Upload
Login or register
x

Handy guide for everyone..

Handy guide for everyone... everyone as in, people who had sex, and people who didn't have sex. You can thank tumblr for the latter. imgur.com/gallery/wmgGsoS.

everyone as in, people who had sex, and people who didn't have sex. You can thank tumblr for the latter.

imgur.com/gallery/wmgGsoS

Tags: Rape | tumblr | sex
l/ / id; IT Did you hove sex
Were you old
enough to consent
in this state
Were you unable
do um.“ ..ilt,' s" , t, elli. Lorre". Tiggle to ogre's to have sex
rule. If you lisin, . be or VIC" III 9
Ir you we tav:: usea LII 4
Were you forced .
to have sex, with
violence or threats an
indias it abulous (or
alt did the other person
know) that you were
to agree
Did you consent
ddid you agree Q
or Mow it to take plot: e)
Did the other person
know you were haying
sex against your will
But you didn' t
actually my not an .
t It - other let)
Eu new ? pl p But WU
Items Wro ngl? didn' t
DOESNT DD ASNT "g'
But you' re
not the that? MATTER MATTER
But you
But others we kept it to ME
saying it wag fame? of
it righr rowdy?
...
+517
Views: 18990
Favorited: 71
Submitted: 01/09/2016
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to sequel

Comments(119):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
12>
[ 119 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
113 comments displayed.
Reply
-65
#3 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
By this logic Bill Cosby didn't rape anyone.


It's a simple graph: Did you have sex without your consent?
yes - rape

no - not rape
Reply
0
#88 to #3 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
>Bill Cosby gives woman Quaaludes it has been shown for some cases with their consent
>Proceeds to have sex (there's a puddin' pop joke here somewhere)
>Woman talks to lawyer and decides that she can get a settlement out of it
>Lawyer talks to others who have allegedly slept with Cosby
>Lawsuits in full force
>Many women found out to be liars liars pants on fires
>While allegations are still thrown around, it has yet to be proven that Cosby actually raped anybody

His charges aren't even for rape. They range from unwanted sexual contact to aggravated indecent assault (different from rape in that no penetration occurred). Most of the women who cried rape have been discredited. While Cosby is a complete dirtbag and total scum for how he treats women, he's most likely not a rapist. Just a really creepy dude who uses his fame to get women to sleep with him and makes overly aggressive advances.

He should be locked up, but not for rape.
Reply
+93
User avatar #12 to #3 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
>oversimplifying a complex issue
This is why you're an anon.
Reply
-8
User avatar #52 to #12 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
it's really not that complicated, statuary rape does not exist, their is either consent or no
Reply
+1
#92 to #52 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
>Can't even spell statutory
>Thinks his retarded opinions matter

Go back to watching your animoe ******** and leave complex issues to functional members of society.
Reply
-1
#94 to #92 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
>functional members of society
>anon
>funnyjunk

Reply
0
#116 to #94 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
>Implying anon is adding anything to the conversation but to point out how pathetic you are

You know there is a high correlation between low IQ and inability to admit ignorance. You must have been part of that sample.
Reply
0
User avatar #65 to #52 - mrwalkerfour ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
do you understand what statuatory rape is?

its when an underage person consents to sex with an adult. the underaged person cannot legally consent therefore consent wasn't given therefore it's rape..

so long as child laws exist then stuatory rape exists
Reply
-5
User avatar #66 to #65 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
First of all, child, is preteen, most "satuatory" cases are with teenagers, who have hit puberty, in other words, biological adulthood. This is by definition, NOT pedophilia. My point is that the "age of consent" varies immensely, state to state, and even around the world. 13, 16, 18 whatever. It's completely arbitrary. This cannot be called truth. It's nonsense.

Consent is consent. But political correctness and whathaveyou.
Reply
+2
User avatar #68 to #66 - mrwalkerfour ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
it doesnt matter if theyve hit puberty. have you ever seen what happens when a 13 year old has to have a kid? their bodies might have hit puberty that doesnt mean they are fully adults. they can have serious complications

and mentally a teenager is nto ready to be consenting to sex with grown adults, by making that legal you would make it perfectly okay for a 13 year old to be ****** by a 30 year old. we didnt make child protection laws a thing jsut to be a bummer on pedos you know.

if you want to **** a a kid that makes you a pedophile. its not political correctness its called having some damn deceny.
Reply
-3
User avatar #69 to #68 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
Children aren't teenagers. Teenagers aren't children.
I'm merely stating facts. Reason, logic, not emotion.

