Define Consent.

RemieV · 22nd April 2012, 07:11 PM

I've been a viewer of many threads on rape, sex, yadda ya. I have even posted one of the most disturbing porn videos ever in the entire universe to the JREF chat. (I swear someone else did it.)

What, to you, defines consent?

BStrong · 22nd April 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by RemieV

I've been a viewer of many threads on rape, sex, yadda ya. I have even posted one of the most disturbing porn videos ever in the entire universe to the JREF chat. (I swear someone else did it.)

What, to you, defines consent?

There has to be a meeting of the minds involved.

If someone is too imparied, too imature, or mentally incompetent, there can be no such meeting.

mijopaalmc · 22nd April 2012, 07:25 PM

Oh, Holy Hell!!!!

Tsukasa Buddha · 22nd April 2012, 07:28 PM

I always keep plenty of copies of this form in my nightstand.

(PDF warning)

dirtywick · 22nd April 2012, 07:32 PM

Same things as old people wear as underwear.

mijopaalmc · 22nd April 2012, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it.

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

well, I was waiting for that but I didn't know it would be that quick

where is he? btw

Wolfman · 22nd April 2012, 07:38 PM

I certainly cannot come up with a comprehensive answer, but there's at least one component to it that I'd say is crucial -- the ability to revoke that consent. For example, for people involved in BDSM, it is a fairly common practice to have a safe word; so they grant consent to have pain and humiliation inflicted upon them, but retain the right to stop it at any point by use of the safe word. I'd consider that, from a legal perspective, such activities should be considered legal prior to use of the safe word, but if the safe word is used, must stop immediately, or they are now acting without consent.

In the context of the thread on having sex with someone who's very drunk, I'd say that this means that even if someone who is drunk consents to sex, if they reach a point where they would no longer be able to revoke that consent (ie. they are unconscious, or unaware of what is happening to them), then it is wrong to continue.

I grew up in the "no means no" culture, where a man must stop if a woman says no, regardless of how hot-and-heavy things may have gotten. She may have intentionally led you on, even explicitly stated her desire to have sex with you, stripped off all your clothes, and commenced coitus...but if she changes her mind, and says "no", then all consent has been revoked, and if you continue, it is non-consensual sex. Again, implicit in this kind of perspective is the assumed ability to revoke consent, at any point.

Now, things get tricky sometimes...such as the woman who says "no", but actually means "yes". I've faced this a few times myself, with a woman who said, apparently seriously, "No, stop that"...but then when I stopped, got upset with me, because what she actually wanted was for me to make more effort to seduce her.

So the question of the exact dividing line between consent and non-consent...that is hard to define, perhaps impossible to define in an absolute manner. But that the person involved must be in a position to retain the ability to revoke consent, that is something that I consider to be fairly fundamental, and far easier to determine. If they are unconscious, or unaware of what they are doing, then you must stop. Period.

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by RemieV

I've been a viewer of many threads on rape, sex, yadda ya. I have even posted one of the most disturbing porn videos ever in the entire universe to the JREF chat. (I swear someone else did it.)

What, to you, defines consent?

Remie, I don't know about the legal definition, but I think two people can make a rational decision without bringing in lawyers and signing a contract. I've told you on the other thread, if I've ever been in doubt (as a man) I pulled the covers over the woman and walked away. I never wanted any question the next morning.

Marduk · 22nd April 2012, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Remie, I don't know about the legal definition,

Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a full appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions, with the individual being in possession of all of his faculties (not mentally retarded or mentally ill), and his judgment not being impaired at the time of consenting (by sleepiness, intoxication by alcohol or drugs, other health problems, etc.).
NSFW
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/dic...ormed_consent/

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I certainly cannot come up with a comprehensive answer, but there's at least one component to it that I'd say is crucial -- the ability to revoke that consent. For example, for people involved in BDSM, it is a fairly common practice to have a safe word; so they grant consent to have pain and humiliation inflicted upon them, but retain the right to stop it at any point by use of the safe word. I'd consider that, from a legal perspective, such activities should be considered legal prior to use of the safe word, but if the safe word is used, must stop immediately, or they are now acting without consent.

