being provided proving a woman's accusations to be true. To reiterate, most often all it takes for a jury to let off a rapist is proving that the woman liked to sleep around. A woman, on the other hand, rarely is able to get her assailant convicted unless there were witnesses watching her getting raped, or if there was footage showing the act taking place. I don't think I need to point out how absurdly low the chances are that someone just happening to be in view of a rape taking place that isn't either the rapist or victim. If anything, this is getting dangerously close to the bullshit of Sharia law. The alternative is the rapist confessing, and I don't think I need to point out the absurdity of banking on that.

Also, I'm really curious to know where the idea of men are being imprisoned enemas for false rape accusations is coming from? Are you saying there's an epidemic of men being jailed for false rape? Are you claiming there are far more men being falsely accused of rape when compared to the actual number of rapes happening? Furthermore, you're argument is contradictory. Seeing that it's hard enough to gain a conviction in a genuine case of rape, why the hell are you suddenly worried about men being convinced in false cases? Why kind of fucked up logic is that?If you acknowledge that men are being victimised due to false rape cases and are being jailed as a result of them, how do you explain the low conviction rate for actual rape?

You're talking about 'being fair' is disingenuous when you consider the fact that the law has repeatedly failed actual victims in far greater numbers than it has failed people falsely accused of rape (who are another class of victims). It's a matter or priorities,  and I think we both agree on the larger being given a higher priority.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 30, 2015)

blueblip said:


> If you acknowledge that men are being victimised due to false rape cases and are being jailed as a result of them, how do you explain the low conviction rate for actual rape?



Do you realize that those two phenomena can exist at the same time?

Rape is in many, many cases entirely in the victim's mind with little physical evidence (especially not if they come forward more than a few days later) because the majority of rapes are non-violent.

Thus it is by nature a hard to prove crime. I explained it in another thread already: For pretty much any serious crime, you need a crime to happen for a false accusation to happen. That is not the case with rape. 

Sure, there's quite some room for improvement as far as rape cases are treated in any justice system, but you'll never get a high conviction rate without either literally destroying the principle of requiring reasonable evidence and probably any semblance of trust between men and women along with it, or making women less likely to report the crime at all.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 30, 2015)

@Bluelip not to mention your overlooking the fact that a rape accusation is basically GG for the accused whether they are innocent or not. As someone else stated they may as well kill themselves because their life is over. Thats why there is such a fuss over this, its more damning than any other accusation out there and the consquences are far more grave, making it worse is the ease of which it can now be accomplished by a spiteful ex lover.


----------



## Roman (Jan 30, 2015)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> Why is the burden of proof with men and not women ?



Guilty until proven innocent, remember?


----------



## Sherlōck (Jan 30, 2015)

I am going to carry around a consent form from now on. 

You want to have sex? Sign it first.


----------



## blueblip (Jan 30, 2015)

Zaru said:


> Do you realize that those two phenomena can exist at the same time?
> 
> Rape is in many, many cases entirely in the victim's mind with little physical evidence (especially not if they come forward more than a few days later) because the majority of rapes are non-violent.
> 
> ...


Of course I do. That's the reason why I prefaced that statement with the point about how it's so hard to secure a conviction for genuine rape, it's disingenuous to worry about securing a conviction for false rape when there is literally no forensic evidence.

Claiming that rape is all in a victim's also smacks of rationalising the act of rape. By that logic, you can apply that thought to most crimes! For example, you and I get into a verbal argument. It gets heated to a point where I punch you. By law, I'm guilty of assault, but it's up to you to decide whether it's worth pressing charges or not. In other words, it depends on your own mind whether I committed a crime or not.

And regarding th issue for no crime to have taken place for a rape case to be files...really? You're arguing no crime has taken place? Then I have to once again ask why aren't there a larger number of false rape claims being filed than there are genuine ones? You're once again trying to say false rape claims are as big or an even bigger problem than actual rape claims. I believe the percentage of false rape claims in the US is somewhere in the single digit percentages of all rape claims made. With regards to any other crime, that would never be considered a large enough sample size to warrant scrapping the existing law in making things equal for those falsely accused of other violent crimes like murder or assault! In the overwhelming majority of cases, a rape claim is filed precisely because the victim wants to report a rape, that is, they are reporting that a major crime took place.

The point about low conviction rates IS still relevant because, unlike with other crimes, the evidence required to prove rape is ludicrously high. I've said this before, but it bears repeating: even when forensic data exists proving rape took place, a conviction is never secured. The few times a conviction is secured is when the extremely low probability of third party witnesses seeing the crime happen as is are around, or when the guilty confesses. You can gain a murder conviction on forensic evidence alone with no eyewitnesses or guilty party confessions often enough, but you will almost never see a conviction for a rape case based solely on forensic evidence alone. That's actual inequality in how crimes are treated and handled. And it's also why this nee law has come about. Again, it wasn't created in a vaccum; it was created precisely because the justice system has repeatedly failed victims while with other major crimes, it hasn't done so to as great a degree.

EDIT: @Chlydra: That's...a specious argument at best. First off, youre arguing something that literallt cannot be proved and from what is visible, not baded on fact. And the flip side is what about the lives of actual victims while don't get justice and have to live their entire knowing that someone violated got away scott free? Furthermore, one can argue that a rape victim suffers a great deal more than someone accused of rape. You're once again trying to turn this into a problem that isn't really a problem in favour of an actual problem (actual rape victims not getting the justice they deserve).


