Can't we all just get along?

[gumboot]

Look at the bolded part

I did. It's irrelevant. The law you cited was specifically for cases where no consent was given. I asked about a circumstance in which consent was given.

 

[Matteo Martini]

This sentence makes no sense.

That lack of objection does not mean consent by itself.

Where in the phrase

"but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent"

Does it mention "coercion, not under drugs, etc.,etc."?

They are mentioned in the links I provided you

It means exactly what it says. I require the woman to consent.

How?
Signed paper?
Saying "yes"?
Do we need witnesses?

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]

I agree with all the links you have provided.
Please, tell me where it is written that lack of explicit consent means lack of consent.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I did. It's irrelevant. The law you cited was specifically for cases where no consent was given. I asked about a circumstance in which consent was given.

Ah!
You mean "active consent", like saying, please make love?
Then, I can not answer as it would be a derail from the OP, where we all agree that explicit consent was not given, and I would be suspended (again, for the third time).
And, you do not want that, do you?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Depends on how you see it.

Not really, you are the only one that seems able to interpret it the way you are. A bit like 9/11 truthers seem to be the only ones that interpret Silverstein's "pull it" comment to mean the buildings rather then the firefighting effort.

Is being underage negative/positive, or not not being adult negative/positive?

False dichotomy. Being a minor is a negitive, they can't consent, but being an adult is a neutral. They can consent, but just being an adult doesn't mean they do.

Please, detail what you mean by "presence of something else", in detail, what this "something else" should be, and post a relevant link to back what you claim.

I have already pointed out what is needed. The person having said yes via either words or actions at some point previous with the understanding that, that yes is in effect at the time of the sex.

Try reading up here, it's for Teens so it should be in languge you can understand

Note a few things:

The only way to know for sure if someone has given consent is if they tell you.

Here are some ways body language can let you know if the person you're with is not comfortable with what is happening

• Not responding to your touch

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'll tell you what, I will if you will, okay?

Provide evidence that if a person is on drugs, and consents to sex, it is not consensual. Please link to the law that states this. Once you've done this I'll cite the relevant aspects of the cases I have cited.

I bet I will have to wait a while for you to cite, right?

 

[gumboot]

I agree with all the links you have provided.
Please, tell me where it is written that lack of explicit consent means lack of consent.

Oh so now you want to argue about the definition of consent, do you?

Jesus wept. Are those goalposts heavy?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Not really, you are the only one that seems able to interpret it the way you are. A bit like 9/11 truthers seem to be the only ones that interpret Silverstein's "pull it" comment to mean the buildings rather then the firefighting effort.

Off-topic

False dichotomy. Being a minor is a negitive, they can't consent, but being an adult is a neutral. They can consent, but just being an adult doesn't mean they do.

Off-topic

I have already pointed out what is needed. The person having said yes via either words or actions at some point previous with the understanding that, that yes is in effect at the time of the sex.

I am curious..
How do you say "yes" with actions (in a legally binding way)?

Try reading up here, it's for Teens so it should be in languge you can understand

Note a few things:

Bet you could not find a better link, right?
"The only way to know for sure if someone has given consent is if they tell you.".
So, any sexual intercourse where any of the two partners does not tell the other "I want to have sex" is potentially a rape?
Wikipedia does not state that, nor any serious link I could find.
Please, provide a serious link who backs this claim.
Also, I would be curious how things can be held in court:

Man: She told me "yes".
Woman: I did not

Do we need a paper, witnesses?

 

[gumboot]

I bet I will have to wait a while for you to cite, right?

Only as long as it takes you to satisfy my request.

 

[gumboot]

That lack of objection does not mean consent by itself.

So why do you keep claiming it does?

They are mentioned in the links I provided you

That's not what I asked. I asked where they were mentioned in the specific phrase in question.

How?

However the case law or legislation of the jurisdiction in question has decided.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Oh so now you want to argue about the definition of consent, do you?

Jesus wept. Are those goalposts heavy?

If the woman was (legally speaking) consentient or not is what we are talking about since, er.., pages ago. (beginning of this thread, I assume).

 

[gumboot]

If the woman was (legally speaking) consentient or not is what we are talking about since, er.., pages ago. (beginning of this thread, I assume).

You claimed it was not rape unless either
A) The victim resisted
B) The victim did not resist, but one of a number of factors was present (such as the victim was under duress)

I cited you three examples of countries (New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada) in which the above is false, and rape is defined solely sexual action without consent - resistance or lack of resistance simply does not enter into it.

