Home Politics & Debate
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.

Make sure you've got consent, lads...

1246711

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    because women do this and cry rape when the guy was probabaly drunk himself

    Oh, "women do this", do they? Thanks for letting me know, it's so hard to keep on track of what we women are doing these days.

    Women should indeed take responsibility for their own safety; I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

    I was merely angry at the suggestion that short skirts and alcohol inherently signal a disregard for your own safety, or somehow make you more deserving of being raped than a woman walking down the road clothed from head to toe and stone-cold sober. They do not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    I was merely angry at the suggestion that short skirts and alcohol inherently signal a disregard for your own safety, or somehow make you more deserving of being raped than a woman walking down the road clothed from head to toe and stone-cold sober. They do not.
    Maybe those muslim women have got the right idea. :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe those muslim women have got the right idea. :thumb:

    :lol:

    That's obviously the solution, why didn't I think of that earlier...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    :lol:

    That's obviously the solution, why didn't I think of that earlier...

    lets add a little spice and inflame the topic
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21502
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's all fair enough if the woman cries rape when she consented when drunk and he gets off due to lack of evidence.
    but girls are still going to be raped while under the influence, charge and because they were too drunk to remember if they consented...the rapist will still get off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally, I don't go in for the idea that, if a woman is wearing revealing clothing, that she's somehow "asking for it". That's absolute drivel. If a woman wishes to go out wearing next to nothing, that's fine by me. What I say is, how about not getting so drunk you haven't a clue what you're doing? And to men I say, how about not taking advantage of drunken women?

    A bit of personal responsibility is needed here, along with some education. Amnesty International released the results of a study recently, which showed some very worrying ideas. I don't remember the exact results, but some people had the idea that a woman in revealing clothes was "fair game" or "asking for it". Such attitudes are disturbing and have no place anymore.

    My only problem remains this; how does a man prove he's received consent from a woman? Currently, it's his word against hers. What is he meant to do? Is a lawyer meant to get them to sign a contract saying "I consent to sexual intercourse with this person"? The Government has no place interfering in people's bedrooms. It does not reduce the seriousness of rape, a heinous crime, but as always, this government's solution is more meddling, more work for jobsworths, more intereference.

    How about they encourage men AND women to show some responsibility for their own actions? How about making sure that people who falsely cry rape are punished harshly? And how about giving anoymity to those involved in court cases so we don't see the spectacle of men being ripped to pieces in the media? For instance, when John Leslie was accused of rape, he was torn to pieces by the tabloids, thrown to the wolves. When I saw him being acquitted and in tears, I felt incredibly angry at the way he had been treated. Yes, his attitudes towards women were questionable, but he did not deserve to be shredded through trial by media.

    And that reminds me... how about the government impose restrictions on media reporting of rape cases? The press needs to be put in its place at times. But no, that would bring in the claim "oh, Labour's trying to censor the press", wouldn't it? :rolleyes: Frankly, the way media outlets like The Sun and the Daily Mail report these things, a bit of censorship would be in order!

    My point is, everyone has a part to play in this. The law needs to provide anonymity until cases are finished, found either guilty or not guilty. The media needs to report on these things without hysterical sensationalism. The politicians need to encourage personal responsibility instead of a sexual free-for-all and the people need to exercise more personal responsibility and abandon these stupid ideas that somehow, women dressed in next to nothing are asking for trouble.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    by doing this
    http://www.sex-contract.com/
    I hereby certify that I possess the intellectual and emotional maturity required to consent to sex. I have not in any way been coerced into signing this form, and I have not received, and do not expect to receive, any payment or remuneration whatsoever for performing the specified sex acts. I am 18 years or older and am not intoxicated with alcohol or drugs. Though I offer this form as consent to sex, I reserve the right to withdraw consent at any time, verbally, in writing, gesture, or any other clearly discernible means.
    Kissing
    I consent to being kissed on the mouth in the following manner: open-mouthed kissing with lips, open-mouthed kissing with tongue, light biting/nibbling, and heavy biting/nibbling. I consent to being kissed on the face and neck. I will hold the kisser harmless and blameless for any hickies sustained during the above-listed forms of kissing.

    Touching
    I consent to being touching in the following manner: on my breasts outside of my clothes, on my breasts inside of my clothes, on my buttocks outside of my clothes, on my buttocks inside of my clothes, on my vaginal area outside of my clothes, and on my vaginal area inside of my clothes.
    Oral Sex
    I hereby give consent to oral sex (cunnilingus) being performed on me. If I choose to perform fellatio, I agree to allow my partner to ejaculate in my mouth. I do not consent to having oral sex performed on my anus (analingus).
    Genital-to-Genital Contact without Penetration (Outercourse)

    I agree to genital-to-genital contact, not including penetration (outercourse).
    Vaginal Penetration
    I consent to being vaginally penetrated by a full fist. I consent to being vaginally penetetrated by sex toys. I consent to vaginal penetration by a dildo. I consent to vaginal penetration by a vibrator. I consent to being vaginally penetrated by a penis. During penetration by a penis I require the use of a condom.
    Anal Penetration
    I do not consent to anal penetration by fingers. I do not consent to anal penetration by sex toys. I do not consent to anal penetration by a penis.
    Sexually Transmitted Diseases
    I have now, or have had in the past, the following STDs: none I will not hold my sex partner responsible for any disease or condition I contract during the sex act.
    Birth Control
    I agree to use the following forms of birth control: I am sterile..