----------



## santanico (Jan 30, 2015)

the usual anti feminists quoted me, how surprising....not



krory said:


> But don't worry, western feminism has never done anything wrong and don't you dare even imply they did or else you're raping them.


----------



## blueblip (Jan 30, 2015)

Under the current system? That's easy as hell.

All I need to do is prove you've slept with at least one other person, thereby proving you like to sleep around and that means you can't be raped because you're a slut and therefore voluntarily sleep with anyone and everyone 

And actually, that's not sarcasm. It's one of the most common arguments used in courts to exonerate an accused rapist (and it actually works most of the time) 

EDIT: Why you delete post?? It's actually a valid point when it comes to the existing law, sarcasm be damned! To me, the current new law is something akin to what Churchill said on democracy: it's not the best law we have, it's just that everything else that has been tried has failed.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 30, 2015)

blueblip said:


> Claiming that rape is all in a victim's also smacks of rationalising the act of rape. By that logic, you can apply that thought to most crimes! For example, you and I get into a verbal argument. It gets heated to a point where I punch you. By law, I'm guilty of assault, but it's up to you to decide whether it's worth pressing charges or not. In other words, it depends on your own mind whether I committed a crime or not.



That comparison doesn't work. Because at the point where you're punched, there is no doubt left that it IS a punch and you are the one on the receiving end. The general assumption will be that it was an assault, by nature of the action, with few exceptions.
Aside from the rare consensual cases, you pressing charges or not DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE ACTION, which was to hurt you.

You cannot put sex under the same basic intent assumption and automatically assume all men having sex with women have the intent to hurt the woman and the only difference is whether she thinks it's worth pressing charges over or not. That's utterly ridiculous. I've only seen sex-negative lesbian hardcore fringe feminists spout opinions like that, so I hope that's not what you were implying and I misunderstood you.



blueblip said:


> And regarding th issue for no crime to have taken place for a rape case to be files...really? You're arguing no crime has taken place? Then I have to once again ask why aren't there a larger number of false rape claims being filed than there are genuine ones? You're once again trying to say false rape claims are as big or an even bigger problem than actual rape claims. I believe the percentage of false rape claims in the US is somewhere in the single digit percentages of all rape claims made. With regards to any other crime, that would never be considered a large enough sample size to warrant scrapping the existing law in making things equal for those falsely accused of other violent crimes like murder or assault! In the overwhelming majority of cases, a rape claim is filed precisely because the victim wants to report a rape, that is, they are reporting that a major crime took place.


You're making a point that doesn't relate to the point I made, blueblip. 
The large number of unsuccessful charges is due to the difficulty of proving that crime, for reasons already explained. That does not change the fact that it is an accusation that does not need a crime to have taken place. And in most cases, it seems it's not even a crime to MAKE false accusations. The difficulty of proof is counteracting the ease of accusation. Weaken one and the other will likely rise accordingly.

On a side note, not getting convicted does not mean no repercussions. It doesn't take into account what the accused (guilty or not) has to deal with socially as a result of such accusations (Which often involves expulsion, loss of custody, job, friends etc.). I have no pity for the guilty here, but that has to be taken into account when talking about "rapists getting away with it". That is, of course, only if an accusation has been brought forward and largely depends on the power discrepancy between victim and accused.

But really, you can't ignore the difference between rape and most other serious crimes when it comes to accusations.
Hardly anyone gets falsely accused of serious crimes like murder/assault/arson or whatever because those are things that need to HAPPEN first. Do you understand? THERE NEED TO BE VISIBLE RESULTS THAT INDICATE A CRIME. Usually it's mistaken identity or people higher up in the power hierarchy trying to frame somebody if an innocent person is accused of those.
There are some crimes where the rate of false accusation is unusually high and usually originates from women: Rape... and child abuse. Because they can be and are used as tools of power and revenge between women and men. Nothing needs to have happened for those accusations to be made. At all. And the repercussions for making them are more often than not negligible.

Is it still hard to understand why rape accusations are treated differently compared to other crime accusations?
Yes, it sucks for the many victims of rape, and there is lots of room for improvement in both directions, but I worry for any society that puts too much worth in someone's subjective, unprovable state of mind when making someone else a criminal. The UK has been moving into that direction at breackneck speed and this is just another sign. If they at least had said that they'll also punish proven false accusations more efficiently and severely, I'd consider this more reasonable. But alas, it's a completely one-sided change.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 30, 2015)

It's hard for Indian feminists to argue with western people though because we have a pretty different perspective on attitudes of people compared to you; the situation here is a lot different. Militant feminism does indeed seem wildly out of place in the west. Here, not so much. :/


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2015)

starr said:


> the usual anti feminists quoted me, how surprising....not



Guess you didn't have a good defense for me after all and instead relied on typical snark.

How surprising...not.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jan 30, 2015)

a new word for actual raep shud be invented cause dese bitches think everything is rape


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 30, 2015)

Hell I been raping people over xbox live for about 10 years now...I had to go to rehab for my desire to rape anyone and everyone on Xbox live.