Does the truth not matter?
Reply
+1
User avatar #83 to #69 - mrwalkerfour ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
clearly it doesnt by your arguement. heres the truth. logical facts all of which you can cite

by LAW, it is illegal to have sexual relations with an under 18 (in the USA)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

sex at an early age has health risks and adult on child sex is very dangerous for the child as their body is not yet grown enough to accomodate the larger adult body www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3326801.html

pregnancy below the age of 15 can have serious health complications, the baby can be deformed due to not having the space to grow inside the mothers small body. often the baby will be still born, which has massive mental trauma on young mothers often without C-section the mother is at a very high risk of dying during labour.
www.webmd.com/baby/guide/teen-pregnancy-medical-risks-and-realities

wanting to have sex with an under 16 year old is pedophilia. you are a pedophile for wantinjg to **** a young teen. you can try to do mental arithmatic to justify it but you are by definition a pedophile for wanting sexual relations with a young person.
www.google.co.uk/search?q=pedophile+definition&oq=pedophile+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.3919j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

a child as defined in the dictionary is a person below the legal age (18 in this case) so if you live in america and you are ******* someone below 18, you are having sex with a child, by definition that is pedophilia, and statuatory rape
Reply
-2
User avatar #85 to #83 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
law =/= truth
Social norms in any time or age, are just that; social norms.
They change with time, and are therefore, impossible to call the truth.
Reply
0
User avatar #87 to #85 - mrwalkerfour ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
as long as parents and decent human beings exist sex with young adults will always be frowned upon. it has been for hundreds of years. its a falshood that this is a modern view. the average marrying age for hundreds of years was 16 to 24. it has never been normal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#History_and_social_attitudes

*note in these days marrying = finally having sex, as sex before marriage was rare and very much frowned upon

"the ideal marrying age for a man is 30, and he should take a wife that is 5 years past puberty" The ancient Greek poet Hesiod in Works and Days (c. 700 BC)
so 5 years after puberty is roughly 16 at minimum, more liekyl 17-18.

2700 years ago they considered ******* teens degenerate, and you think this is just a social norm thatll change soon? have fun waiting. the only people whove considered it okay to **** young teens are backwards tribes and goat ******* .

and if you feel like it should be your right to **** kids, go to a mroe enlighted part of the world, such as the middle east,. they consider it perfectly normal to have sex with any age, regardless of gender or even species sometimes. im sure youll consider them to be much more advanced than us.
Reply
-1
User avatar #89 to #87 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
I'm speaking from an evolutionary persepctive, and a biological one. And your argument is always about small facets of Western Society, this does not actually pertain to the entirety of world history.

Either way, this primitive species will get left behind eventually. When humanity plus comes, hopefully the first thing to die are all of these delusions.

The only truth is the scientifically objective one.
And furthermore, you ignorant twat

the institution of marriage did not always exist in the first place
You know nothing.
Reply
0
User avatar #95 to #89 - mrwalkerfour ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
and here comes the insults. youve lost this arguement. youre crying about humanity plus now and calling humans primitive. the fact youre calling humans primitive on the internet. ...which was invented by humans if i'm not mistaken... very primitive yes

and news flash you are a human, so by your logic youre also primitive. nice way to talk about yourself you dumb cunt
Reply
-1
User avatar #97 to #95 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
I have lost nothing. The truth is the truth.
Humans are primitive, yes, this is the truth.
My problem, is that people don't embrace the truth.
If it is not true, it does not matter. That includes your feelings, and political correctness.

Humanity is in decline, IQ, even the average brain size.
Try as I might, I see nothing redeeming in this species.

If humans believe the truth doesn't matter, then humans do not matter.
If some humans believe the truth is all that matters, then those are the only humans that matter.