In some countries, like the UK, where you cannot under any terms consent to be assaulted, one partner consenting to acts which would constitute assault are still illegal, the police would arrest both partners, one for assault, one for compliancy.
very famous case where the police arrested several gay bdsm practicioners who they originally thought must have been murdered because apparently no one would willingly consent to those acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a full appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions, with the individual being in possession of all of his faculties (not mentally retarded or mentally ill), and his judgment not being impaired at the time of consenting (by sleepiness, intoxication by alcohol or drugs, other health problems, etc.).
NSFW
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/dic...ormed_consent/

Thanks, Marduk. I'm already well aware of the legal definition. I was defining my own moral view, which happens to fall inside the purview of the legal authorities. Is there anything else you would like to share?

ETA: I realize that I said "I don't know" but that was only an attempt to get the subject off the legal definition, and personally describe what I thought was right and wrong.

Marduk · 22nd April 2012, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Is there anything else you would like to share

generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open
Imagine one of those women you walked away from alleges rape and it goes to court, the second the prosecution asks you for the legal definition of consent and you say "I have my own", thats where you lost the case
I know you're a pretty sensible guy and this is unlikely to happen to you, but we're not the only two engaged in this thread

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open

I understand that VERY WELL. My point was that I have a personal moral and ethical view, and that's what I WISHED TO DISCUSS. If you aren't interested, I won't be offended if you ignore me. In the meantime, rest assured that I am well aware of the legal distinctions, and only desire a sincere conversation between men and women about what is acceptable when it comes to sex, especially with someone you have just met. Please join in.

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open
Imagine one of those women you walked away from alleges rape and it goes to court, the second the prosecution asks you for the legal definition of consent and you say "I have my own", thats where you lost the case
I know you're a pretty sensible guy and this is unlikely to happen to you, but we're not the only two engaged in this thread

If it comes to that, many women I've met in my life can allege rape. Should I be frightened and avoid women altogether?

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 08:23 PM

Come up with some real life scenarios rather than the kind of boogie man stories that morons like Rush Limbaugh propose.

mijopaalmc · 22nd April 2012, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

where is he? btw

He lives in Finland which is 6-9 hours ahead of the US, so, when this thread was posted, it was the middle of the might there.

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

He lives in Finland which is 6-9 hours ahead of the US, so, when this thread was posted, it was the middle of the might there.

I wasn't waiting for a literal answer, I just knew that he would weigh in on this topic eventually, and send it off the rails.

Wolfman · 22nd April 2012, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it.

Okay...didn't see this...

...and allow me to say, what an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant argument.

I attack a woman, with a knife in hand, which I put at her throat. I tell her that I am going to have sex with her, and that if she puts up any resistance at all, I will slit her throat. She has full knowledge of what is going on, and doesn't resist at any point.

Can I therefore argue that it was "consensual sex"? One of the most ignorant and ill-founded arguments I've seen in this debate.

Hell, I don't even need to use a threat of force against her. I remember a case a number of years ago where two men forced themselves into a home where only a mother and her young daughter were present; the men told the woman that if she didn't do whatever they wanted, they would rape and then murder her daughter. The woman engaged in sex with both men multiple times, putting up no resistance whatsoever, and obviously being fully aware of what was going on.

Again...should this in any manner, shape, or form be considered "consensual sex"? Of course not. You'd have to be a raging misanthrope to argue otherwise.

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Okay...didn't see this...

...and allow me to say, what an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant argument.

I attack a woman, with a knife in hand, which I put at her throat. I tell her that I am going to have sex with her, and that if she puts up any resistance at all, I will slit her throat. She has full knowledge of what is going on, and doesn't resist at any point.

Can I therefore argue that it was "consensual sex"? One of the most ignorant and ill-founded arguments I've seen in this debate.