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 30, 2015)

The problem with Mordern Feminism is that they are out to turn everything into a "GURL POWER" shit, Look at how they hijacked Occupy Wall Street, Look at how Comic Books are now filled with SJW pandering, Heck before 9/11 some Feminist were trying to justify the Iraq war with "Liberating Iraqi Women from big meanie opressive Iraq men". While Rape *IS* a serious issue that needs more attention, but Stuff like this is only going to start a "Gender War", Half of america is already Single and people are blaming the men telling them to "man Up". 

Ofcourse people will call me a insecure male who can't handle a "Strong woman" but Shit needs to be adressed.


----------



## Griever (Jan 30, 2015)

starr said:


> the usual anti feminists quoted me, how surprising....not



They are right on this score though. This law is bullshit and spits in the face of the fundamentals of law. It's unacceptable regardless of who decided to pass it and who was involved in it's conception.


----------



## Roman (Jan 30, 2015)

starr said:


> the usual anti feminists quoted me, how surprising....not



Right, but you're not even gonna try to counter their arguments? All of which are quite sound btw, considering how this spits in the face of due process. Before this BS came about, "guilty until proven innocent" was true in all but name. Now it's basically official with so much room for exploitation. Additionally, I'd like to see how cases of male rape victims will be handled now.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jan 30, 2015)

Okay.

I'm not gonna say this law is right because I can see why it's dumb. Burden of proof and all.

But the fact there are more people worried about SJWs and feminists and whatever than people caring about THIS:



> Around *85,000* women per year are victims of rape in the UK, of whom 90 per cent know the perpetrator.
> 
> The most recent figures showed that just *15,670* women reported rapes to the police, often because they thought it would be impossible to prove the offence, or because they did not have any confidence in the police’s ability to help them, with only *1,070* convictions resulting from the *2,910* cases that got to court.



is disheartening.

If you can seriously read those numbers and not think there's something WRONG about the current way society judges rape, then you're really fucked up.

Maybe this law is stupid? Maybe. But it's painfully obvious that they need to do SOMETHING to make rapists get punished more easily. So instead of playing the victim and going "fuck those feminists" and "there's nothing wrong with the status quo lol", you should instead be discussing more rational ways of convicting rapists that don't invert the burden of proof.


----------



## Roman (Jan 30, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> If you can seriously read those numbers and not think there's something WRONG about the current way society judges rape, then you're really fucked up.
> 
> Maybe this law is stupid? Maybe. But it's painfully obvious that they need to do SOMETHING to make rapists get punished more easily. So instead of playing the victim and going "fuck those feminists" and "there's nothing wrong with the status quo lol", you should instead be discussing more rational ways of convicting rapists that don't invert the burden of proof.



So make punishment more severe for rapists, such as increasing the minimum time to serve in jail. Not shift burden of proof on the accused.


----------



## Xiammes (Jan 30, 2015)

Rape is a incredible hard to prosecute, I'd wager most of the convictions were statutory rape or incredible violent rape that's would be easy to prosecute, the rest that didn't get convicted would be a bunch of he said she said bullshit with no real proof the sex was consensual or not.

Punishment for rapiest is already pretty severe, I would rather go to jail for murder then rape. Making the punishment more severe wouldn't change the conviction rate or make it any easier to investigate. Shifting the burden of proof would only make a complex issue into more of a nightmare.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Jan 30, 2015)

Why on earth would anyone want to go to the UK now?

You'd have to have a recorder on you every time you fuck a chick just prove that it was consensual


----------



## Xiammes (Jan 30, 2015)

Gilgamesh said:


> Why on earth would anyone want to go to the UK now?
> 
> You'd have to have a recorder on you every time you fuck a chick just prove that it was consensual



The job of the wingman would be more important then ever, "Yo bro, I need you keep a file on all the chicks I have had consensual sex with, and I need you to make sure you get proof of their consent."


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 30, 2015)

Gilgamesh said:


> Why on earth would anyone want to go to the UK now?
> 
> You'd have to have a recorder on you every time you fuck a chick just prove that it was consensual



Which of course is also an illegal act unless you have consent to record the sex.


----------



## ~M~ (Jan 30, 2015)

I've been seeing this headline for years.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 30, 2015)

starr said:


> the usual anti feminists quoted me, how surprising....not



Why don't you actually try making an argument then if you object so strongly to what has been said?


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 30, 2015)

>Feminist
>Giving an arguement that isn't "Men opressed us for hundreds of years"


----------



## santanico (Jan 30, 2015)

Mael said:


> Guess you didn't have a good defense for me after all and instead relied on typical snark.
> 
> How surprising...not.



yet you keep replying. My point still stands, you're pathetic 



Seto Kaiba said:


> Why don't you actually try making an argument then if you object so strongly to what has been said?



to actually reason with people with your way of thinking? pfft I'll stick my usual trolltastic posting thanks


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 30, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> I am going to carry around a consent form from now on.
> 
> You want to have sex? Sign it first.



Still doesn't validate it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 30, 2015)

starr said:


> yet you keep replying. My point still stands, you're pathetic



Still not an argument. What do you actually know about third and what is even being called, fourth wave feminism that makes you object so strongly to what has been said? All I see is you doing is making snark and trying to demonize those without actually making a point.