So no, what you say doesn't matter to me unless it's true, based on science, and not just based upon fickle morality.
Reply
0
User avatar #110 to #98 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
Talking to this guy... Doesn't it just make you wanna strangle someone?
Reply
0
User avatar #100 to #98 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
My only advice to you is to stop being a product of your surroundings and start actually thinking for yourself, and realizing that the truth and what you want to believe are not the same things. Adjust yourself to the truth, don't try to adjust the truth to you. Then, and only then will you be human and not parasitic scum.
Reply
0
#73 to #69 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
I did stupid **** when I was a teenager. I regret about 60% of the things I did
Reply
-1
User avatar #76 to #73 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
And you'll continue to do stupid things, because most people, are ******* stupid. People would prefer a world without freedoms. All for a false sense of security. I look forward to continually losing mine. not.
Reply
0
User avatar #91 to #66 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
>puberty
>biological adulthood
kek

Sexual maturity, sure. Not adulthood.
Reply
0
User avatar #93 to #91 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
It's biological adulthood for a majority of mammals. Adolescence, is when most creatures "leave the nest". Do you realize how quickly, and how short the healthy time span for a woman to give birth is? Once women hit 30, the level of danger and error in offspring starts to curve upward quite uncomfortably. They have 15 or so years of prime fertility.

Contrary to popular belief, our bodies evolved a certain way.
To deny this, to deny the very basic essence of what makes us human,
is pure insanity.

But not even I am extreme, for all intensiveness purposes, I think the legal age for adulthood, majority, consent, alcohol, smoking, marriage and so on. Should be 16.

That is post puberty for at least 3 years.
Furthermore, since post pubescent aren't taught to be adults

its why we have so many dumbasses
Reply
0
User avatar #103 to #93 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
Adult is when your body has fully matured, which is around the age of 25.
Reply
0
User avatar #105 to #103 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
Wrong. Adolescence is a necessary period of growth to increase the odds of survival, growth takes immeasurable amounts of energy, therefore, growing too quickly would require too much food which would lower chances of survival, furthermore, women, are only fertile for so long. They quite literally, have a small window of a little more than a decade to safely and best reproduce. To say that the age of 25 of adulthood, even though parts of the human body continue to "develop" long after, some forever even (the nose) is absolute insanity and not biologically accurate.

Reply
0
User avatar #106 to #105 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
For the sake of my sanity, please answer these two questions:

1. How old are you?
2. Do you have some kind of mental condition and/or autism?
Reply
0
User avatar #108 to #106 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
I could ask you the same questions, I had assumed you were logical, but like the rest, you're just a PC bitch who cares more about your whore feelings than actuality.
Reply
0
User avatar #112 to #108 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
So you're either a teen, an autist, or maybe even both. In which case, may god have mercy on your soul.

I'll be putting you on Hide All now, as I'm quite frankly sick of seeing you spew your ******** all over FJ. I really hope you get the whole "social" thing down at some point, and join the rest of us as productive members of society.

Toodles.
Reply
0
#113 to #112 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
Reply
0
User avatar #109 to #108 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
Not answering my question indicates you do have some form of autism
Reply
0
#67 to #66 - atomschlumpf (01/10/2016) [-]
No one even mentioned pedophilia. Are you thinking of your lolis again?
Reply
+1
#71 to #67 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
Children were mentioned, but teenagers are not children. Words have meaning.
We're talking about statutory rape which generally deals with teenagers.
Therefore... ugh, nevermind, I might as well be talking to "children"
Reply
+1
#75 to #71 - atomschlumpf (01/10/2016) [-]
lol yeah, just admit you fell into your old "defending pedophilia" program
Reply
0
User avatar #79 to #75 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
The problem is that people don't even know what pedophillia means.
Or what many words mean. So when they talk, all I hear is stupid.
Reply
0
User avatar #111 to #79 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
Are you sure that's not just an echo?
Reply
0
User avatar #61 to #52 - ameercat (01/10/2016) [-]
There is LITERALLY a minimum age that someone is allowed to legally consent to sex, if they are under that age, it's statuary.
Reply
-5
User avatar #63 to #61 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
Depends on the state, and country. It's completely arbitrary ******** .
Reply
+2
#72 to #63 - jujuface (01/10/2016) [-]
I think you need another graph for this one
>What country are we in - United States
>Is there a minimum age of consent in every state here - Yes
>Is there a law that clearly describes the definition of statutory rape - Yes
>Would it be statutory rape to have sex with a 12 year old even if he/she consents - Yes

"Depends on the state"
"Arbitrary ******** "
"Their either is consent or no"

Doesn't matter. Still statutory rape. And it does exist. It's not up for debate. You can disagree with the law, but it exists.
Reply
0
#82 to #72 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
It exists as a law, not as a truth. It is the law, but not the truth. Furthermore, I implied that it did not exist as rape, not that it did not exist. A law could state that all apples are oranges, but this would still not be the case.