Hell, I don't even need to use a threat of force against her. I remember a case a number of years ago where two men forced themselves into a home where only a mother and her young daughter were present; the men told the woman that if she didn't do whatever they wanted, they would rape and then murder her daughter. The woman engaged in sex with both men multiple times, putting up no resistance whatsoever, and obviously being fully aware of what was going on.

Again...should this in any manner, shape, or form be considered "consensual sex"? Of course not. You'd have to be a raging misanthrope to argue otherwise.

to be fair, those words were in a different thread, and JJM 777 isn't here to defend himself. However, they are his words.

eta: I don't think anyone disagrees with what you said, but don't attack him when I'm sure he will eventually arrive. He doesn't know what he is walking into, and those words were about age of consent, not rape. I still disagree with him, but it is different.

BStrong · 22nd April 2012, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

to be fair, those words were in a different thread, and JJM 777 isn't here to defend himself. However, they are his words.

It's a variation on a theme he has been posting since at least my join date here, so posting it in this thread isn't out of line, imo.

I can't say it enough - like age stat rape cases are a rare exception, not the rule.

I don't see any reason for lowering the AOC based on those cases.

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

It's a variation on a theme he has been posting since at least my join date here, so posting it in this thread isn't out of line, imo.

I can't say it enough - like age stat rape cases are a rare exception, not the rule.

I don't see any reason for lowering the AOC based on those cases.

OK- my opinion mirrors yours, but you seem to speak with authority. Where are your stats from?

BStrong · 22nd April 2012, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

OK- my opinion mirrors yours, but you seem to speak with authority. Where are your stats from?

Retired LEO, 15 years on a municipal PD, 75,000 m/l population.

I was born and raised in the area, and except for military service and offshore work, have lived in this area for several decades.

Like age stat rape was absolutely not anywhere on our enforcement priority list.

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Retired LEO, 15 years on a municipal PD, 75,000 m/l population.

I was born and raised in the area, and except for military service and offshore work, have lived in this area for several decades.

Like age stat rape was absolutely not anywhere on our enforcement priority list.

I wasn't questioning your professional opinion (like I said I already agreed with you) but I wanted to see some numbers to put it into perspective. Maybe numbers of stat rape cases in California by county?

TheGoldcountry · 22nd April 2012, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Like age stat rape was absolutely not anywhere on our enforcement priority list.

Why did you get so defensive AFTER I told you I agreed with you and just wanted to see some numbers?

BStrong · 22nd April 2012, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Why did you get so defensive AFTER I told you I agreed with you and just wanted to see some numbers?

I wasn't intending to be hostile at all - I wanted to make it as clear as possible that in the jurisdiction where I served, like age stat rape wasn't even on the radar.

As far as public statistics, they're not online wrt juvenile cases, but conviction information is public to the extent that an individual can request information from the county - I'm unaware if such records are or could be broken down as to age of the offender.

I am sure that convictions can be broken down as to the specific penal code 261 section IIRC for stat rape:

http://www.sanmateocourt.org/midx/

keyfeatures · 22nd April 2012, 10:51 PM

Edited by kmortis:

Removed graphic text

mijopaalmc · 22nd April 2012, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

to be fair, those words were in a different thread, and JJM 777 isn't here to defend himself. However, they are his words.

eta: I don't think anyone disagrees with what you said, but don't attack him when I'm sure he will eventually arrive. He doesn't know what he is walking into, and those words were about age of consent, not rape. I still disagree with him, but it is different.

No, the words were about explicitly what consent is. Another poster had asked him to define consent and that is the definition he proffered.

psionl0 · 22nd April 2012, 11:17 PM

Consent means whatever a trial judge says it means and that meaning can change from trial to trial.

keyfeatures · 22nd April 2012, 11:26 PM

Legality is not morality.

mijopaalmc · 22nd April 2012, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Consent means whatever a trial judge says it means and that meaning can change from trial to trial.

