Consensual Sex App Pulled From Apple Store

[lilbabycat]

"Incapacitated" is quite different than "had a sip". The echoing and insane degree of misogyny and hatred of women in these past eight pages of post are incredibly abhorrent. Really disgusting, on so many levels. Total proof that laws like this are necessary.

Comments like "if I hadn't been able to get her drunk I'd still be a virgin" ... Wow. SMDH.

The actual quote, which you twist around like a professional feminazi:

Girls like to be able to use alcohol as an excuse to have uninhibited sex, and hell to the best of my knowledge I'd still be a virgin if no alcohol were ever involved in hooking up whatsoever. I say NAY!

And here we are again, going in circles, getting insulted for being reasonable human beings.

The law says:

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:

(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.

Please, define "recklessness" as a means of ABV.

 

[Semantics]

Defamation suits against false rape accusations have worked in the past not sure what you're talking about. Of course most of those suits have come after the accuser was caught on the record saying it was a lie, usually after some level of conviction was already instituted. It's much rarer to find a successful defamation suit to a rape case that was never taken to court or thrown out of court for lack of evidence.

 

[jimmyb]

Again, the burden of proof *always* shifts to the accused during an affirmative defense.

Agreed, however having sex is not a crime so the affirmative defense is applicable.

They follow the loose structure: "I committed this crime, but it is OK because of <excuse>".

In the case of these rape scenarios the central question is whether a crime was committed in the first place. The accused has not admitted to this; they are not trying to excuse their behavior.

You can literally find people advocating that a consent defense be made affirmative, because it currently isn't:
"What I’m proposing is that we make a small but important change to the law by making consent an affirmative defense in rape cases"
http://sashasaid.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/rape-and-consent-shifting-burdens/

For some reason it's stuck in your head that the accuser always has the burden of proof and that is false.

I don't believe that.

 

[jimmyb]

*is not applicable

(first sentence)

 

[mope54]

Is there not one damn criminal lawyer on this forum to end this damn discussion already? I mean, to shut someone down ( mope54).

and if someone steps in explaining that criminal law doesn't apply to a college disciplinary hearing, will you shut yourself down?

Certainly you're arguing that it is prima facie, but that's not historically the case, and there is nothing explicit in the law that says that would change.

In practise I guess the courts would have to make that determination.

The courts will not be making any determination of guilt since this legislation applies only to college disciplinary hearings.

The burden of proof will rest with the prosecution in a criminal case and, yes, it's always been prima facia evidence that a rape occurred based on accusation alone even in the absence of forensic evidence.

Agreed, however having sex is not a crime so the affirmative defense is applicable.

They follow the loose structure: "I committed this crime, but it is OK because of <excuse>".

In the case of these rape scenarios the central question is whether a crime was committed in the first place. The accused has not admitted to this; they are not trying to excuse their behavior.

You can literally find people advocating that a consent defense be made affirmative, because it currently isn't:
"What I’m proposing is that we make a small but important change to the law by making consent an affirmative defense in rape cases"
http://sashasaid.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/rape-and-consent-shifting-burdens/

Exactly, they are advocating that change to criminal law because victims rights advocates want to shift the burden of proof away from victims and onto defendants.

*is not applicable

(first sentence)

I understood what you meant from the context. I already explained to you the correct understanding of an affirmative defense.

There are only two defenses in a rape accusation under an affirmative consent schema:
a normal defense "I was not there so I could not have done it"
an affirmative defense "I had consensual sex with her. I obtained explicit consent by asking her if she was ok with what we were doing"

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

and if someone steps in explaining that criminal law doesn't apply to a college disciplinary hearing, will you shut yourself down?

 

[Lethal]

I haven't read this whole thread, but my initial reaction to the story is that there is no "app" that can legally allow you to give consent to sex.

 

[jimmyb]

The courts will not be making any determination of guilt since this legislation applies only to college disciplinary hearings.

Agreed.

Exactly, they are advocating that change to criminal law because victims rights advocates want to shift the burden of proof away from victims and onto defendants.

I don't disagree with that sentiment. That's not my point here. My point is that the law doesn't explicitly achieve this.

There are only two defenses in a rape accusation under an affirmative consent schema:
a normal defense "I was not there so I could not have done it"
an affirmative defense "I had consensual sex with her. I obtained explicit consent by asking her if she was ok with what we were doing"

This is your claim, but what is the evidence to support it? Why would consent-based defenses suddenly become affirmative?