It's the same thing Normality does on the matter. You probably don't even know what it is or why you object to what's being said. Almost as if you are trying to cover up that ignorance with misapplied sarcasm.

Like what "mindset" are you referring to? Do you even know? Or was that a desperate throw at implying misogyny as these things often are?


----------



## Garfield (Jan 30, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Okay.
> 
> I'm not gonna say this law is right because I can see why it's dumb. Burden of proof and all.
> 
> ...



Yup. It's kinda the same as with any other phenomenon that has existed for many centuries like racism, casteism etc. You can't just say that hey, we've made the law state equal for both parties, so ideally men and women should have equal rights now and reality will follow suit. It just doesn't work like that and evidence shows that even now statistically women are worse off than men in various ways, especially rape considering they are on average physically limited compared to men. Sometimes the believability of harsh threats to such crimes also then needs to be disproportionately harsher for halting the momentum.


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2015)

starr said:


> yet you keep replying. My point still stands, you're pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> to actually reason with people with your way of thinking? pfft I'll stick my usual trolltastic posting thanks



Starr the point is not being a smarmy cunt but instead giving us intellectual debate.

How fucking hard is that?

But you're clearly conceding here in the face of actual litigious injustice so you've now won the title of cunt.

Congrats, cunt.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 30, 2015)

adee said:


> Yup. It's kinda the same as with any other phenomenon that has existed for many centuries like racism, casteism etc. You can't just say that hey, we've made the law state equal for both parties, so ideally men and women should have equal rights now and reality will follow suit. It just doesn't work like that and evidence shows that even now statistically women are worse off than men in various ways, especially rape considering they are on average physically limited compared to men. Sometimes the believability of harsh threats to such crimes also then needs to be disproportionately harsher for halting the momentum.



No, not to this degree. Particularly considering we take rape more seriously than ever in the west, and mere accusation can shatter lives. Like has been said, guilty until proven innocent, which goes against basic legal principles. We also have lousy convictions for a number of other crimes, that is not an argument nor valid justification for measures such as this.


----------



## Krory (Jan 30, 2015)

>Western Feminists wanting everyone else to do all the work for them but reap all the benefits

 Typical. Meanwhile women are suffering *actual* victimization in the Middle East and they don't give two fucks, as long as they can send a man to jail if they get drunk and fuck their boyfriend's best friend and stop men from spreading their legs on the subway. Again, thank _you_, Emma Watson.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 30, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, not to this degree. Particularly considering we take rape more seriously than ever in the west, and mere accusation can shatter lives. Like has been said, guilty until proven innocent, which goes against basic legal principles. We also have lousy convictions for a number of other crimes, that is not an argument nor valid justification for measures such as this.


But like was mentioned in another article, the reason prosecutors are now encouraged to go after this particular aspect is that guys were proving innocence by showing "innocent" communication after the fact and hence claiming familiarity and thus were getting free. The thing is, even with a bias in favor of the girl _today_, many more women's lives are being ruined due to rape than false rape accusations are ruining for men. So the penal code increasing bias slightly more doesn't seem like an outlandish idea to me. The concept of innocence until proven guilty doesn't get shattered just because in the specific instances of date rape you put onus on the male party to prove consent prior to sex.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Jan 30, 2015)

lol I love how most people ignored bluelip's post. I guess they secretly know he's right. Dont let me rain on your "FEMINISM IS DESTROYING MY LIFE!!!1!!" party


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 30, 2015)

adee said:


> But like was mentioned in another article, the reason prosecutors are now encouraged to go after this particular aspect is that guys were proving innocence by showing "innocent" communication after the fact and hence claiming familiarity and thus were getting free. The thing is, even with a bias in favor of the girl _today_, many more women's lives are being ruined due to rape than false rape accusations are ruining for men. So the penal code increasing bias slightly more doesn't seem like an outlandish idea to me. The concept of innocence until proven guilty doesn't get shattered just because in the specific instances of date rape you put onus on the male party to prove consent prior to sex.



Then it seems more like the judges or jury presiding need to be educated ln the fact that most crimes are done by and against, parties with some degree of familiarity. Address that specifically, or more sensibly, rule that out as a presumption of innocence. 

I understand that rape is traumatic that still is no justification for this kind of law, because false rape accusations too are still a thing. A presumed, female victim is met with sympathy and support. A falsely accused male however is branded for life. 

Yes it does, because it presumes guilt.


----------



## Undertaker (Jan 30, 2015)

We should start trading futures and options on sexual intercourses, rape swaps. It`s time to make some money.


----------



## Punished Pathos (Jan 30, 2015)

Dudes could go to a club and hit on a girl.
With liquor involved, it make it easier for her to sleep with a guy or she'd be more inclined for a hookup.
After Dude sleeps with said girl, she wakes up and sees how dull the dude is.
She then claims she was raped and taken advantage of


----------



## Krory (Jan 30, 2015)

Punished Pathos said:


> Dudes could go to a club and hit on a girl.
> With liquor involved, it make it easier for her to sleep with a guy or she'd be more inclined for a hookup.
> After Dude sleeps with said girl, she wakes up and sees how dull the dude is.
> She then claims she was raped and taken advantage of



This already happens on the regular.