Have you ever read George Orwell essay on Political English?
It's easy to understand what he meant when he said if you control the language you control the people.

But when people talk, not even they understand what most words mean.
Reply
+1
#84 to #82 - jujuface (01/10/2016) [-]
>It exists as a law, not as a truth. It is the law, but not the truth
Truth is objective, existence is not. It's your opinion that statutory rape isn't "true" but that doesn't make you right in claiming it doesn't exist. There's only one counter to that - and it sounds about as dumb as your premise. Yes it is the truth. Because I said it is.

> I implied that it did not exist as rape, not that it did not exist.
You're either bad at making implications through text, or you're changing your argument because you realized how asinine it was.

>when people talk, not even they understand what most words mean
>"Their either is consent or no"
>"Their"
Clearly.


Reply
0
User avatar #86 to #84 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
>the truth is objective
No it is not. Everything boils down to science. Biological adulthood is puberty. Therefore, adults are post pubescent.
Salutatory rape is on the same level as withdrawing consent, or saying that two people were drunk, but only the man is a rapist.

It is not logical, it is not accurate, and it is utter nonsense. When I say there is no such thing what I mean is that there is no such thing. There are no other words for me to use for this.

You're arguing semantics.
Reply
0
User avatar #58 to #52 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
No **** , but getting to "there is (not) consent" is not so simple as asking, and anyone who claims so is a retard.

Not surprised you'd say so, though.
Maybe you should become an anon
Reply
-1
User avatar #64 to #58 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
That's why we have innocent until proven guilty despite what feminists would have you believe. In other words you need evidence. No evidence. No case. But in a world of political correctness and one that hates men, doesn't matter; you're a rapist. Consent itself is consent. If consent isn't consent, then anything and nothing can be consent.

Our world is full of doublethink.
Reply
0
User avatar #90 to #64 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
That's an amazing load of bull right there

You say some good things about evidence, but then you go right back to talking about consent as some easy-to-define thing. How do you know when you have consent?
Reply
0
User avatar #96 to #90 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
Yes means yes. Or does it also mean no?
Yes means no? No means yes.

We have to draw the line and define things somewhere. If consent is not consent.
Then consent is meaningless. Everything meaningless. Words mean everything, words mean nothing.

Your argument is a load of bull.
Reply
0
User avatar #101 to #96 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
God, you're taking this in directions that aren't even relevant.
I'm not talking philosophical "X is X and not not X" crap.

I'm talking when does guy B know that girl A consents?
Stop masturbating to your own philosophical thoughts and get down to earth, yo freak of nature.
Reply
0
User avatar #102 to #101 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
Yo, when she says yes, if that wasn't clear enough for you. Yes should mean, yes.
You don't seem to understand logic.
Reply
0
#104 to #102 - testaburger (01/10/2016) [-]
What if she never says yes, but indicates that she wants it? you ******* dumbass. Do you not know that normal human relations are like 90% implicit?

******* hell, turn down the autism a bit.
Reply
0
User avatar #107 to #104 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
Then you have been given consent, but not actually received consent.
In other words, had you recorded the whole thing, you would be liable for charges, the latter you would not. This is the point of yes means yes.
Dial up the logic.
Reply
+29
#38 to #3 - assholy (01/10/2016) [-]
This is you right now
Reply
+112
#4 to #3 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
1. Bill Cosby was accused of drugging people in order to have sex with them (i believe, dont really care that much about his case).
2. This graph includes sex while drugged as rape.
3. ???
4. By this logic Bill Cosby totally raped people. Not sure what you're on about.
Reply
+6
#8 to #4 - ohhh ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
Although i am not aware if there is any evidence against bill, i must point out that if there is not, he should, by law, be considered innocent. The simple number of accusers should not be enough to throw someone in jail. And the day it is, is the day i lose all faith in the court system.
Reply
+8
User avatar #10 to #8 - ImmortalBaconEater (01/10/2016) [-]
He testified in court to giving women he planned to sleep with over the counter sleeping medication (qualudes). These are quite powerful and can easily knock someone out in under 15 minutes or impair their memory to the point of having little memory of their actions. It should be noted, though, that at the time qualudes were commonly used as recreational drugs. If you managed to stay awake on them it was apparently quite fun. There is no clear evidence as to whether cosby intended to knock the girls out or to do drugs with them for fun. That being said, it is generally considered to be a pretty bad thing to **** someone when they are as ****** up as that. Qualudes are not the equivalent of having a few drinks. Most sensible people do not try to **** people they have never had sexual relations with on this many drugs. It is generally considered a scummy thing to do and a generally bad idea.
Reply
0
User avatar #26 to #8 - platinumaltaria (01/10/2016) [-]
Don't be silly, in the current year a woman's accusation is a death sentence.
Reply
0
User avatar #81 to #8 - dreygur (01/10/2016) [-]
Isn't it pretty damn difficult to actually prove/disprove rape cases in the first place?
Reply
0
User avatar #74 to #8 - infinitereaper (01/10/2016) [-]
That's not how the world or our society works unfortunately.
All men are rapists, all women gets slap on the wrists.
The truth doesn't matter.