Now you want to argue about what constitutes consent. You've just rejected your own argument.

It's simple.

Either
A) In her scenario, Fiona consented to sexual intercourse
B) In her scenario, Fiona was raped

If you cannot provide evidence that Fiona consented, she was raped. Period.

As you well know, we have already been over this, and you have already made it clear you do not think Fiona consented. Now you say you agree with the laws of the New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Under the laws of New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada Fiona was raped.

So you agree Fiona was raped?

Good.

 

[Matteo Martini]

So why do you keep claiming it does?

It does not, if the victim is underage, drugged, under coercion, disable..
Do we agree?

That's not what I asked. I asked where they were mentioned in the specific phrase in question.

Evidence from the link of Wikipedia/State of Florida is not good enough, for you?

However the case law or legislation of the jurisdiction in question has decided.

Is there any jurisdiction where having sex with a woman who does not say no, does not object sex, is not under drugs, is not underage, etc.. is rape? Evidence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Off-topic

No, it's pointing out how irrational you are being.

Off-topic

How is a direct answer to your question off topic? Or did you just not like the answer?

I am curious..
How do you say "yes" with actions (in a legally binding way)?

Well if you can't figure that out you really do have problems, in my, admitedly limited, experience it's pretty obvious when a woman is saying yes with actions. It's also obvious when they don't.

Bet you could not find a better link, right?

Wrong, it was the very first link on Google.

"The only way to know for sure if someone has given consent is if they tell you.".
So, any sexual intercourse where any of the two partners does not tell the other "I want to have sex" is potentially a rape?

They don't have to say "I want to have sex" this is a total fabrication by you. There are many different ways to let your partner know your intent, even without words.

Wikipedia does not state that, nor any serious link I could find.

Wikipedia doesn't say what consent is, it says what it isn't

Please, provide a serious link who backs this claim.

That was a seious link, just because it disagreed with you doesn't make it no.

However, try this. Seems that the UK Home Office believes that Consent is active acceptance not passiveness:

A Home Office spokeswoman said the issue of consent was central to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which stated that a person must agree to sex by choice and that must have the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

"Giving consent is active not passive, and it's up to everyone to make sure that their partner agrees to sexual activity," she said.

Or how about this from the UK Law Commision

2.12 We recommend that, for the purpose of any non-consensual sexual offence,
(1) “consent” should be defined as a subsisting, free and genuine agreement to the act in question; but
(2) the definition should make it clear that such agreement may be
(a) express or implied, and
(b) evidenced by words or conduct, whether present or past.

You really need more?

Also, I would be curious how things can be held in court:

Man: She told me "yes".
Woman: I did not

Do we need a paper, witnesses?

This issue is already in front of the court on a regular basis. Perhaps the best idea is to make sure that she really is saying yes, then you don't have to worry about it being in front of a court.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You claimed it was not rape unless either
A) The victim resisted
B) The victim did not resist, but one of a number of factors was present (such as the victim was under duress)

I cited you three examples of countries (New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada) in which the above is false, and rape is defined solely sexual action without consent - resistance or lack of resistance simply does not enter into it.

All the links I have provided you show that when the person does not say no, does not object sex, is not under drugs, is not under age, is not coerced in any way, is not disabled, he/she is not non-consensual (implied consenT)

Now you want to argue about what constitutes consent. You've just rejected your own argument.

It's simple.

Either
A) In her scenario, Fiona consented to sexual intercourse
B) In her scenario, Fiona was raped

If you cannot provide evidence that Fiona consented, she was raped. Period.

She was not non-consensual (implied consent).

As you well know, we have already been over this, and you have already made it clear you do not think Fiona consented.

Where did I?

Now you say you agree with the laws of the New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Under the laws of New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada Fiona was raped.

So you agree Fiona was raped?

Good.

No.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No, it's pointing out how irrational you are being.

How is a direct answer to your question off topic? Or did you just not like the answer?

Off-topic

Well if you can't figure that out you really do have problems, in my, admitedly limited, experience it's pretty obvious when a woman is saying yes with actions. It's also obvious when they don't.

Please, define legally how you would define if a woman has given consent with actions, and why do not say to the guy "go away" does not mean implicit consent,

Wrong, it was the very first link on Google.

I talk about law, you provide a link for teens

They don't have to say "I want to have sex" this is a total fabrication by you. There are many different ways to let your partner know your intent, even without words.