 

[mope54]

This is your claim, but what is the evidence to support it? Why would consent-based defenses suddenly become affirmative?

In order to argue that you had consent you have to agree that you had sex. That's an affirmative defense.

An affirmative defense is not, "I raped her and here's why" but rather, "we had sex but it was consensual so I did not rape her" (just like the blog you cited explains).

In a self-defense case, the defendant does not say, "I killed him and here's why" but rather "I shot him but it was not murder and here's why" (again, similar to the assault case the blog you cited uses).

 

[jimmyb]

"we had sex but it was consensual so I did not rape her" (just like the blog you cited explains).

The blog explained that in the context of it not being true. The law does nothing to explicitly make it true.

As it turns out somewhere else on the internet people were having a similar conversation to us:

As far as I can tell, you couldn't make this change in the criminal law, which is part of why I think it's bad legislation. You can't make an element of the crime an affirmative defense. For example, you can't make it an affirmative defense for the defendant in a murder one trial to prove that they didn't mean to kill the victim. That's the prosecution's burden. Here, knowing that the victim didn't consent is an element of rape-- you couldn't, in a criminal context, shift that to a burden that the defendant has to prove up.

So, you're left with one of two options on interpreting this law:

1) it has little practical effect (e.g., saying "my accuser gave consent" has the same effect as saying "my accuser didn't say no" before). This reading follows an interpretation that the underlying bad act still requires proof that the accused knew that the accuser didn't consent, or

2) it has a huge effect by shifting the burden to the accused to prove that they had consent, or else face administrative action. This reading follows an interpretation that the standard for the bad act, itself, is now changed-- it's a bad act if the accused can't show that they secured consent.

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-...eans-Yes-law&p=3629854&viewfull=1#post3629854

#1 being my point, #2 being yours.

 

[DPI]

What kind of stupid law is that? Rape is already illegal. Do I have to have a notarized document in front of two other witnesses before I insert the D?

That's why videocamera. Every time. Then the chick can't decide the next morning that it was rape simply because she regrets it.

 

[jimmyb]

That's why videocamera. Every time. Then the chick can't decide the next morning that it was rape simply because she regrets it.

Does that happen a lot to you?

 

[DPI]

Does that happen a lot to you?

Except it's not about me, dullard. I've been fortunate and even the borderline crazier ones have gone away quietly after a breakup or whatever.

 

[mope54]

The blog explained that in the context of it not being true. The law does nothing to explicitly make it true.

As it turns out somewhere else on the internet people were having a similar conversation to us:

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-...eans-Yes-law&p=3629854&viewfull=1#post3629854

#1 being my point, #2 being yours.

Look up "legislative intent" and "statutory interpretation" in order to understand why #1 is not a valid reading of the legislation.

But even if it was, "saying "my accuser gave consent" has the same effect as saying "my accuser didn't say no" before" is incorrect. The effect is that "my accuser gave consent" requires the person making the claim to provide evidence of said consent whereas "my accuser didn't say no" requires the accuser to provide evidence that a sufficient no was made.

 

[jimmyb]

Look up "legislative intent" and "statutory interpretation" in order to understand why #1 is not a valid reading of the legislation.

If you want to argue intent and interpretation that's fine. I don't know how that will play out, and I don't think you can reliably know either given the variety of legal philosophies people hold.

Regardless, my point for quite some time now (and it has admittedly been refined) is that there is no explicit.

But even if it was, "saying "my accuser gave consent" has the same effect as saying "my accuser didn't say no" before" is incorrect. The effect is that "my accuser gave consent" requires the person making the claim to provide evidence of said consent whereas "my accuser didn't say no" requires the accuser to provide evidence that a sufficient no was made.

As discussed earlier I agree both parties will have to make an argument with respect to consent. The question is about burden shifting, and your claims about consent being an affirmative defense seem untrue.

In criminal proceedings (not this I guess) the burden of proving lack of consent remains on the prosecution; they cannot make consent an affirmative defense.

 

[mope54]

If you want to argue intent and interpretation that's fine. I don't know how that will play out, and I don't think you can reliably know either given the variety of legal philosophies people hold.

If you're going to keep asking me to clarify something repeatedly, the least I think you can be expected to do is look something up when I give you the specific terms.

If you had actually looked those terms up you would have learned about a specific legal principle that interprets laws as to not be ineffective. That is, legislatures don't pass laws that have no effect.

Before you go arguing about that statement, please understand it's not saying that laws may in fact not actually produce some kind of result. Instead what is means is that, when interpreting legislature, the Courts must assume that the legislature intended for it to do something.