Oh...I get it now...you're trolling.

psionl0 · 22nd April 2012, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Oh...I get it now...you're trolling.

Address the arguer much?

mijopaalmc · 23rd April 2012, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Address the arguer much?

Only when the arguer's arguments have been thoroughly dealt elsewhere in the thread.

JJM 777 · 23rd April 2012, 01:28 AM

> Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it.

Things can be said more or less precisely. "The earth is round" is true or not true, depending on how precise you assume that the statement is intended to be. The earth is approximately round, but nowhere near a perfect ball shape.

A more precise version of the same:

> Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it. An exception is cases where the person is warned and threatened not to resist. In that case third parties cannot know if the person would have consented or not in the absence of threats, and we can only legally assume that he/she would not have consented.

Tsukasa Buddha · 23rd April 2012, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

> Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it.

Things can be said more or less precisely. "The earth is round" is true or not true, depending on how precise you assume that the statement is intended to be. The earth is approximately round, but nowhere near a perfect ball shape.

A more precise version of the same:

> Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it. An exception is cases where the person is warned and threatened not to resist. In that case third parties cannot know if the person would have consented or not in the absence of threats, and we can only legally assume that he/she would not have consented.

I find it funny you were complaining about antiquated definitions in the other thread, but you are describing old Common Law. The problem with the "resistance" requirement is that it is not realistic:

Quote:

Recent studies94 have shown that active, demonstrable resistance of the type required by the common law, the Model Penal Code, and the pre-1981 California statute, is an atypical response to rape. Re- searchers have discovered that victims who resist their assailants have a greater chance of suffering serious bodily injury than those victims who do not resist.95 Additionally, the majority of women faced with violent assaults, such as rape, will not resist their assailants, but instead will "freeze" in a state of shock, and may appear to cooperate with their assailants. For these reasons, the resistance requirement should be eliminated from rape law because it is unrealistic and may threaten the
rape victim's life.

Linky.

You are essentially shifting the burden of proof in a way we don't do with any other crimes.

JJM 777 · 23rd April 2012, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

> An exception is cases where the person is warned and threatened not to resist.

The problem with the "resistance" requirement is that it is not realistic
(...)
You are essentially shifting the burden of proof in a way we don't do with any other crimes.

OK, add to the definition:
> Another exception is cases where a person is criminally assaulted in a way that he/she has a reason to refrain from showing restraint in fear of it triggering more violence.

Besides, I am not talking about how to prove something in court. I just defined consent. If you want to talk about proof, indeed rape is the only serious crime where people are routinely convicted without any actual proof, in a word against word setting, two people telling a different story and no witnesses to prove the case.

mijopaalmc · 23rd April 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

OK, add to the definition:
> Another exception is cases where a person is criminally assaulted in a way that he/she has a reason to refrain from showing restraint in fear of it triggering more violence.

Besides, I am not talking about how to prove something in court. I just defined consent. If you want to talk about proof, indeed rape is the only serious crime where people are routinely convicted without any actual proof, in a word against word setting, two people telling a different story and no witnesses to prove the case.

What happend to "rape victims should accept that they are being raped and go with the flow to avoid being traumatized"?

crimresearch · 23rd April 2012, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Address the arguer much?

Have you provided anything else to address?

crimresearch · 23rd April 2012, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

OK, add to the definition:
> Another exception is cases where a person is criminally assaulted in a way that he/she has a reason to refrain from showing restraint in fear of it triggering more violence.

Besides, I am not talking about how to prove something in court. I just defined consent. If you want to talk about proof, indeed rape is the only serious crime where people are routinely convicted without any actual proof, in a word against word setting, two people telling a different story and no witnesses to prove the case.

Convictions for other crimes based on circumstantial evidence are not that uncommon.

