Consensual Sex App Pulled From Apple Store

[B00nie]

If there is an institutional problem with the legal system not properly establishing criminal culpability in these convictions, then it ought to be fixed within the court system not by legalizing something which ought to be illegal.

Let me ask you a question. You have two 12 year olds claiming a teenage boy has sexually attacked them. Whose word are you going to take for it?

Answer with all your honesty. What can the boy say in his defense (outside of getting a small jackpot in life and being 150 miles away that week).

 

[jimmyb]

The problem with sexual accusations is that you're guilty untill proven inncoent as you can see in the above story that I personally experienced.

If people are being convicted when guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, then that is a problem with the criminal procedure - it is a distinct issue from how the law is defining rape.

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

Innocent people go to jail all the time. Most people plea out due to fear of the system failing them and getting WAY MORE time.

 

[B00nie]

If people are being convicted when guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, then that is a problem with the criminal procedure - it is a distinct issue from how the law is defining rape.

You don't have to be convicted to be judged my friend. And laws like this are slanted against the accused party - it's his responsibility to prove he got ocnsent, not the accusers responsibility to prove she/he didn't give it. Word against word, only the accused party must clear his innocense to get free.

 

[jimmyb]

Let me ask you a question. You have two 12 year olds claiming a teenage boy has sexually attacked them. Whose word are you going to take for it?

I wouldn't take anyone's word on it. That is *far* too little information to form any real opinion of the events. That's why we have trials, and such a high standard for culpability in criminal cases.

 

[jimmyb]

You don't have to be convicted to be judged my friend.

If you're not being convicted then this has nothing to do with the criminal laws governing rape. The accusation can be made regardless of what rape laws are.

That's why we have libel and slander laws, which incidentally, as civil law have a *much* lower standard for guilt than rape.

 

[mope54]

Let me ask you a question. You have two 12 year olds claiming a teenage boy has sexually attacked them. Whose word are you going to take for it.

Now let me ask you a question...how many 12 year olds do you think attend UC?

 

[B00nie]

Now let me ask you a question...how many 12 year olds do you think attend UC?

The principle is the same. The supposed law leaves so many loopholes where any girl who simply regrets (or is too afraid to admit to parents) the sex afterwards can use against the defendant.

So in this case the girl may be rubbing her naked body against you and begging to give it to her, the guy may also be drunk, they end up having sex and the next morning the guy is in a world of trouble when the father enters the room, girl denies consent due to being drunk - unless the guy gave the girl a breathalyzer test and had witnesses on the consent he's going down. Jail time bubbah!

 

[MrCaffeineX]

If you're not being convicted then this has nothing to do with the criminal laws governing rape. The accusation can be made regardless of what rape laws are.

That's why we have libel and slander laws, which incidentally, as civil law have a *much* lower standard for guilt than rape.

True, but I think B00nie's point was that we have a legal system that is predicated upon the idea that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but there is a serious question raised with respect to this law (there are some others as well, especially in the area of family court law) as to whether or not the burden of proof has now been shifted to the accused to prove their innocence. I could be wrong though.

 

[Red Falcon]

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?

Thanks Obama.

In this era we live in?
Yes, yes you do.

It's called "covering your ass".

 

[mope54]

The principle is the same. The supposed law leaves so many loopholes where any girl who simply regrets (or is too afraid to admit to parents) the sex afterwards can use against the defendant.

So in this case the girl may be rubbing her naked body against you and begging to give it to her, the guy may also be drunk, they end up having sex and the next morning the guy is in a world of trouble when the father enters the room, girl denies consent due to being drunk - unless the guy gave the girl a breathalyzer test and had witnesses on the consent he's going down. Jail time bubbah!

The point is that you keep coming up with extremely ludicrous examples that this legislation has no bearing on.

 

[mope54]

True, but I think B00nie's point was that we have a legal system that is predicated upon the idea that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but there is a serious question raised with respect to this law (there are some others as well, especially in the area of family court law) as to whether or not the burden of proof has now been shifted to the accused to prove their innocence. I could be wrong though.

Yes, the burden has been shifted to the accused to demonstrate that he or she has actual consent to have sex with the accuser. But this law doesn't apply to courtrooms or criminal allegations.

 

[B00nie]

The point is that you keep coming up with extremely ludicrous examples that this legislation has no bearing on.

Nope, I'm bringing examples that may well happen. The father may not enter the room, the moralist parents may start to knock the back of the head the next morning without physically entering the room. Hell, how can I know why people claim rape after they gave consent but it DOES happen. And there' s no way to defend against it unless you filmed the whole event in secret. Which would probably land you in jail again lol.