    Signed by: ____________________________________

    Print name: ___________________________________

    Date: 03/10/2006
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are even more troubles if you brought in something like a contract. Each person would need a copy each. What happens if one loses the contract? Can't a contract signature be easily forged? See, even that has practical difficulties!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    There are even more troubles if you brought in something like a contract. Each person would need a copy each. What happens if one loses the contract? Can't a contract signature be easily forged? See, even that has practical difficulties!

    so cant a contract on a house or a mortgage, or anything in the financial and business world be forged then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    The law needs to provide anonymity until cases are finished, found either guilty or not guilty.
    However, there have been cases with serial rapists, where they are arrested for a single rape, their face has been put in the newspaper, and other women have come forward which has strengthened the case against them and ensured the get convicted and put away for a long time too. Whether this outweighs the rights of innocent men not to be plastered all over the paper I'm not sure. I definitely think that he should have anonymity until he is charged with it. And I think there should be big penalties for women who can be proved to have made it up. But we don't want to end up discouraging more real victims from coming forward.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Everyones so adamant with the whole "a woman can walk down town in next to nothing and has the right to not get raped".
    Technically yeah she has the right to not get raped, but I doubt a rapist is going to stop and think that, same way as a mugger isnt going to stop and think "Oh, that old lady has the RIGHT to keep her life savings, I'll just leave her alone." The world aint like that. Thats why the old lady keeps her purse hidden, rather than waving it about to see.

    Its a hard fact that if you choose to walk around dressed in nothing showing off every primitive sex signal you have, then youre going to attract every creep and try-it-on in town.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote:
    so cant a contract on a house or a mortgage, or anything in the financial and business world be forged then?
    Fair point, I suppose forgeries are pretty much possible in other things too.
    However, there have been cases with serial rapists, where they are arrested for a single rape, their face has been put in the newspaper, and other women have come forward which has strengthened the case against them and ensured the get convicted and put away for a long time too.
    That was precisely the extremely unsavoury sight we saw when John Leslie was charged. And even after being acquitted, women kept going to the press with these lurid, nasty stories. If they've got such a problem, they can try going to a police station instead of The Sun's offices, couldn't they?
    And I think there should be big penalties for women who can be proved to have made it up. But we don't want to end up discouraging more real victims from coming forward.
    And that raises yet more problems. The danger is, women who've made these things up must be punished, but we cannot have a situation where women feel when they make a complaint that the law believes they are making the whole thing up. This is bloody difficult...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    This is bloody difficult...
    I know. I'm glad it's not my job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely the male's responsibility (to himself) is to refrain from having sex with females so intoxicated that they're not undoubtedly fully in control of their mental faculties. That is basic self-preservation.

    The counter-argument would be that men should take care not to get so drunk that they are unable to judge whether their potential partner is too inebriated to have their rational faculties about them when consenting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    Surely the male's responsibility (to himself) is to refrain from having sex with females so intoxicated that they're not undoubtedly fully in control of their mental faculties. That is basic self-preservation.

    The counter-argument would be that men should take care not to get so drunk that they are unable to judge whether their potential partner is too inebriated to have their rational faculties about them when consenting.
    :yes: its ok saying the woman shouldn't get so drunk she doesn't know what she's doing, but men shouldn't get so drunk that they can't tell the difference between yes and no.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote:
    :yes: its ok saying the woman shouldn't get so drunk she doesn't know what she's doing, but men shouldn't get so drunk that they can't tell the difference between yes and no.
    Agreeing with you here. I think part of the problem is the binge-drinking culture. Everyone seems to be drinking more than ever. You always hear, dontcha, about people going out with the simple intention of getting plastered. You see people coming out of pubs not even able to walk. If they can't even do that, how are they meant to make a sensible and rational decision about whether to have sex with someone?

    Maybe everyone needs to drink a bit less, and think a bit more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Agreeing with you here. I think part of the problem is the binge-drinking culture. Everyone seems to be drinking more than ever. You always hear, dontcha, about people going out with the simple intention of getting plastered. You see people coming out of pubs not even able to walk. If they can't even do that, how are they meant to make a sensible and rational decision about whether to have sex with someone?

    Maybe everyone needs to drink a bit less, and think a bit more.
    :yes: i don't see the point of going out to get plasterd at all. It's ok to say 'have a good time' but if you get in that state you won't remember. You were probably just stumbling all over the streets throwing up at every street corner. My town is one of the worst in the country for binge drinking problems and it's pretty scary. Everyone on the whole needs to be more responsible, not just women or men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The bottom line is that we should all - male and female - be held accountable to the same standard of civilised human behaviour.