FJ is a pretty good example of that.
Reply
0
#28 to #8 - CircusFire (01/10/2016) [-]
This is what cause me to lose faith in our court system.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/05/no-jail-for-teen/5242173/
Reply
0
User avatar #118 to #28 - sonicschall (19 hours ago) [-]
He was on probation, which is a much bigger punishment than prison.
You have to follow the law to the letter, or you're gonna go to jail.
He was given the sentence knewing that at one point, the kid would **** up.

And guess what?
He did and tried to run to Mexico. He got caught and will probably do time.
Reply
+50
#11 - theruinedsage (01/10/2016) [-]
One point though Statutory rape is a horrible, horrible term. Having sex with a 17 year old lying about their ago because they desperately want to have sex is incomparable to forcing someone who clearly doesn't want to have sex with you. In my country we call it sex with a minor. Perfectly sums it up, without implying it's rape.
One point though

Statutory rape is a horrible, horrible term.
Having sex with a 17 year old lying about their ago because they desperately want to have sex is incomparable to forcing someone who clearly doesn't want to have sex with you.

In my country we call it sex with a minor. Perfectly sums it up, without implying it's rape.
Reply
0
User avatar #51 to #11 - greyhoundfd (01/10/2016) [-]
But that's not Statutory Rape. Statutory Rape applies to cases where a person of the age of consent had sex with a minor despite knowing their age, and more often than not used their age or position as a way to force a minor to voluntarily have sex with them. That's why most cases where someone had sex with a minor, while they themselves were a minor, but were prosecuted for statutory rape because the sex continued when they came of age are thrown out.
Reply
0
User avatar #56 to #51 - comicsansisback (01/10/2016) [-]
"In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher" I don't know about anywhere else than the US though
Reply
0
User avatar #60 to #56 - greyhoundfd (01/10/2016) [-]
That's distressing.
Reply
0
User avatar #62 to #60 - comicsansisback (01/10/2016) [-]
I think it's retarded but oh well
Reply
0
#59 to #11 - Darkrin (01/10/2016) [-]
Whenever I hear about statutory rape I also think about Rob Lowe and what happened to him. **** almost ended his career.
Reply
-3
#21 to #11 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
"incomparable"

> Literally just compared the two to assess they're too different to be compared
Reply
+4
#22 to #21 - theruinedsage (01/10/2016) [-]
incomparable ɪnˈkɒmp(ə)rəb(ə)l/Indsend adjective 1. without an equal in quality or extent; matchless. **** off anon
incomparable
ɪnˈkɒmp(ə)rəb(ə)l/Indsend
adjective
1.
without an equal in quality or extent; matchless.

**** off anon
Reply
+2
User avatar #29 to #22 - chaosraptor (01/10/2016) [-]
if anons knew when to **** off we'd pretty much never see them comment

Reply
0
User avatar #18 to #11 - freshestprince (01/10/2016) [-]
That's not statutory rape. If they lie about their age then adult cannot be at fault because the facts did not cross the law as they knew it.

Statutory rape is actively and knowingly engaging in sexual activity with someone below the legal age of consent. The person below consenting age can be "consenting" and may have even instigated the relations, but knowing they were underage and actively engaged in the act is gonna land a prison sentence on some sex crazed dumbass who should have known better.
Reply
+1
#30 to #18 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
No, ignorance of their age does not hold up in court. It will be counted as statutory rape.

It is why theruinsage brought it up. It is to harsh, sex with a minor does perfectly sum up what people would be upset about. Rape implies a much harder and harsher event.