I Ratant · 23rd April 2012, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open
Imagine one of those women you walked away from alleges rape and it goes to court, the second the prosecution asks you for the legal definition of consent and you say "I have my own", thats where you lost the case
I know you're a pretty sensible guy and this is unlikely to happen to you, but we're not the only two engaged in this thread

.
That's where the video cameras come in very handy..
"Consent all the way, yer honor, that evening!"

psionl0 · 23rd April 2012, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Have you provided anything else to address?

Yes.

22nd April 2012, 07:11 PM	#1
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,271	Define Consent. I've been a viewer of many threads on rape, sex, yadda ya. I have even posted one of the most disturbing porn videos ever in the entire universe to the JREF chat. (I swear someone else did it.) What, to you, defines consent?
	__________________ Visit me at Unbridled Chaos. For funsies. There's Watson pix involved. Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

22nd April 2012, 07:25 PM	#3
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Oh, Holy Hell!!!!
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

22nd April 2012, 07:28 PM	#4
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,918	I always keep plenty of copies of this form in my nightstand. (PDF warning)
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

22nd April 2012, 07:33 PM	#6
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Originally Posted by JJM 777 Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

22nd April 2012, 07:35 PM	#7
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc well, I was waiting for that but I didn't know it would be that quick where is he? btw
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten Last edited by TheGoldcountry; 22nd April 2012 at 08:08 PM.

22nd April 2012, 07:18 PM	#2
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by RemieV I've been a viewer of many threads on rape, sex, yadda ya. I have even posted one of the most disturbing porn videos ever in the entire universe to the JREF chat. (I swear someone else did it.) What, to you, defines consent? There has to be a meeting of the minds involved. If someone is too imparied, too imature, or mentally incompetent, there can be no such meeting.

22nd April 2012, 07:32 PM	#5
dirtywick Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,719	Same things as old people wear as underwear.

22nd April 2012, 07:38 PM	#8
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,811	I certainly cannot come up with a comprehensive answer, but there's at least one component to it that I'd say is crucial -- the ability to revoke that consent. For example, for people involved in BDSM, it is a fairly common practice to have a safe word; so they grant consent to have pain and humiliation inflicted upon them, but retain the right to stop it at any point by use of the safe word. I'd consider that, from a legal perspective, such activities should be considered legal prior to use of the safe word, but if the safe word is used, must stop immediately, or they are now acting without consent. In the context of the thread on having sex with someone who's very drunk, I'd say that this means that even if someone who is drunk consents to sex, if they reach a point where they would no longer be able to revoke that consent (ie. they are unconscious, or unaware of what is happening to them), then it is wrong to continue. I grew up in the "no means no" culture, where a man must stop if a woman says no, regardless of how hot-and-heavy things may have gotten. She may have intentionally led you on, even explicitly stated her desire to have sex with you, stripped off all your clothes, and commenced coitus...but if she changes her mind, and says "no", then all consent has been revoked, and if you continue, it is non-consensual sex. Again, implicit in this kind of perspective is the assumed ability to revoke consent, at any point. Now, things get tricky sometimes...such as the woman who says "no", but actually means "yes". I've faced this a few times myself, with a woman who said, apparently seriously, "No, stop that"...but then when I stopped, got upset with me, because what she actually wanted was for me to make more effort to seduce her. So the question of the exact dividing line between consent and non-consent...that is hard to define, perhaps impossible to define in an absolute manner. But that the person involved must be in a position to retain the ability to revoke consent, that is something that I consider to be fairly fundamental, and far easier to determine. If they are unconscious, or unaware of what they are doing, then you must stop. Period.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

22nd April 2012, 07:39 PM	#9
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by RemieV I've been a viewer of many threads on rape, sex, yadda ya. I have even posted one of the most disturbing porn videos ever in the entire universe to the JREF chat. (I swear someone else did it.) What, to you, defines consent? Remie, I don't know about the legal definition, but I think two people can make a rational decision without bringing in lawyers and signing a contract. I've told you on the other thread, if I've ever been in doubt (as a man) I pulled the covers over the woman and walked away. I never wanted any question the next morning.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