For our discussion, you may not interpret the legislature in terms of #1. You may not interpret a law passed as ineffective and leaving the state of affairs the way they were before the law was passed--or else the legislature would have passed the law for no reason and the courts have already ruled one may not interpret a law in such a manner. (Again, this is a separate idea from the fact that people may believe that legislatures are pointless and that their laws may not amount to much).

Therefore, the law must be interpreted to do something. What is that something?

Well, as the blog you cited (and since you apparently trust that blog over my doctorate, you should forward this link to the blogger and ask for a response) points out: the current state of criminal law (and disciplinary hearings on university campuses until this legislation was passed) forced victims to recount the atrocities done to them and risk re-victimization at the hands of the judicial process when their accounts are disputed and they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their "no" was meaningful. (These are separate issues about the criminal justice system's inability to heal a victim; it's simply not functionally able to serve that purpose nor was it ever intended to. All of these problems are reasons some of us researchers promote alternative sentencing schemas like circle sentencing and other community healing processes after a crime has occurred.)

Regardless, my point for quite some time now (and it has admittedly been refined) is that there is no explicit.




As discussed earlier I agree both parties will have to make an argument with respect to consent. The question is about burden shifting, and your claims about consent being an affirmative defense seem untrue.

The burden of proof shifts already and always has. This is the concept you keep saying you understand but your statements prove otherwise.

When a woman makes an allegation that someone raped her she only has to lodge the complaint. There is nothing more for her to say. If the hearing required her to prove that she had not given consent the hearing would be adhering to the belief that consent was assumed.

We know this because you only have to prove that you withdrew consent if it's assumed. If it's not assumed consent (affirmative consent), then the person who acted against the victim's consent has to prove to the trier of fact he or she believed that consent was affirmatively given. That means the trier of fact interrogates the accused about how the consent was obtained.

This is borderline insanity that you've been arguing this all day long.

Under assumed consent legislation (the state of the law before affirmative consent became law), the everyone walks into a hearing and the trier of fact assumes that consent is in operation unless and until someone proves otherwise. That burden of proof lies on the victim, for hopefully obvious reasons. The accused is not going to try and prove that consent was withdrawn.

Under affirmative consent legislation, however, everyone walks into the hearing under the assumption that consent is not present unless and until someone proves otherwise. I don't think I can make this any more clear: affirmative consent cases require someone to prove that consent was present. Who would that burden fall on? Obviously, that burden would fall on the accused. The victim has no reason to prove that consent was given! Her initial claim that she was raped is prima facia evidence that no consent was given.

In criminal proceedings (not this I guess) the burden of proving lack of consent remains on the prosecution; they cannot make consent an affirmative defense.

Well someone better alert Ohio because they have consent as an affirmative defense on their books http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5924.120

 

[Stiletto]

It's like Iran-Iraq. Just sit back and enjoy the carnage.

 

[SGA76]

"Hi, before we go any further, I need you to verify triplicate in writing you wish to have sex. Now sign here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And while you're at it initial here, here, here and here. EULA? Just a quick thing about parenting by yourself if the condom breaks but like what are those odds right?"

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Is there not one damn criminal lawyer on this forum to end this damn discussion already? I mean, to shut someone down ( mope54).

and if someone steps in explaining that criminal law doesn't apply to a college disciplinary hearing, will you shut yourself down?
http://cl.ly/image/03443d1z0Z2K/IMG_1057.jpg

http://www.clivejames.com/files/images/cj_windows.jpg

Seriously, that's the most hilarious thing I've ever seen! My cat and I found the rest of the clueless posts in this thread so worth it for the laugh from this.

 

[Runningflame570]

While I don't think it really has anything to do with Obama (not that there aren't a litany of reasons to dislike the job he is doing), that basically was my interpretation of the law based upon the articles that I read concerning it. I did question why it specifically applied to college campuses though. If rape is illegal, shouldn't it be just as illegal everywhere within the state, not more illegal in some areas?

The app itself is/was a silly response to a silly law. Unfortunately, it looks like that is where we are heading in our society.

This is one of the few situations where thanks Obama is at least a bit appropriate. The policies he has pushed campuses to adopt when it comes to sexual assault allegations are quite frankly ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 222586]

The USA justice system worries me a lot. It seems the land of the freedom isn't such a thing, at least not anymore.

It seems nobody wants to take responsibility for anything.

Lets see: I get drunk, I found a girl that is drunk too, we have sex... and, next day, she accuses me of rape, and I get screwed for the rest of my life. Yes, lets talk about the system being fair.