And the man, nine times out of ten, is still labeled a rapist even if he doesn't get convicted. 

For people who claim to want equality and for strength in women, they only seem concerned in making *men* do everything else and playing the victim.

I'm surprised CTK hasn't slithered his slimy way in here to defend this shit, unless Trinity scared him off for good.  Can only hope.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 30, 2015)

The simplest solution here is to turn things around.  What fundamental aspect _that can be proven in court_ separates the accused from the victim?  What stops the law from being applied to both parties in a sexual encounter.

Imagine the hypothetical situation:

AAA and BBB have been dating for a few weeks.  Tonight they have a date scheduled.

AAA is having a wonderful time with the love of his/her life.  They laugh, have fun, and enjoy whatever activities they have planned for the date.  Eventually the date takes them to the bedroom where things naturally progress to sex.

BBB has had a bad day, he/she is tired, stressed out, and while he/she is having fun on the date he/she isn't quite into it.  Eventually they get pushed into the bedroom and he/she feels pressured to have sex despite not emotionally feeling up to it.

In this scenario no consent was given by either party, only their thoughts on the encounter were different.

Assuming neither AAA nor BBB is psychic, which of them should be guilty of rape and how could you prove this in a court of law?


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2015)

krory said:


> >Western Feminists wanting everyone else to do all the work for them but reap all the benefits
> 
> Typical. Meanwhile women are suffering *actual* victimization in the Middle East and they don't give two fucks, as long as they can send a man to jail if they get drunk and fuck their boyfriend's best friend and stop men from spreading their legs on the subway. Again, thank _you_, Emma Watson.



Wanna see a real woman?

Here:


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 30, 2015)

What makes her real?


----------



## Krory (Jan 30, 2015)

Mael said:


> Wanna see a real woman?
> 
> Here:



What?! No! Real women need to be *defended* by men! They need to be weak and frail, but only when *they* say so!


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2015)

NaS said:


> What makes her real?



Read up on the Kurdish peshmerga.  These women take the fight to the very people who'd enslave them or rape them in some perverted Islamic motivation.  They don't petition for horrid laws or make shit up like rape culture. They fight as women for equality among sexes, not to punish men like in the West simply for being men.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 30, 2015)

How is that working out for them, Mael?


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 30, 2015)

krory said:


> What?! No! Real women need to be *defended* by men! They need to be weak and frail, but only when *they* say so!



*cue tomb raider death clips*


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jan 30, 2015)

who raids the tomb raiders tomb


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 30, 2015)

Mael said:


> Wanna see a real woman?
> 
> Here:



It's kind of sad when women in the Middle-East do a better job to gain rights than the ones in the West


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2015)

NaS said:


> How is that working out for them, Mael?



Considering Kobane has been liberated from Islamic State, quite well actually.

Maybe I just give more credit to servicewomen and women like those in the peshmerga.


----------



## Al Mudaari (Jan 30, 2015)

Lol'd.  Male fornicators.


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2015)

Al Mudaari said:


> Lol'd.  Male fornicators.



I almost forgot we have YOUR end of the spectrum, executing raped women or stoning those who dared to evolve and enjoy non-marital sex because some guy claiming he was told by a being in the sky that it's completely necessary.


----------



## EJ (Jan 30, 2015)

blueblip said:


> One very simple reason, Mael, that you are willfully ignoring.
> 
> Up until now, the burden of proof in rape cases fell entirely on the victim, and has history has shown far too often, women have had far higher standards to prove that they were raped. Defendants,  on the other hand, literally only had to reduce to slut shaming in court as their defense. I'm not making that up. All a guy had to do in court was convince a jury that the girl in question slept around with people, which almost all the time meant being promiacuous meant you somehow could never be raped. Literally the only way for a rape case to be an open and shut case was for there to be video or for the rapist to confess. Rape kits and other forms of forensic evidence rarely ever leads to a conviction.
> 
> ...




My only issues with this is that actual rapist/pedophiles use this kind of shit to their advantage. 



NaS said:


> What makes them real?



Using extreme measures to compare to other people that fight for equality. You can apply this towards any group of people that talk about oppression in the west and make it seem inadequate compared to other soldiers/warriors in different countries.


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 30, 2015)

Can someone explain to me why lie detector aren't used for accusation?


----------



## EJ (Jan 30, 2015)

Lie detectors although can be accurate, can be flawed at times as well.


----------



## Punished Pathos (Jan 30, 2015)

Al Mudaari said:


> Lol'd.  Male fornicators.



How's the C.I.A treating you?


----------



## Gunners (Jan 30, 2015)

Мoon said:


> I don't find that hard to believe. Take this into account ; a man is 50% stronger then a woman in brute strength. With this logic, the only way a woman can be guilty of raping a man, is if that man is physically castrated or bound to the point where he is being forced to have intercourse BY this woman. Not to mention, that judge would lovvve to see the proof. for fap reasons



Interesting, it seems that people don't reach the conclusion that rape took place when the man simply didn't put up a resistance.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jan 30, 2015)

Freedan said:


> So make punishment more severe for rapists, such as increasing the minimum time to serve in jail. Not shift burden of proof on the accused.