    Saying that one sex is to blame more than the other probably isn't helpful, everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves, influenced by alcohol or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I like :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    It is disgusting that people still think it's such a common occurence, it happens but it doesn't change the fact that any woman who has been raped must be believed until it is proven that she is lying.

    You're being serious? Switching innocent unless proven guilty around would provide massive scope for deceitful accusations, it's almost a free reign to send anyone off to jail for a few years. Surely you can see that? No responsible legal system could work like that.

    What you're suggesting is one sure way of setting up a culture of legal deceit and in doing so tarnishing the public perception of rape victims as a group.

    It's not the solution.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't claim it was the solution, but if a woman makes a claim of rape then I would consider it genuine until proven otherwise.

    Is it preferable to automatically disbelieve a woman until she can provide solid physical (or other) evidence? No wonder so many attacks (of males and females) go unreported.

    Neither is ideal, of course. To be honest, I don't have a clue what the solution is (or even what a step in the right direction is), it's a minefield.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    briggi wrote:
    but if a woman makes a claim of rape then I would consider it genuine until proven otherwise.

    Then you'd be an idiot.
    It;'s that very attitiude that means that shit sticks.

    I got flasley accused of grabbing a girls arse the other day, becuase it suited her to get me kicked out of the pub. Infact I was arrested for it. Is it then for me to proove that I didn't do it?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    Then you'd be an idiot.
    This is a difficult point. On the one hand, the law cannot give the impression the person who's saying she's been raped is telling porkies. But on the other, you can't assume that because she's saying it, the man must be guilty. Innocent until proven guilty? This principle has to be respected, though what way round this is there is something I'm struggling to see.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Innocent until proven guilty? This principle has to be respected,

    Fucking right it should be. Just because a lot of rapes don't lead to a conviction does not mean less notice should be taken of this most vital principle.

    Never should it be assumed that somebody is guilty.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    Fucking right it should be. Just because a lot of rapes don't lead to a conviction does not mean less notice should be taken of this most vital principle. Never should it be assumed that somebody is guilty.
    I agree with you. I think there is a danger with the government's proposals that this principle could be undermined, and that would be a big mistake. Of course, this doesn't excuse the pathetically low rates of conviction in this country. Things must improve, yes, but not at the expense of our country's long-standing traditions and laws.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    I don't claim it was the solution, but if a woman makes a claim of rape then I would consider it genuine until proven otherwise.

    Is it preferable to automatically disbelieve a woman until she can provide solid physical (or other) evidence? No wonder so many attacks (of males and females) go unreported.

    Neither is ideal, of course. To be honest, I don't have a clue what the solution is (or even what a step in the right direction is), it's a minefield.

    Yeah, you might consider it genuine on a personal level, but legally it has to be treated differently. If legally the woman was always believed de facto then only an accusation is effectively required for most cases to result in a jail term. That's blatantly fucked up, because although at the moment false accusations may be a tiny minority (i'll take people's word for it, although i don't quite see how that can exactly be known as people making false accusations are hardly likely to admit so), such a change would undoubtedly cause a massive increase in deceitful claims.

    The crux of the matter is that there's no protection of the innocent. Let's face it, whether you're talking about men or women the collective moral conscience is dubious at best. A society where one person can have another jailed for an unsubstantiated accusation is absolutely insane imo, whether it's over rape, assault, theft...whatever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    Yeah, you might consider it genuine on a personal level, but legally it has to be treated differently. If legally, the woman was always believed de facto then only an accusation is effectively required for most cases to result in a jail term. Such a change would undoubtedly cause a massive increase in deceitful claims.
    Definitely. It would effectively be saying "well, that man must be guilty because this woman says he is, so we should jail him". An highly inappropriate road to go down.
    The crux of the matter is that there's no protection of the innocent. A society where one person can have another jailed for an unsubstantiated accusation is absolutely insane imo, whether it's over rape, assault, theft...whatever.
    I think a possible answer to this is anonymity. Basically, the names of those accused of rape cannot be released to the media until a trial has been completed. Rape is one of few crimes in which a man can be named as soon as he is accused. That is dangerous and wrong, and serves only the newspapers, who whip up hysteria and who end up destroying lives in the process.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    Surely the male's responsibility (to himself) is to refrain from having sex with females so intoxicated that they're not undoubtedly fully in control of their mental faculties. That is basic self-preservation.

    The counter-argument would be that men should take care not to get so drunk that they are unable to judge whether their potential partner is too inebriated to have their rational faculties about them when consenting.

    The counter-argument is obviously that women should take responsibility for how drunk they get and who they consent to fuck. Why is responsibility entirely with males, as you suggest? :confused:

    Even a small amount of alcohol changes mental functioning, so that's really a non-point. Consent is consent, end of. How wrecked you get on a night out and who you fuck about with consensually is your responsibility and yours alone.

    I have every sympathy for rape victims but none for drunks who regret their consensual actions the next day - everyone knows the effects of alcohol and if you can't handle it, don't do it.
Sign In or Register to comment.