There are too many instances where statutory rape would be applied where sex with a minor would cover the offence.
Reply
0
User avatar #32 to #30 - freshestprince (01/10/2016) [-]
Except there have been cases thrown out or rather conviction overturned because this was the case. Granted it's not gonna be a simple case of "I swear I thought they were 18" kind of evidence, but a minor in a bar drinking, showing a convincing fake ID would have a baseline for a case to be dismissed.

Although I guess some places don't even allow for statutory rape cases to even have this kind of defence.
Reply
+4
User avatar #23 to #11 - funpunk (01/10/2016) [-]
In a lot of states 16+ is legal. The media makes it seem like if you **** a 17 year old anywhere in America you're officially a rapist.
Reply
+1
User avatar #24 to #23 - theruinedsage (01/10/2016) [-]
15 year olds can be quite assertive as well. 17 was just an example.
Reply
+3
#25 to #24 - funpunk (01/10/2016) [-]
True. Not sure how ethical older people intentionally having sex with a 15-year-old is, but it's almost 16. I guess it's ok under some conditions. I'm 16 and I've heard stories about teens going to jail for sexting. It's so easy for innocent people to end up in jail these days.
Reply
+21
#1 - echsa (01/09/2016) [-]
**** logic literally
Reply
+9
#36 to #1 - klille ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
Reply
+2
#37 to #36 - echsa (01/10/2016) [-]
no dick?
Reply
+7
#31 - dislikinator ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
This part is quite a snakepit, though. It can, for example, be that two people were too drunk to notice that the other person was drunk.
Reply
0
User avatar #55 to #31 - paddypancake (01/10/2016) [-]
it says was it obvious or did the other person know. Either means that it would be rape. So if it is being judged as obvious it doesn't matter whether the assailant knew or not that the other person was unable to agree.
Reply
+11
#34 to #31 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
If both parties are drunk, and knowingly agree to have sex, it is not rape.
Reply
0
#57 to #34 - fjlawyer (01/10/2016) [-]
If you're in the UK and the female is drunk, the male has committed rape, as rape is only male on female in English law, and a female cannot consent to sex whilst intoxicated.

This is regardless of whether he was sober or drunk, although the Courts tend to interpret the 'reasonably believed consent' in s1(1)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 if he is also drunk.
Reply
+7
User avatar #13 - coolioshades (01/10/2016) [-]
Im a student studying law for policing.. and
in Canada we dont have "rape" charges in our criminal code. Instead we have "sexual assault" which is an extension of assault.
Assault is defined in the C.C.C canadian criminal code as applying force directly or indirectly to a person without consent
Basically if you touch someone sexually that is considered sexual assault and is the same charge as if you actually penetrated them. Of course sentencing will be more severe if you actually penetrate but the actual charge is the same on paper.
So yes you could be charged for "rape" without actual penetration or oral.
Reply
0
User avatar #15 to #13 - paddypancake (01/10/2016) [-]
You wouldn't be charged for rape though. The charge would be sexual assault. So you couldn't get charged for rape without actual penetration/oral.
Reply
+3
User avatar #16 to #15 - coolioshades (01/10/2016) [-]
There is no provision for rape in the Canadian Criminal Code. Hence why I put "rape" in quotations.
In Canada rape is defined as secual assault
Reply
0
User avatar #17 to #16 - paddypancake (01/10/2016) [-]
Ah yeah i missed the quotation marks. Changes the entire sentece of course.
Reply
+5
#19 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
I'm pretty sure this whole "third wave feminism" ******** is actually just Anonymous manipulating weak-willed bandwagoning women in an attempt to create the biggest troll they've ever pulled off.
Reply
+4
#27 - biebergotswag (01/10/2016) [-]
did you have sex?