I doubt that will work. Like some other guy said, punishments for rapists is already pretty high everywhere. The problem is that the likehood of a rapist being convicted is ridiculously low. That's what has to be changed. Maybe the way judges/prosecutors/police are trained is what is wrong, for example. Society still has the habit of blaming women when they are raped, instead of blaming the agressor.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jan 30, 2015)

Also: the fact that there are countires worse than the ones we live in doesn't mean our countries are perfect, or are devoid of problems regarding rape and sexism.

That is a logical fallacy.


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 30, 2015)

Flow said:


> Lie detectors although can be accurate, can be flawed at times as well.



Well, that's true, tho they can (try to) upgrade it


----------



## Vermilion Kn (Jan 30, 2015)

> The problem is that the likehood of a rapist being convicted is ridiculously low. That's what has to be changed.



I don't see how this law will change that even in the slightest. Evidence is all that matters. If it points to the person (women also rape) being guilty then punish them to the fullest extent of the law. If not than that person is innocent. 

Making it so women can simply pin rape on men, yes, this targets men, willy-nilly is not only immoral but extremely sexist, and if anyone thinks for a second that this won't be abuse that person is a moron.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jan 30, 2015)

Vermilion Kn said:


> I don't see how this law will change that even in the slightest. Evidence is all that matters. If it points to the person (women also rape) being guilty then punish them to the fullest extent of the law. If not than that person is innocent.
> 
> Making it so women can simply pin rape on men, yes, this targets men, willy-nilly is not only immoral but extremely sexist, and if anyone thinks for a second that this won't be abuse that person is a moron.



If you had read the entire discussion you'd know I'm not exactly defending this law.


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 30, 2015)

>Still wondering why they don't just improve their lie detectors and use them more


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 30, 2015)

Hachibi said:


> >Still wondering why they don't just improve their lie detectors and use them more



It'd really be more efficient to just improve crystal balls to be able to gaze into the past and see exactly how the crime went down.


----------



## Narutossss (Jan 30, 2015)

you know what the saddest part about this shit is? I live in the uk

how can a man even prove consense without outright recording the woman saying yes?


----------



## Krory (Jan 30, 2015)

Hachibi said:


> Well, that's true, tho they can (try to) upgrade it



If they could, they would - the problem is they basically just monitor your emotions. So if you're extremely stressed out, you'll appear guilty. However by drugging up, you can cheat it.


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 30, 2015)

They should try the Daredevil method imo


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 30, 2015)

Narutossss said:


> you know what the saddest part about this shit is? I live in the uk
> 
> how can a man even prove consense without outright recording the woman saying yes?



You _can't_  Thats why people are rightly upset over this.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 30, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> The simplest solution here is to turn things around.  What fundamental aspect _that can be proven in court_ separates the accused from the victim?  What stops the law from being applied to both parties in a sexual encounter.
> 
> Imagine the hypothetical situation:
> 
> ...



Yes there was consent.  

Did they consented? Yes they did.

Remember when rape, actually meant rape?


----------



## Jagger (Jan 30, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> If you had read the entire discussion you'd know I'm not exactly defending this law.


However, addressing the issue by implementing a law that creates an unequality or even a bigger flaw in the law system isn't the correct solution.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 30, 2015)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWUGj4Jn5dI[/YOUTUBE]

Even if you don't agree with the preamble this guy sets up for discussing the law, the actual discussion of the law is pretty well spot on.


----------



## Takahashi (Jan 30, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I doubt that will work. Like some other guy said, punishments for rapists is already pretty high everywhere. *The problem is that the likehood of a rapist being convicted is ridiculously low.* That's what has to be changed. Maybe the way judges/prosecutors/police are trained is what is wrong, for example.



What about the judges' prosecutors', or police's training is wrong exactly?  I'd chock up the low conviction rate to the nature of rape being inherently difficult to prove.



> Society still has the habit of blaming women when they are raped, instead of blaming the agressor.



I hear this a lot, but I've never see it demonstrated.  As others have mentioned, simply being accused of rape is enough to pretty much wreck your life.  I'd say that our society, by-and-large, is on the side of the victim.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 30, 2015)

"Society blames the victim"

Show us a trail when the rapist was aquited of charges just because "Society says it is your fault"?

Do note that when I say rape I mean RAPE not made up legal definitions and stretching of the term.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 30, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> It'd really be more efficient to just improve crystal balls to be able to gaze into the past and see exactly how the crime went down.



Roll 1d20 + your wisdom to see the events properly.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Jan 31, 2015)

The bright side is that British women are so ugly that only a deranged, suicidal friend would resort to forcing them to have sex anyway.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 31, 2015)

Wait a second according to the article the law takes in consideration "Women who are dependant financially on the man". Going by what I could get being economically dependant can either be an automatic cause for acceptance that rape happened or since the law presumes rape already happened at the say so of the woman then as an aggrivating factor for this.

Take a second to think about this........ meditate on this...... I am no law expert, but gee this mean that if for example a woman divorce her richer husband and she stopped working for 5 years, she can claim she was raped DAILY by him for 5 years straignt? 

At best this mean that EVERY married woman has Carte Blanche to dictate the divorce terms. And I don't want to sound like this is the apocalypse, but please if what I am saying is wrong (I recognize it could be) please correct me.