22nd April 2012, 07:56 PM	#10
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry Remie, I don't know about the legal definition, Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a full appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions, with the individual being in possession of all of his faculties (not mentally retarded or mentally ill), and his judgment not being impaired at the time of consenting (by sleepiness, intoxication by alcohol or drugs, other health problems, etc.). NSFW http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/dic...ormed_consent/ Originally Posted by Wolfman I certainly cannot come up with a comprehensive answer, but there's at least one component to it that I'd say is crucial -- the ability to revoke that consent. For example, for people involved in BDSM, it is a fairly common practice to have a safe word; so they grant consent to have pain and humiliation inflicted upon them, but retain the right to stop it at any point by use of the safe word. I'd consider that, from a legal perspective, such activities should be considered legal prior to use of the safe word, but if the safe word is used, must stop immediately, or they are now acting without consent. In some countries, like the UK, where you cannot under any terms consent to be assaulted, one partner consenting to acts which would constitute assault are still illegal, the police would arrest both partners, one for assault, one for compliancy. very famous case where the police arrested several gay bdsm practicioners who they originally thought must have been murdered because apparently no one would willingly consent to those acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner
	Last edited by Marduk; 22nd April 2012 at 08:03 PM.

22nd April 2012, 08:02 PM	#11
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by Marduk Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a full appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions, with the individual being in possession of all of his faculties (not mentally retarded or mentally ill), and his judgment not being impaired at the time of consenting (by sleepiness, intoxication by alcohol or drugs, other health problems, etc.). NSFW http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/dic...ormed_consent/ Thanks, Marduk. I'm already well aware of the legal definition. I was defining my own moral view, which happens to fall inside the purview of the legal authorities. Is there anything else you would like to share? ETA: I realize that I said "I don't know" but that was only an attempt to get the subject off the legal definition, and personally describe what I thought was right and wrong.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten Last edited by TheGoldcountry; 22nd April 2012 at 08:04 PM.

22nd April 2012, 08:06 PM	#12
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry Is there anything else you would like to share generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open Imagine one of those women you walked away from alleges rape and it goes to court, the second the prosecution asks you for the legal definition of consent and you say "I have my own", thats where you lost the case I know you're a pretty sensible guy and this is unlikely to happen to you, but we're not the only two engaged in this thread
	Last edited by Marduk; 22nd April 2012 at 08:13 PM.

22nd April 2012, 08:16 PM	#13
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by Marduk generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open I understand that VERY WELL. My point was that I have a personal moral and ethical view, and that's what I WISHED TO DISCUSS. If you aren't interested, I won't be offended if you ignore me. In the meantime, rest assured that I am well aware of the legal distinctions, and only desire a sincere conversation between men and women about what is acceptable when it comes to sex, especially with someone you have just met. Please join in.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

22nd April 2012, 08:21 PM	#14
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by Marduk generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open Imagine one of those women you walked away from alleges rape and it goes to court, the second the prosecution asks you for the legal definition of consent and you say "I have my own", thats where you lost the case I know you're a pretty sensible guy and this is unlikely to happen to you, but we're not the only two engaged in this thread If it comes to that, many women I've met in my life can allege rape. Should I be frightened and avoid women altogether?
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

22nd April 2012, 08:23 PM	#15
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Come up with some real life scenarios rather than the kind of boogie man stories that morons like Rush Limbaugh propose.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

22nd April 2012, 08:27 PM	#16
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry where is he? btw He lives in Finland which is 6-9 hours ahead of the US, so, when this thread was posted, it was the middle of the might there.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

22nd April 2012, 08:29 PM	#17
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc He lives in Finland which is 6-9 hours ahead of the US, so, when this thread was posted, it was the middle of the might there. I wasn't waiting for a literal answer, I just knew that he would weigh in on this topic eventually, and send it off the rails.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

