C'mon, admit it. It's what you did when you first met your toaster.
And sluts never say no, right?
(Except to you, of course.)
On rethinking this I think this provides a nice conclusion to the question that the OP asked.
Should women protect themselves from rape?
A: No, in fact women should be able to spend all night acting as slutty as possible and implying she is down for sex and then at the last second "sorta" say no and expect this to work out the way she wants.
So basically you are shitting on the concept of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
How exactly does one know whether she said no or not in the apartment?
You want to exclude the defense because obviously dressing like a slut and acting like a slut introduces reasonable doubt to whether she really was a slut.
So I take it you don't understand context right?
And it appears you have difficulty understand the difference between dressing like a slut means a woman is asking to be raped and saying that if a woman dresses like a slut and acts like a slut it means it is less likely that a rape actually occurred. In other words reasonable doubt a central concept of the American legal system.
Ummm, actually women should be able to do that if that's how they want to act. The fact that they cannot is unfortunate reality.
Because that guarantees she says yes? You need to get out more...in public....
How's context come in to play here? They're both acting like they want it...so obviously they do.
On rethinking this I think this provides a nice conclusion to the question that the OP asked.
Should women protect themselves from rape?
A: No, in fact women should be able to spend all night acting as slutty as possible and implying she is down for sex and then at the last second "sorta" say no and expect this to work out the way she wants.
I didn't say guarantee. I said reasonable doubt.
Its a strip club not a brothel.
I'm not talking about paying for sex, retard. We're discussing two situations where women are dressing provatively but you're not guaranteed sex.
(1) If someone said it was reasonable to put their lcd tv on their end of their driveway and expect no one would ever steal it you would think they were moron.
(2) The person doing the above is actually more sensible than the situation I described.
If you are going to spend all night pretending like you are up for sex you better make it damn clear when you decided to change your mind. No "sorta no". Unless you want to argue that words speak louder than actions, when it is usually the exact opposite.
Yes. And the context of a strip club is different than that of the woman coming back to your apartment.
If someone wanted to leave their TV on the driveway, I'd say yes they should be able to do that. It's an unfortunate reality that people take things which don't belong to them.
That's why there are laws against stealing. At the same time, these laws do not encourage "theft culture". Laws deal with reality, not fantasy.
Both don't guarantee you sex, it's apparent you've never been in the situation.
You just partied hard with a girl and she comes back to your place. You hit the mens room, she passes out on the couch, fair game bro.
I don't recall anyone mentioning her being passed out.
And if that was really the case I don't know why you would be so afraid of the defense mentioning she was wearing a short skirt while passed out on your couch.
If I was a prosecutor I would love the defense to say that. "Ladies and gentleman of the jury my client came out and saw the accuser passed out in his couch wearing a short skirt and proceeded to have his way with her. And since the skirt didn't fit you must acquit."
You really think a jury would buy that?
Well in this case we essentially have a group of people telling women to "leave their tvs in the driveway".
If there is anyone promoting rape its feminists.
You still can't prove if she said yes or no, that's the point.
Seriously dude, you need to get out more.
And I disagree with the feminists who are saying women shouldn't have to take any steps to protect themselves.
However it sounds like you're saying that if a woman acts like a slut, then she better be ready to put out at the end of the night.
It's not insane that it's necessary either.
There is a defense against murder, it's called self-defense. In an ideal world, nobody would kill each other. But in the real world it happens. Sometimes it happens for a reason for which we choose not to punish the killer. There are laws set up to define when self-defense is and is not acceptable. That's not insane.
So it's not insane to define the parameters under which rape is acceptable (never) and what an allowable defense is. We have chosen to disallow revealing clothing as an excuse. Is mental incompetence a defense for rape? Should we be throwing people with an IQ of 50 in prison for rape? Or do we define reasonable defenses?
That's how the law works, nothing insane about it.
It's not insane that it's necessary either.
There is a defense against murder, it's called self-defense. In an ideal world, nobody would kill each other. But in the real world it happens. Sometimes it happens for a reason for which we choose not to punish the killer. There are laws set up to define when self-defense is and is not acceptable. That's not insane.
So it's not insane to define the parameters under which rape is acceptable (never) and what an allowable defense is. We have chosen to disallow revealing clothing as an excuse. Is mental incompetence a defense for rape? Should we be throwing people with an IQ of 50 in prison for rape? Or do we define reasonable defenses?
That's how the law works, nothing insane about it.
If a guy admits to screwing a girl he just met who is literally passed out on the couch that seems like pretty damning evidence against him to me.
And I'm not sure why you are bringing up being able to prove whether she said yes or no to as if that helps you. The burden of proving rape is on the prosecution. If their is ambiguity to consent that would seem to constitute reasonable doubt.
I am saying if you spend all night acting like yes and then want to change it to a no at the last second she should be damn clear. Which is why I specifically mentioned "sorta no".
There is a pretty big difference between saying:
"I'm not having sex with you you fucking creep" and "I don't really know if we should do this". Use you imagination.
Wait a minute. Your argument is "hey, murder is acceptable sometimes, such as for self defense, so maybe the same is true of rape." But then you say that rape is never acceptable (which I agree with), which completely undermines your entire comparison. Certain defenses are acceptable in murder trials because there are certain situations where killing a civilian is not murder. There is never a situation where having sex with someone who has not consented is not rape. Consequently, what she was wearing shouldn't have to be defined as "not admissible;" we should understand that it's not admissible because someone's fashion is never an excuse for rape, because there is literally never a valid excuse for rape.
And so that lack of reasons is codified, just as the legitimate reasons for murder. That's not insane. However this conversation is.
You've assumed someone like that would even admit to it.
So what now, the clothes she's wearing and the fact that she went to your place isn't reasonable doubt?
To point out why the clothes she's wearing is not a reason, follow along here.
Sure, there's a difference, but neither one means yes...The first will probably be followed by a call to the police, the second will probably start a conversation. But, still, either of those doesn't not mean yes.