Another case of Australia's sexual consent law

If you're going to put the man in prison, I think there needs to be some evidence that the woman was clearly saying no with no possibility of ambiguity.

There's a BIG difference between a man who has sex with a woman after she first led him on but then says "No, I don't really feel like it", versus a woman who screams "No! No! Get off me! I don't want this!" multiple times. It's not just words, it's her body language too. The woman making some effort to try to push the man off her is going to be very different from the woman acting like she's enjoying it.

 

I think if you stick your dick in someone where there is possible ambiguity your guilty of rape. Maybe I am more discerning than you about who I stick my dick in!

 

That is where the controversy comes into play with these sort of consent laws.

Should the woman be the one who gets the benefit of the doubt, or the man?

 

As a man I accept that I have a responsibility not to stick my dick into anything that does not give clear and unambiguous consent! It is your dick, learn to keep it under control!

 

Do you think the woman here had some responsibility to have done some things that she didn't do?

 

And there is your problem, it is your attitude to women, I imagine that you see a woman as someone who needs to be talked into sex, I see a woman as a full and equal partner who if she wants sex will not be ambiguous about it and does not have to be talked into it. Frankly if I had to talk a woman into it I would rather have a wank watching some porn.

 

No none, I would of just got in the taxi and chalked it up to experience, but then again I tend to have sex with women who I have formed some type of relationship with and have never had a taxi waiting!

 

Guess the ancient art of "seduction" is now as dead as the Dodo, no man should engage in sex with a woman unless two independent witnesses are present from start to finish, maybe also film it from multiple angles just to be on the safe side.

 

It happens much more often than you think. All the more so in marriages.

If the roles were reversed, how many women would ever be prosecuted/convicted in this sort of situation?
None, zero.

Man meets woman on sex hook-up site, woman comes to his home, while the man's mother is there, woman goes into man's bedroom, man claims he said no, but sex happens anyway, man puts up no resistance, the sex is less than pleasant and afterwards man says he feels violated.

 

Maybe you just do not meet the right women. Or maybe you just are not that appealing to women.

 

If the feminists get their way, even a man who is married is going to have to get his wife to sign a consent form in the presence of two witnesses everytime before it is safe for him to have sex.

 

Sounds a bit rapey to me.

 

I can see that, but that still doesn't automatically mean it was rape, or should be legally treated as rape.


The woman claimed she said "no", but maybe she is misremembering. Maybe she said something a little bit different, which meant no to her, from her perspective, but was not interpreted as meaning no to the man.
That sounds to me like that could have easily been the case in this type of situation.

It sounds like she may have said no and then just gave in and reluctantly had sex.
That wouldn't be quite the same thing as rape.

 

Do not stick your dick in a woman unless she clearly says yes, not hard is it? Excuse the pun!

 

Wow just wow, I am so glad I never married!

 

While that may ideally be the case, I do not believe it is fair to punish a man who did not follow that wisdom as if he has committed rape.

It's absurd and unrealistic to expect a man to be able to get an explicit "yes" out of a woman each and every time before sex proceeds.

That can create a complication with interpreting the woman's testimony if she later claims she did not consent to the act. She could be correctly claiming she said (or didn't say) one thing, but have still tacitly given her consent through her actions and body language in that specific situation. That's why it's so important that the woman should have to make it absolutely and unambiguously clear that she doesn't want sex. The woman put herself in a somewhat compromising situation here. This wasn't a total stranger who randomly approached her while she was walking down a dark alley, minding her own business.

If a man's going to go to prison for an alleged rape, the law should at least require the woman to be totally and completely lying about the whole thing for that to be able to happen.

 

No that is not ideally the case that is always the case, otherwise its rape!

 

It's really not.

 

Mate I got some bad news for you, seduction is bullshit, if she wants to have sex with you she will and if she don't she wont. No woman ever went to bed with you cause you bought her a bunch of flowers and played Barry Manalow to her!

 

"Meaning the man can still be guilty of sexual assault even if the woman did not clearly say no."

Then a woman should still be able to be guilty of sexual assault even if a man did not clearly say no

 

Most men do not specifically and literally ask if they can have sex with the woman the first time they have sex with her.
That can be a little awkwardly and excessively forthright, and ruin the romantic mood.

The woman typically invites the man in other ways, which are less direct.

If she does not want to have sex, and the man keeps persisting, she will do something to make that clear, and make it even more clear if he doesn't take the hint after that.

 

Yes, but we know that never happens.

No woman would be prosecuted in this situation, if the genders were reversed here.

 

It is a given, that any event, described by anyone, is not objective, "truth," but only that person's perspective & interpretation. That doesn't come into play, here, IMO. While I agree with you that allowing a woman to charge rape in cases when she never actually said, "stop," or, "don't," or, "no," is very problemmatic, this is not one of those cases. From your recounting of the case, it seems undisputed that the woman said that she did not want to have sex with the taxi-driven, Mr. Wonderful.

Naturally, I understand that such protestations, elsewhere, are not necessarily indications of rape, can even be part of foreplay; but if that is Australian law of which, presumably, both sexes are aware, any woman who does not put into words her desire to have sex, should fully expect to not get any. And any Australian man with any sense-- though I can understand the way this would put a cramp into spontaneous friskiness-- should recalibrate his come-on to make sure it includes satisfying the legal requirements of this new, over-the-top law. But if, instead, one chooses to play with fire...

Absurd or not, it somehow became the law. So unless & until that changes, men will either need to adapt, or else risk prison. Many condom-adverse men faced a comparable conundrum, during the height of the AIDS epidemic.

 

Calling a fellow poster this ^
BTW, pretty sure you are libeling a female.

 

The point of this thread is that the whole concept behind this Australian law is flawed.

Maybe the woman did not actually say the specific word "no", and that is just what she is remembering.

Human memory (especially female memory, in these sort of situations) is often not exactly perfect.
I don't doubt that she said something that gave the message of "no", but how strong or serious of a "no" that was we don't actually know. And then it seems like the woman didn't really put up any resistance or protests after that, which could have been seen by the man as invitation, or an "okay", like she was giving in.