So then I ask, is there under this law any and I say it seriously *ANY* incentive to get married if you are a man? I mean didn't this law pretty much in the places it apply effectively made marriage DEADLY for all men?


----------



## iJutsu (Jan 31, 2015)

Advance robotic sex dolls when?

Inb4 they get to call rape too.


----------



## Shidoshi (Jan 31, 2015)

blueblip said:


> Also, I'm really curious to know where the idea of men are being imprisoned enemas for false rape accusations is coming from? Are you saying there's an epidemic of men being jailed for false rape? Are you claiming there are far more men being falsely accused of rape when compared to the actual number of rapes happening? Furthermore, you're argument is contradictory. Seeing that it's hard enough to gain a conviction in a genuine case of rape, why the hell are you suddenly worried about men being convinced in false cases? Why kind of fucked up logic is that?If you acknowledge that men are being victimised due to false rape cases and are being jailed as a result of them, how do you explain the low conviction rate for actual rape?


Brian Banks.

Perfect example of a situation like this, and he didn't even actually engage in intercourse with his supposed "victim".

The *only* reason he even got his sentence commuted and name cleared is because he got her to admit that she lied about it on tape (in front of another witness at that) years after the fact (which, in and of itself was nothing short of a miracle), and this was after he had served prison time and was coerced into taking a plea in lieu of the risk of getting a life sentence.

Is it an epidemic?  It's hard to know.  Probably not.  But "probably" is hardly definitive, and the fact that the burden of proof to be unequivocally cleared of any stigma of being a falsely-accused rapist is almost statistically high as to be nearly impossible, makes it even worse for those falsely accused...because, remember, even if there's no conviction, there are no shortages of people ready to continue to do what would be slander and libel in any other legal area, just so that people are aware.

You have a ruined life due to a false allegation, and if the stars had not aligned in the correct way for things to happen the way they did, he'd *still* be a registered sex offender *demonized* by people everywhere.

But the fact is it *can and does happen*.

The woman who falsely accused him of it?  Do you think she was then tried for perjury or for making a false accusation?  Do you think she was ordered to do anything but repay the settlements she won for "restitution"?  No.

For ruining a man's life, she's only ordered to pay back what she won in damages from the school she was in where she was at the time it was alleged to happen.

How is that justice?



> _You're talking about 'being fair' is disingenuous when you consider the fact that the law has repeatedly failed actual victims in far greater numbers than it has failed people falsely accused of rape (who are another class of victims). It's a matter or priorities,  and I think we both agree on the larger being given a higher priority._



The law is not supposed to work that way.  You're not supposed to say the few innocent people that are falsely convicted are acceptable collateral damage to make sure all the correctly convicted are imprisoned.

That's not how _any_ justice system is supposed to work.

I'm not claiming to know a way to make this better or more even-handed, but the law is not supposed to be "I'd rather you be imprisoned for something you didn't do, than to let someone who did do it get acquitted scot-free".

That's not a justice system, and that's the core issue at hand.

To my knowledge, I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that those who *actually* rape should not be punished (severly), but that it can't be done in such a way as to be contrary to how the law is supposed to work, because then the false positives get it even worse.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 31, 2015)

iJutsu said:


> Advance robotic sex dolls when?
> 
> Inb4 they get to call rape too.



Seriously though, what started as a joke may end up as reality.

If virtual reality is really around the corner (50 years AT MOST)  like most people experienced in this matter say. I can easily see under this trend a VERY REAL schism between men and women happening.

It was already a high probability merely because of dating standards alone, this shit almost guarantee it in the areas it apply.


----------



## BashFace (Jan 31, 2015)

So let me get this straight. If a date rapist asks a woman during rape whether she wants him to get off of her and she replies "yes" that could be misconstrued for the rapists defence? 

You know just for anyone who misread a couple of signals. 

But in all seriousness this is just stupid, keep your chastity belts locked fellow Nf'ers.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 31, 2015)

Or just never get laid in UK.


----------



## tari101190 (Jan 31, 2015)

So many stupid comments here...

It's possible to give a physical exam to check if a victim has been raped.

If the exam tells you they have been raped, then you would ask the people if there was consent.

If the rape victim says no, then the alleged rapist would need to prove otherwise.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 31, 2015)

tari101190 said:


> So many stupid comments here...
> 
> It's possible to give a physical exam to check if a victim has been raped.
> 
> ...



Except this would only be true if we still lived in the times where rape actually meant rape.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 31, 2015)

tari101190 said:


> It's possible to give a physical exam to check if a victim has been raped.



That only works if it's done within a short timeframe and unless you limit the criteria to signs of violence, all sex would be assumed rape


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 31, 2015)

This seems intended for cases where alcohol is involved.  If they're too drunk to give consent, its raep via default.


----------



## BashFace (Jan 31, 2015)

Zaru said:


> That only works if it's done within a short timeframe and unless you limit the criteria to signs of violence, all sex would be assumed rape



So I guess we can reach a unanimous decision to cease reproduction then? All in favour? 

Also can I ask if you know what would happen if Male on male rape happened under these laws/rules? Or female on female? I would have just said same sex rape but its apparently not the same thing now. 