no
Reply
+2
#42 to #27 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
masturbation is self-rape
Reply
+3
User avatar #44 - drzix (01/10/2016) [-]
This post feels incomplete without a sting of tumblr comments below saying how this post is awful and the worst thing produced by humanity.
Reply
0
User avatar #20 - BraindeadBuddha (01/10/2016) [-]
Okay, so penetration is necessary for "Rape" but, sexual assault is still pretty bad and people who do it (like many of those people in Germany y'all are so fond of pointing out) oughtta be castrated I don't give a **** whether there was penetration or not.
Reply
0
User avatar #33 to #20 - warzon (01/10/2016) [-]
Whole 'nother graph.
Reply
0
#78 to #33 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
Whole another graph. What.
Reply
0
User avatar #115 to #78 - warzon (01/11/2016) [-]
Yes.
Reply
-1
#70 to #20 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
People who say y'all should be castrated.
Reply
+3
User avatar #14 - paddypancake (01/10/2016) [-]
I think step 6 is abundant. Step 5 already makes clear that not saying no while being able to agree means its ok . If you neither agree with nor allow it to take place (aka struggle in any way, say you refuse and so on) and it still takes place its rape. I mean every rapist could just say " ah i didn't notice that she/he didn't want it " or even worse be so stupid that he/she doesn't think of a scenario that is rape as rape and that would be enough (according to this chart) to be innocent. There were some cases of guys just saying basically "I am so awesome she can't not want me" as legal defense. If they firmly believe this the chart would excuse them though any reasonable legal system wouldn't.
Looks good besides that i think.
Reply
0
#50 to #14 - Kingsly (01/10/2016) [-]
I think it's the catch for giving no negative or any form of resistance in cases of implied consent.
You're out with someone, you take them home, they invite you in, after multiple steps sex occurs, but they never actually consented.
Reply
+1
User avatar #53 to #50 - paddypancake (01/10/2016) [-]
Step 5 says: "did you (...) or allow it to take place"
So a no in that question means you resisted in some way. If you would do nothing (after passing the first requirements, able to do decisions and so on) according to step 5 having sex would be ok.
Reply
0
#114 to #53 - Kingsly (01/11/2016) [-]
I must have just skimmed over the parenthesis, you're completely right.
Reply
0
#43 - kaimietis (01/10/2016) [-]
Did you have sex? YES
Were you forced to have sex? NO
Did you consent? NO

How the **** is this even possible? You didn't consent and weren't forced but had sex anyway?
Reply
+2
User avatar #45 to #43 - doomtaker (01/10/2016) [-]
Example: Girl is drugged, she cannot legally consent to sex. Doesn't need to be forced, in her drugged out state she can't, legally, consent.
Reply
+1
#47 to #45 - kaimietis (01/10/2016) [-]
Ok, so I missed the following questions:
Were you unable to agree? YES
Was it obvious? NO

Then it leaves us a very specific case that a girl was somehow unable to express disagreement while looking and behaving normally thus making it dubious. And yet there is another question after that - did the other person magically know you were having sex against your will?

My point is - the graph has logical flaws.
Reply
0
User avatar #117 to #47 - doomtaker (01/11/2016) [-]
I don't disagree with that, it does have its flaws.
Reply
+1
#54 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
Except in the Uk, where the worst a girl can do to a guy is 'penetrative sexual assault'
Reply
+1
User avatar #46 - jittersfj (01/10/2016) [-]
Damn this is a pretty well done, unbiased, and down the middle chart about rape.
Reply
+1
#41 - anon (01/10/2016) [-]
This guide is made for *********** and ******* only, trust me I'm white - my actions are based on usage of brain, not primitive instinct, I dont need this.
Reply
0
User avatar #99 to #41 - sequel [OP](01/10/2016) [-]
You do if you ever get near a SJW.
Reply
+1
User avatar #7 - Shiny ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
I think whether the person was important to you should also be mentioned, since it's not uncommon for domestic abusers to rape their spouses and manipulate them into accepting it through emotional attachment. This goes for male and female rapists.
Reply
0
#39 - nineinchesdeep (01/10/2016) [-]
I GON GIT ME DEM GATORS
Reply
0
User avatar #119 - coldclaws (12 hours ago) [-]
There doesn't need to be actual penetration to classify as sexual conduct. I was hoping someone would point that out.
Reply
0
User avatar #80 - Hawke (01/10/2016) [-]
This is the most triggering post I've ever seen on this website.

OP you are a ******* ********
Reply
0
#77 - numbmind ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
GIF
**numbmind used "*roll picture*"**
**numbmind rolled image**This will come in handy on the many occasions i have sex... cause that happens to me all the time don't you know.
Reply
0
#48 - jdizzleoffthehizzl (01/10/2016) [-]
Every time we have Sexual assault briefings at my base I always bring this up in a shortened manner and every time I get held up and briefed about how I have to agree with it or else. Forget the fact I'm married and very much in love with my wife though
12>
[ 119 comments ]
Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

No entries found.
<
>
 Friends (0)