And, how is this defined by law?

Wikipedia doesn't say what consent is, it says what it isn't
That was a seious link, just because it disagreed with you doesn't make it no.

However, try this. Seems that the UK Home Office believes that Consent is active acceptance not passiveness:

Or how about this from the UK Law Commision

You really need more?

From your link:
"(2) the definition should make it clear that such agreement may be
(a) express or implied, and
(b) evidenced by words or conduct, whether present or past. "

Why having a guy in your bed and not saying even go away, can not be seen as implied consent?

This issue is already in front of the court on a regular basis. Perhaps the best idea is to make sure that she really is saying yes, then you don't have to worry about it being in front of a court.

Please, bring me one example of law where it is required to having the woman "really [is] saying yes". Using your own words.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It does not, if the victim is underage, drugged, under coercion, disable..
Do we agree?

No we don't. If the victim is underage, drugged, under coercion, disabled etc, they are unable to consent, but not resisting or objecting is still not giving consent even without those things. Consent is a active agreement that requires some sort of action on the part of both parties, be that explict or implied. A lack of action is not an agreement.

Evidence from the link of Wikipedia/State of Florida is not good enough, for you?

OMG! How can you so wilfully twist things into pretzels like that? Both the Florida law and Wiki agree sure, but not with you. They both say that a lack of resistance or Objection is NOT consent. Your repeated claims that it is, are utterly and totaly wrong.

Is there any jurisdiction where having sex with a woman who does not say no, does not object sex, is not under drugs, is not underage, etc.. is rape? Evidence.

Virtually every single one on the planet, and you have been given the evidence, you just seem unable and unwilling to process it.

 

[Matteo Martini]

implied consent n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered. Examples: a) a "contract" based on the fact that one person has been doing a particular thing and the other person expects him/her to continue; b) the defense in "date rape" cases in which there is a claim of assumed consent due to absence of protest or a belief that "no" really meant "yes," "maybe" or "later." (See: implied)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent

To be noted that Fiona did not even say "No".

 

[Matteo Martini]

No we don't. If the victim is underage, drugged, under coercion, disabled etc, they are unable to consent, but not resisting or objecting is still not giving consent even without those things. Consent is a active agreement that requires some sort of action on the part of both parties, be that explict or implied. A lack of action is not an agreement.

Lack of action can be seen as implied consent.
Not in the cases of being underage, under drugs, coerced, paralyzed, etc.

OMG! How can you so wilfully twist things into pretzels like that? Both the Florida law and Wiki agree sure, but not with you. They both say that a lack of resistance or Objection is NOT consent. Your repeated claims that it is, are utterly and totaly wrong.

And they enumerate the cases in which lack of resistance is not consent.
Underage, being under drugs, etc. etc.

Virtually every single one on the planet, and you have been given the evidence, you just seem unable and unwilling to process it.

So, please, provide me one serious link of law which states that a person in a condition similar to Fiona, would have been considered as being raped. Please!!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Off-topic

Interesting way of ignoring answers, declare them offtopic and then when that's rebuted, declare that off topic too.

Please, define legally how you would define if a woman has given consent with actions

There is no law that defines what has to be done to give consent, by word or actions. It seems that the law makers seem to think that people can figure out what consent is by making laws that say what it is and isn't, like

(a) "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

and why do not say to the guy "go away" does not mean implicit consent

First, She did tell him to go away, she told him he was in the wrong room, that implcity says he's not supposed to be there, and secondly, even if she hadn't. Not saying "go way" does not equal "have sex with me" in any language.

I talk about law, you provide a link for teens

The advice for teens is based on the laws and explains how to keep them.

And, how is this defined by law?

You refuse to believe how it's defined by law.

From your link:
"(2) the definition should make it clear that such agreement may be
(a) express or implied, and
(b) evidenced by words or conduct, whether present or past. "

Why having a guy in your bed and not saying even go away, can not be seen as implied consent?

How about because having a guy in your bed does not mean "I want to have sex with you" except perhaps on Planet X.

[quite]Please, bring me one example of law where it is required to having the woman "really [is] saying yes". Using your own words.[/QUOTE]

(a) "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission.

From information about Canada's Law:

What does it mean to consent to sexual activity?

To consent to sexual activity means to agree freely. The law requires that a person take reasonable steps to find out whether the other person is consenting.

Consent is an agreement. How can there be an agreement when one party doesn't say anything that indicates agreement, nor responds in any way to indicate agreement?