If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
hmmmmm.....
So it's always rape, even if you don't notice and the person doesn't care?
And you're off again.
It's not rape because none of us exist!
It's only rape if the person doesn't consent. Gah.
Answer my question now?
If a person consents, and doesn't withdraw their consent, its not rape. Obviously.
What on earth are you on about? That's exactly what I bloody said.
This one.
If A claims rape, then her passing out negates consent IMHO.
But 99/100 in your little situation, that wouldn't happen, would it?
Any chance of actually answering this question?
Your saying the same action changes depending upon the attitude of the person afterwards. Did I get that right?
I would of thought the bigger question would be - what on earth is wrong with the person who continues to fuck someone who is unconcious
Thank you.
I still have no idea what the fuck Klintock is on about.
i wonder if he ever gets arrested, would he be there screaming
There are many easily imagined scenario's where you just woudn't be aware.
It's dark, your nearly there etc etc
Then again if person b in your frankly unpleasant hypothesis 'doesn't mind' then there isn't a crime taking place - as the very nature of the crime is based on the fact that they do mind - whether they realise at the time or when they wake up.
The problems with the few recent cases mentioned is that the judges involved don't seem to have read the law, or that at the time the new laws didn't apply. As simply saying - she doesn't remember if she did or didn't consent is not the the requirement for establishing rape, rather it is if the other party can't show, with backing from the other person involved, how they established consent.
Cheers Jim V, that's all I was after.
Totally stupid, but what else do you expect from those in the legal profession.
You can create an unlikely situation to challenge any law or point of view - occasionally tha reveals fundamental flaws in a debate - however more often than not it's simply symantics - which either bores the reader or makes a fool out of the poster - usually both.
So nothing has changed but the lies of the rapist.
Which this debate has been full of of course. From my own objections to the frankly weird "male rape by women" nonsense.
I find it very starnge that in order for the process to work for women they must lie as much as their assailant.
There are much more pleasant ways to get someone's eyes to roll up in their head and for them to lose consciousness, than mere inebriation.
That`s got me thinking how many "countries"/ "societies" (and which ones would they be) are in the habit of championing women and putting them on a pedestal ? :chin:
Penetration of the mouth by a penis without consent is not rape, but the crime has the same tariff as rape.
Penetration of the mouth, vagina or anus with an implement other than the penis, e.g. a dildo, is not rape, but has the same tariff as rape.
Interesting question though is why that always comes about.