Topic: If a womans drunk and gives a guy blowjob
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #44,684
and claims that she was forced to blow him is it still rape?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 59 seconds later[^] [v] #589,968
Not if she swallowed the evidence.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #589,972
I think that it might be sexual assault
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #589,979
@previous (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
But if its the other way around, the man may have been drunk, but everything was consensual right?
But if its the other way around, the man may have been drunk, but everything was consensual right?
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 33 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #589,990
@previous (B)
Oh now I see what you're saying. I think that it would depend on what she means by forced.
Oh now I see what you're saying. I think that it would depend on what she means by forced.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #590,008
What location
In the UK probably not but it depends;
In relation to these offences [in the Sexual Offences Act 2003) a person (A) is guilty of an offence if she/he:
Section 74 defines consent as 'if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are:
The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.
In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.
Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident.
Deciding whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps (A) has taken to ascertain whether (B) consents (subsection (2) of sections 1-4). It is likely that this will include a defendant's attributes, such as disability or extreme youth, but not if (s)he has any particular fetishes.
The Act abolished the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. The defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps (s)he took to satisfy him or herself that the complainant consented in order to show his or her state of mind at the time.
The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions:
1. Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).
2. If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).
Section 75 lists the circumstances in which rebuttable evidential presumptions about the absence of consent apply. If the defendant did the relevant act, as defined in section 77 (the sexual activity within sections 1-4), and the circumstances specified in subsection (2) exist and the defendant knew they existed, then the complainant is to be taken not to have consented.
The Act imposes an evidential burden on the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence to raise an issue that the complainant consented and whether or not the defendant reasonably believed the complainant consented. The question whether the defendant adduces sufficient evidence to raise an issue to be left to a jury is a matter for the judge. The issue should be left to a jury where the evidence, if accepted, raises a prima facie case. Once the defendant has done this, it will be for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe the complainant consented.
Prosecutors should note that in practice the evidential presumptions very rarely apply.
In the UK probably not but it depends;
In relation to these offences [in the Sexual Offences Act 2003) a person (A) is guilty of an offence if she/he:
- acts intentionally,
- (B) does not consent to the act, and
- (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.
Section 74 defines consent as 'if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are:
- Whether a complainant had the capacity (i.e. the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question.
- Whether he or she was in a position to make that choice freely, and was not constrained in any way. Assuming that the complainant had both the freedom and capacity to consent, the crucial question is whether the complainant agrees to the activity by choice.
The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.
In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.
Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident.
Deciding whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps (A) has taken to ascertain whether (B) consents (subsection (2) of sections 1-4). It is likely that this will include a defendant's attributes, such as disability or extreme youth, but not if (s)he has any particular fetishes.
The Act abolished the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. The defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps (s)he took to satisfy him or herself that the complainant consented in order to show his or her state of mind at the time.
The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions:
1. Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).
2. If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).
Section 75 lists the circumstances in which rebuttable evidential presumptions about the absence of consent apply. If the defendant did the relevant act, as defined in section 77 (the sexual activity within sections 1-4), and the circumstances specified in subsection (2) exist and the defendant knew they existed, then the complainant is to be taken not to have consented.
The Act imposes an evidential burden on the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence to raise an issue that the complainant consented and whether or not the defendant reasonably believed the complainant consented. The question whether the defendant adduces sufficient evidence to raise an issue to be left to a jury is a matter for the judge. The issue should be left to a jury where the evidence, if accepted, raises a prima facie case. Once the defendant has done this, it will be for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe the complainant consented.
Prosecutors should note that in practice the evidential presumptions very rarely apply.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #590,009
stop looking for loopholes, OP, and quit raping women. shit's not cool
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #590,030
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 6 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #590,052
@590,009 (squeegee)
Has she really been forced to suck a dick for 20 or so minutes though?? Pressured? Maybe, but forced is the real question.
Has she really been forced to suck a dick for 20 or so minutes though?? Pressured? Maybe, but forced is the real question.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #590,065
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #590,066
@590,052 (A)
pressuring someone to do it is a type of forcing them to do it, you can rape someone without being physically violent.
pressuring someone to do it is a type of forcing them to do it, you can rape someone without being physically violent.
The Stealth Rapist joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #590,234
Don't I know it!
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #590,237
Op what counts as force?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #590,244
@previous (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
The thing that the Jedi use.
They can use it to manipulate a person's mind, like Obi-wan did when he made that Stormtrooper let them into Mos Eisley.
The thing that the Jedi use.
They can use it to manipulate a person's mind, like Obi-wan did when he made that Stormtrooper let them into Mos Eisley.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #590,472
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)"This is not the boyfriend you are looking for"
"Suck his dick"
"Move along"