Does the responsibility just go to the butchest and does the femme get to say "I didn't say yes, this fat bitch asphyxiated me with her fat gello rolls and I didn't have a chance to plead"? Or is it like the pillowbiter rules sort of thing?



Sanity Check said:


> This seems intended for cases where alcohol is involved.  If they're too drunk to give consent, its raep via default.



SHUT UP YOU RAPIST!!!!!


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Jan 31, 2015)

Yeah, because it's physically impossible for a woman to lie about not having said yes. Like, the universe would implode if that ever happened, period.

Also I notice that the article specifically mentions that men have to prove that "women" said yes. Let's leave aside the questions of how and focus on the fact that, again, this is worded where it just _assumes _a man *cannot *be the victim of rape.

One, how do you ignore gay people ? And two, women are just as capable of commiting sexual assault as men.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 31, 2015)

tari101190 said:


> So many stupid comments here...
> 
> It's possible to give a physical exam to check if a victim has been raped.
> 
> ...



Yeah because apparent rape injuries last weeks, months and years after the fact.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 31, 2015)

What is "drunk" anyway?

You can't even walk and are barely conscious? Yes it is rape.

Nuked standards? No, it is not rape.

Unfortunately the law seems to belive both of them are and this police guidelines seem to place the burden of proof on the defendant even in non alcohol cases.

For example...... being financially dependant on someone is an aggrivating factor or a defacto valid accusation


----------



## Hachibi (Jan 31, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> What is "drunk" anyway?
> 
> You can't even walk and are barely conscious? Yes it is rape.
> 
> ...



Well, being "drunk" depend on the person (and sometimes, on the person's alcohol resistance), but yeah.

Also, it is me or UK become worst over time?


----------



## Krory (Jan 31, 2015)

tari101190 said:


> So many stupid comments here...
> 
> It's possible to give a physical exam to check if a victim has been raped.
> 
> ...



And now you have the stupidest comment here.  As Zaru already pointed out, those examinations are completely useless after a short period of time passing and the only indication they have to go on to separate consensual sex from rape is any signs of violence - which also ignores the potential of a so-called "victim" being into rough sex or certain kinks that would exhibit the same signs.


----------



## Shidoshi (Jan 31, 2015)

tari101190 said:


> So many stupid comments here...
> 
> It's possible to give a physical exam to check if a victim has been raped.
> 
> ...


The "rape kit", as far as I'm aware, can only tell if there was sexual intercourse, which is not illegal.  Part of the process of the exam also involves testing for any foreign substances in a victim's system.  In violent rape cases, the assault wounds would be another indicator, but in non-violent cases all a rape kit can determine is if there was intercourse or not.

There are no physical exams that can determine if consent was given for non-violent rape cases, unless it's done early enough to detect any drugs that can and would remove a victim's ability to give consent (i.e, the "date rape" drug or massive amounts of alcohol).

If it's not done early enough -- and in a lot of cases, it isn't -- then it becomes "victim said/accused said".

Without a "love contract", it then becomes quite difficult to prove consent if everything was non-verbal.


----------



## Alicia (Jan 31, 2015)

srsly fire the fools in the parliament who voted for this law. If they can't even grasp the basic principle of presumption of innocence then they're clearly not competent enough to do parliament work. 

The first victim who gets falsely accused by this law should directly appeal to supreme court to get this law disintegrated


----------



## Narurider (Jan 31, 2015)

Having read the article I think the best course of action for me at this point is to just stay a virgin until I can get the fuck out of the UK.


----------



## Xiammes (Jan 31, 2015)

tari101190 said:


> So many stupid comments here...
> 
> It's possible to give a physical exam to check if a victim has been raped.
> 
> ...



A rape kit doesn't tell if someone was raped, it only proves intercourse was had, it doesn't tell if it was consensual or not.

If it was so easy to prove rape, the conviction rates wouldn't be where they are at.


----------



## BurningVegeta (Jan 31, 2015)

Xiammes said:


> A rape kit doesn't tell if someone was raped, it only proves intercourse was had, it doesn't tell if it was consensual or not.
> 
> If it was so easy to prove rape, the conviction rates wouldn't be where they are at.



They're not even that... they should be called kits that see if a person had rough sex or not because they will never prove a gentle session of sex happened.


----------



## Overhaul (Jan 31, 2015)




----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 1, 2015)

/\ Too bad we are not in the middle ages anymore, so the above means jack shit for anyone with a brain.


----------



## CyberianGinseng (Feb 2, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> This seems intended for cases where alcohol is involved.  If they're too drunk to give consent, its raep via default.


So back in high school when I woke up at 3:00a.m. to discover my sister's pissy faced drunk ass, fat, fugly friend sucking my dick, who was raped? Me or her?


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 2, 2015)

CyberianGinseng said:


> So back in high school when I woke up at 3:00a.m. to discover my sister's pissy faced drunk ass, fat, fugly friend sucking my dick, who was raped? Me or her?



Accorind to law you, because all women are special little snowflakes that can do no harm no matter what, EVER.

And lol at 5+ people replying to tari. He's a fool, let him be.


----------



## ~Greed~ (Feb 2, 2015)

> Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated.



Isn't this essentially a case of being guilty until proven innocent. What a crock of shit.


----------

