Access Denied
It was like that when I got here...
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 2,552
Hmm I'm not so sure Lady Stern has really and truly thought this through properly.
Now here's the disclaimer. I think all rapists should have their genitals slowly erased with a soldering iron. All rape claims should be treated seriously and investigated thoroughly. Victims of rape should feel comfortable coming forward to report the crime.
Now then, the point. Lady Stern has said this:
1:
2:
My first point would be that sex is still a very private thing. Despite it being plastered all over ad campaigns, TV and Movies. Very few people are going to want to broadcast the fact that they're going to have sex. Therefore it will be very difficult for a man to prove that the woman has said yes. Say a woman, drunk or not says yes, they have sex and then something happens; they fall out, she regrets it or anything and she decides to cry rape. It's her word against the mans word that she said yes.
Also, since the man hasn't said yes does that mean she's guilty of raping him? If this is made law I can just see the amount of false rape claims being made out of spite, attention seeking etc and it'll be harder for the innocent to prove as such.
Finally, I firmly believe that if a man is accused of rape his identity should be protected until he is found guilty. Simply because of the effect it has on the lives of those innocent men who've been accused. How many times have we heard of a man being accused of rape and being threatened, spat at, beaten, had their property vandalised etc. Even after being cleared with the accuser admitting they made it all up.
Your views?
Now here's the disclaimer. I think all rapists should have their genitals slowly erased with a soldering iron. All rape claims should be treated seriously and investigated thoroughly. Victims of rape should feel comfortable coming forward to report the crime.
Now then, the point. Lady Stern has said this:
1:
Men must not be able to use the fact they were drunk as an excuse for any confusion over consent
2:
She insisted that regardless of how well couples knew each other, clear consent had to be obtained before sex and that a man could not assume that a woman had agreed.
She added: "I don't think there is any ambiguity. You can't have sex with someone who hasn't said yes and that is it. There is no grey area
My first point would be that sex is still a very private thing. Despite it being plastered all over ad campaigns, TV and Movies. Very few people are going to want to broadcast the fact that they're going to have sex. Therefore it will be very difficult for a man to prove that the woman has said yes. Say a woman, drunk or not says yes, they have sex and then something happens; they fall out, she regrets it or anything and she decides to cry rape. It's her word against the mans word that she said yes.
Also, since the man hasn't said yes does that mean she's guilty of raping him? If this is made law I can just see the amount of false rape claims being made out of spite, attention seeking etc and it'll be harder for the innocent to prove as such.
Finally, I firmly believe that if a man is accused of rape his identity should be protected until he is found guilty. Simply because of the effect it has on the lives of those innocent men who've been accused. How many times have we heard of a man being accused of rape and being threatened, spat at, beaten, had their property vandalised etc. Even after being cleared with the accuser admitting they made it all up.
Your views?