22nd April 2012, 08:33 PM	#19
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by Wolfman Okay...didn't see this... ...and allow me to say, what an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant argument. I attack a woman, with a knife in hand, which I put at her throat. I tell her that I am going to have sex with her, and that if she puts up any resistance at all, I will slit her throat. She has full knowledge of what is going on, and doesn't resist at any point. Can I therefore argue that it was "consensual sex"? One of the most ignorant and ill-founded arguments I've seen in this debate. Hell, I don't even need to use a threat of force against her. I remember a case a number of years ago where two men forced themselves into a home where only a mother and her young daughter were present; the men told the woman that if she didn't do whatever they wanted, they would rape and then murder her daughter. The woman engaged in sex with both men multiple times, putting up no resistance whatsoever, and obviously being fully aware of what was going on. Again...should this in any manner, shape, or form be considered "consensual sex"? Of course not. You'd have to be a raging misanthrope to argue otherwise. to be fair, those words were in a different thread, and JJM 777 isn't here to defend himself. However, they are his words. eta: I don't think anyone disagrees with what you said, but don't attack him when I'm sure he will eventually arrive. He doesn't know what he is walking into, and those words were about age of consent, not rape. I still disagree with him, but it is different.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten Last edited by TheGoldcountry; 22nd April 2012 at 08:37 PM.

22nd April 2012, 08:39 PM	#20
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry to be fair, those words were in a different thread, and JJM 777 isn't here to defend himself. However, they are his words. It's a variation on a theme he has been posting since at least my join date here, so posting it in this thread isn't out of line, imo. I can't say it enough - like age stat rape cases are a rare exception, not the rule. I don't see any reason for lowering the AOC based on those cases.

22nd April 2012, 08:43 PM	#21
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by BStrong It's a variation on a theme he has been posting since at least my join date here, so posting it in this thread isn't out of line, imo. I can't say it enough - like age stat rape cases are a rare exception, not the rule. I don't see any reason for lowering the AOC based on those cases. OK- my opinion mirrors yours, but you seem to speak with authority. Where are your stats from?
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

22nd April 2012, 08:49 PM	#22
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry OK- my opinion mirrors yours, but you seem to speak with authority. Where are your stats from? Retired LEO, 15 years on a municipal PD, 75,000 m/l population. I was born and raised in the area, and except for military service and offshore work, have lived in this area for several decades. Like age stat rape was absolutely not anywhere on our enforcement priority list.

22nd April 2012, 08:55 PM	#23
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by BStrong Retired LEO, 15 years on a municipal PD, 75,000 m/l population. I was born and raised in the area, and except for military service and offshore work, have lived in this area for several decades. Like age stat rape was absolutely not anywhere on our enforcement priority list. I wasn't questioning your professional opinion (like I said I already agreed with you) but I wanted to see some numbers to put it into perspective. Maybe numbers of stat rape cases in California by county?
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

22nd April 2012, 08:57 PM	#24
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by BStrong Like age stat rape was absolutely not anywhere on our enforcement priority list. Why did you get so defensive AFTER I told you I agreed with you and just wanted to see some numbers?
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

22nd April 2012, 09:13 PM	#25
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry Why did you get so defensive AFTER I told you I agreed with you and just wanted to see some numbers? I wasn't intending to be hostile at all - I wanted to make it as clear as possible that in the jurisdiction where I served, like age stat rape wasn't even on the radar. As far as public statistics, they're not online wrt juvenile cases, but conviction information is public to the extent that an individual can request information from the county - I'm unaware if such records are or could be broken down as to age of the offender. I am sure that convictions can be broken down as to the specific penal code 261 section IIRC for stat rape: http://www.sanmateocourt.org/midx/

22nd April 2012, 11:03 PM	#27
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry to be fair, those words were in a different thread, and JJM 777 isn't here to defend himself. However, they are his words. eta: I don't think anyone disagrees with what you said, but don't attack him when I'm sure he will eventually arrive. He doesn't know what he is walking into, and those words were about age of consent, not rape. I still disagree with him, but it is different. No, the words were about explicitly what consent is. Another poster had asked him to define consent and that is the definition he proffered.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Last edited by mijopaalmc; 22nd April 2012 at 11:08 PM.