Let alone the fact that "feminism" is good in any form. Good joke, that one was really good..

 

[BladeVenom]

I haven't read this whole thread, but my initial reaction to the story is that there is no "app" that can legally allow you to give consent to sex.

Exactly. She can just say she changed her mind later, and the prior consent will be meaningless.

 

[Ducman69]

Listen, its been said ad nauseum, but everyone recognizes that roofies or having sex with a unconscious or near unconscious girl is rape. Period. What we have issue with is both a guy and girl according to this law can have a couple beers, be above the .08 limit to drive, decide they want to have sex, and then the girl for whatever reason can come back and call it rape. That holds the guy to a higher standard than she holds herself under the same circumstances, and with no use of force or objection from a conscious willing participant, its only rape by today's modern feminists.

In other words, this "guilty until proven innocent" BS is going to ruin guys lives for no good reason.

 

[jimmyb]

Well someone better alert Ohio because they have consent as an affirmative defense on their books http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5924.120

If you actually read the law that you linked, you'll see that it generally doesn't apply to disputes of having consent.

"(1) "Affirmative defense" means any special defense that, although not denying that the accused committed the objective acts constituting the offense charged, denies, in whole or in part, criminal responsibility for those acts."

"(1) Lack of permission is an element of the offense under division (G) of this section. Consent and mistake of fact as to consent are affirmative defenses only to the sexual conduct in issue in a prosecution under division (B), (C), (D), or (E) of this section"

These being cases where it is clear that forced sex actually occurred, which is not what we've been talking about.

 

[chockomonkey]

So my question is:

How exactly would the accused prove consent?

 

[mope54]

So my question is:

How exactly would the accused prove consent?

The idea is that when men take the time to gain enthusiastic consent then they will be less likely to face false accusations.

If you're doing what some people in this thread appear to be advocating, getting women sloppy drunk just so they can drop their panties, then there is an opportunity for regret in the morning and feeling of being used. Avoid those kinds of behaviors and you shouldn't be walking around in perpetual fear of being falsely accused of rape.

In fact, I've never been afraid of being falsely accused of rape. But then again I don't behave like some of the posts in here seem to be suggesting they act out in public...and I've run into some fairly crazy women.

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

So my question is:

How exactly would the accused prove consent?

So what mope is saying is that you should never have sex with a stranger, ever. One night flings have no place in our current society, anymore.

 

[Ur_Mom]

In fact, I've never been afraid of being falsely accused of rape. But then again I don't behave like some of the posts in here seem to be suggesting they act out in public...and I've run into some fairly crazy women.

My ass hurts. You better call a lawy.... oh, wait.

Didn't some kid get shot by the dad when he walked in on his daughter and the kid doing it, and she claimed she was being raped? That's who the law needs to protect men from. The crazy bitch that doesn't want to get in trouble or ruin her image.

 

[chockomonkey]

The idea is that when men take the time to gain enthusiastic consent then they will be less likely to face false accusations.

Well sure but that seems like a silly reason to make the law require proof of consent which is, from what it sounds like to me, damn near impossible to prove.

If you're doing what some people in this thread appear to be advocating, getting women sloppy drunk just so they can drop their panties, then there is an opportunity for regret in the morning and feeling of being used. Avoid those kinds of behaviors and you shouldn't be walking around in perpetual fear of being falsely accused of rape.

I read this whole damn thread (I must have something wrong with me), and I really never got that impression from anyone. From the way you phrase the above, sure it'd be fucked up if you're just shoving booze down a chicks throat with the goal of getting laid. But I've had experiences myself at parties where I wouldn't have gotten laid if everyone wasn't drinking (which is what I recall some of the people in this thread saying). Getting anyone shnockered to have sex wasn't the point. The point was hanging out and having a good time... the alcohol just lead to everyone having lower inhibitions.

I've never had any fear of being falsely accused, but what if it did happen?

If it were to come down a false accusation against me, how is it even possible to prove that she did give her consent?

I don't think there's ever been any verbal consent given with any lady I've ever had intercourse with... if one were to falsely accuse me, is there anything I could do? Typically it all just happens through body language.

If I were on the stand all I could really say was that "she was obviously into it."

 

[mope54]

If I were on the stand all I could really say was that "she was obviously into it."

Now that's not enough.