22nd April 2012, 11:17 PM	#28
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,788	Consent means whatever a trial judge says it means and that meaning can change from trial to trial.

22nd April 2012, 11:26 PM	#29
keyfeatures Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: My head Posts: 420	Legality is not morality.

22nd April 2012, 11:30 PM	#30
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Originally Posted by psionl0 Consent means whatever a trial judge says it means and that meaning can change from trial to trial. Oh...I get it now...you're trolling.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

22nd April 2012, 11:55 PM	#31
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc Oh...I get it now...you're trolling. Address the arguer much?

23rd April 2012, 12:11 AM	#32
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Originally Posted by psionl0 Address the arguer much? Only when the arguer's arguments have been thoroughly dealt elsewhere in the thread.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

23rd April 2012, 01:28 AM	#33
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	> Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it. Things can be said more or less precisely. "The earth is round" is true or not true, depending on how precise you assume that the statement is intended to be. The earth is approximately round, but nowhere near a perfect ball shape. A more precise version of the same: > Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it. An exception is cases where the person is warned and threatened not to resist. In that case third parties cannot know if the person would have consented or not in the absence of threats, and we can only legally assume that he/she would not have consented.

23rd April 2012, 02:06 AM	#34
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,918	Originally Posted by JJM 777 > Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it. Things can be said more or less precisely. "The earth is round" is true or not true, depending on how precise you assume that the statement is intended to be. The earth is approximately round, but nowhere near a perfect ball shape. A more precise version of the same: > Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it. An exception is cases where the person is warned and threatened not to resist. In that case third parties cannot know if the person would have consented or not in the absence of threats, and we can only legally assume that he/she would not have consented. I find it funny you were complaining about antiquated definitions in the other thread, but you are describing old Common Law. The problem with the "resistance" requirement is that it is not realistic: Quote: Recent studies94 have shown that active, demonstrable resistance of the type required by the common law, the Model Penal Code, and the pre-1981 California statute, is an atypical response to rape. Re- searchers have discovered that victims who resist their assailants have a greater chance of suffering serious bodily injury than those victims who do not resist.95 Additionally, the majority of women faced with violent assaults, such as rape, will not resist their assailants, but instead will "freeze" in a state of shock, and may appear to cooperate with their assailants. For these reasons, the resistance requirement should be eliminated from rape law because it is unrealistic and may threaten the rape victim's life. Linky. You are essentially shifting the burden of proof in a way we don't do with any other crimes.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

23rd April 2012, 12:35 PM	#35
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha > An exception is cases where the person is warned and threatened not to resist. The problem with the "resistance" requirement is that it is not realistic (...) You are essentially shifting the burden of proof in a way we don't do with any other crimes. OK, add to the definition: > Another exception is cases where a person is criminally assaulted in a way that he/she has a reason to refrain from showing restraint in fear of it triggering more violence. Besides, I am not talking about how to prove something in court. I just defined consent. If you want to talk about proof, indeed rape is the only serious crime where people are routinely convicted without any actual proof, in a word against word setting, two people telling a different story and no witnesses to prove the case.

23rd April 2012, 01:13 PM	#36
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Originally Posted by JJM 777 OK, add to the definition: > Another exception is cases where a person is criminally assaulted in a way that he/she has a reason to refrain from showing restraint in fear of it triggering more violence. Besides, I am not talking about how to prove something in court. I just defined consent. If you want to talk about proof, indeed rape is the only serious crime where people are routinely convicted without any actual proof, in a word against word setting, two people telling a different story and no witnesses to prove the case. What happend to "rape victims should accept that they are being raped and go with the flow to avoid being traumatized"?
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

23rd April 2012, 01:17 PM	#37
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by psionl0 Address the arguer much? Have you provided anything else to address?
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618