If you want to protect yourself you'll need to ask her if she's ok with going ahead with what you're doing. Unless you have zero game this shouldn't present a problem...I've used phrases like, are you having a good time, do you enjoy this, and even the one I used last week, "it's ok if you don't want to have sex. we have plenty of time to get to know each other..." believe the turn around on that "investment" of respect for her feelings was a 24 hour turn-around.

by the way, those are generally things I ask even my long term partners when I'm using my mouth, my fingers, and my penis because I want to know if what I'm doing is going to lead to an orgasm. so things like "are you enjoying this" "do you like it when I do this...how about [/i]this[/i]" (and yes sometimes it's kinky things like licking her asshole, but never had anyone shit on me sorry ducman no judgement though), are all things I'd be saying anyway.

incidentally, those are all things that would present a nice defense of you gaining affirmative consent (provided your partner actually says, "yes keep doing that right there...ok over there now, etc."

If you're worried about women filing false complaints then those women were already going to do it before the legislative change the difference being they had to come into the disciplinary hearing and state they said "no." not an incredibly difficult threshold to muster if they are really intent on filing a report against you so it doesn't change anything other than the conversation you have prior, during, and after the bed and then if you find yourself hauled into a hearing you simply have to say, well I asked her and she said yes and as we progressed I made sure she was enjoying herself whenever I tried something new on her. Any reasonable person is going to believe she was ok with what we were doing because she said she was having a good time.

If you feel you can't get laid without getting someone inebriated to the point they can't discuss the situation with you then you should take up a new hobby or at least stay away from ambiguous sexual situations, at least in college where there's a lot of drinking and immature 20 year old women (where this legislation applies).

I myself sleep with numerous 20-somethings and I'm a professor so I am constantly at risk of false allegations of sexual misconduct on a college campus. It's certainly not like I'm advocating sexual abstinence. Just if you can't figure out how to have safe and healthy sexual relations with people (even strangers) then do something else.

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

If it were to come down a false accusation against me, how is it even possible to prove that she did give her consent?

I personally think that's the entire point of it. Either it stops you from doing it altogether or you get hung out there if you run into a crazy one. It's putting all the power in the woman's hands.

If I were on the stand all I could really say was that "she was obviously into it.

They need more people in their private prisons. (shrugs)

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Moooooar power!

 

[mope54]

I personally think that's the entire point of it. Either it stops you from doing it altogether or you get hung out there if you run into a crazy one. It's putting all the power in the woman's hands.

They need more people in their private prisons. (shrugs)

We don't have prisons on college campuses. A student might get expelled but that's going to occur only after a relatively egregious misconduct or repeatedly doing bad things. This thread is severely blowing the impact of this legislature way out of proportion.

 

[Stiletto]

Avoid those kinds of behaviors and you shouldn't be walking around in perpetual fear of being falsely accused of rape.

Let me edit your statement ever-so-slightly and see if you still endorse it:

Avoid those kinds of behaviors and you shouldn't be walking around in perpetual fear of being raped.

Pretty sure anyone who says that to a woman is called a hideous rape apologist. Why is the analog perfectly acceptable?

 

[Stiletto]

In fact, I've never been afraid of being falsely accused of rape.

I'm sure you've never been shot by a police officer either, so you probably think anyone worried about that is pretty silly, right?

 

[rflcptr]

I'm sure you've never been shot by a police officer either, so you probably think anyone worried about that is pretty silly, right?

seeing as though I don't do anything to draw gunfire, yeah baseless worry about it is silly.

 

[Stiletto]

seeing as though I don't do anything to draw gunfire, yeah baseless worry about it is silly.

Neither do a lot of black people, so you should be sure to tell them how silly they are to fear the police.

 

[rflcptr]

Neither do a lot of black people, so you should be sure to tell them how silly they are to fear the police.

It's easier to point out how silly it is of you to conflate baseless rape accusation, police shooting you, while somehow tying it to black people.

 

[Stiletto]

It's easier to point out how silly it is of you to conflate baseless rape accusation, police shooting you, while somehow tying it to black people.

Even easier to point out how shallow one has to be to suggest that men have no fear of false accusations of rape while holding the position that black people should fear police shooting them. I mean, those two positions would be diametrically in opposition, validating one "unlikely" life-destroying situation for which there is significant media-covered precedent, while scoffing at another.

But hey, you're doing a great job of playing dumb!

 

[heatlesssun]

Even easier to point out how shallow one has to be to suggest that men have no fear of false accusations of rape while holding the position that black people should fear police shooting them.

If you're a black man, you better have a healthy fear of both of these things. That's what mamma Heatlesssun taught me.