I have seen so deeply sick families who have so stuck up morals that if stuff happens and the girl, say, gets pregnant - in order to save the family honor the parents convince the girl it was not consensual at all. I've read these stories (thank God this is not personal experience!)

In the middle east if same happened the family would send the boy a shameful message, then in the quiet of the night the brother and father of the girl will decapitate her to save the family honor. Or stone to death publicly whatever comes handy. Neither way works too well for the two people having innocent fun originally.

 

[jimmyb]

there is a serious question raised with respect to this law (there are some others as well, especially in the area of family court law) as to whether or not the burden of proof has now been shifted to the accused to prove their innocence. I could be wrong though.

I think there are some issues with the law, but it doesn't actually change the criminal standard for rape. It requires that universities apply an "affirmative consent" standard when adjudicating cases internally, otherwise they will lose state funding.

 

[mope54]

Nope, I'm bringing examples that may well happen. The father may not enter the room, the moralist parents may start to knock the back of the head the next morning without physically entering the room. Hell, how can I know why people claim rape after they gave consent but it DOES happen. And there' s no way to defend against it unless you filmed the whole event in secret. Which would probably land you in jail again lol.

I have seen so deeply sick families who have so stuck up morals that if stuff happens and the girl, say, gets pregnant - in order to save the family honor the parents convince the girl it was not consensual at all. I've read these stories (thank God this is not personal experience!)

In the middle east if same happened the family would send the boy a shameful message, then in the quiet of the night the brother and father of the girl will decapitate her to save the family honor. Or stone to death publicly whatever comes handy. Neither way works too well for the two people having innocent fun originally.

I'm going to try and clarify this for you once again:

None of what you are talking about is relevant because this legislation is directing informal College disciplinary hearings, not criminal cases.

This is simply mandating that disciplinary hearings deciding whether students have violated student conduct codes on campus ask whether and how the accused knew he or she had consent to have sex with the accuser rather than forcing the accuser to prove she said no well good enough to constitute a sufficient NO! to her rapist.

 

[jimmyb]

the burden has been shifted to the accused to demonstrate that he or she has actual consent

No, the burden of proof hasn't been shifted to the accused; rather the standard for consent has changed.

 

[TCM2]

Land of the Free. What a joke.

 

[mope54]

No, the burden of proof hasn't been shifted to the accused; rather the standard for consent has changed.

The burden of proof has shifted.

Previously the accuser had to present evidence that he or she sufficiently stated, "no."

Now the accused has to demonstrate that he or she had consent and whether that it sufficiently constituted, "yes."

That's a shift in who has the burden of proof.

If your opinion about it was true, that would mean the accuser would have to come forward and demonstrate whether his or her, "yes" was good enough to have sex. Once you frame it correctly you can see how it doesn't make sense to interpret it that way.

 

[jimmyb]

And there' s no way to defend against it unless you filmed the whole event in secret.

In criminal trials it is up to the plaintiff to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think this is not happening then it is a problem with the criminal procedure.

I've read these stories (thank God this is not personal experience!)

Rather than just reading stories, have you considered investigating the actual statistics of false crime accusations, unreported crimes, etc.?

 

[jimmyb]

Previously the accuser had to present evidence that he or she sufficiently stated, "no."

For criminal proceedings (not necessarily internal university proceedings, which could be anything as far as I know,) the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must establish they were raped within the context of some standard of consent.

The law mandates that the standard of consent is changed; but it's says nothing about the burden of proof shifting (ie. there is still a presumption of innocence, and it is the job of accuser to show that they are guilty).

 

[TCM2]

The plaintiff must establish they were raped within the context of some standard of consent.

In criminal trials, the plaintiff is the state.

 

[jimmyb]

In criminal trials, the plaintiff is the state.

Yes, by "they" I meant the victim. That was unclear.

 

[mope54]

The law mandates that the standard of consent is changed; but it's says nothing about the burden of proof shifting (ie. there is still a presumption of innocence, and it is the job of accuser to show that they are guilty).

I explained to you how the burden of proof has shifted.

Once an accuser comes forward and states that he or she has been raped, the accused must present evidence that he or she had affirmative consent. If you're still confused about burden of proof let me know where the confusion lies so I can clarify it better for you.


(btw, in criminal proceedings the state is the prosecutor. "Plaintiff" is a claimant in a civil proceeding).

 

[mope54]

in criminal proceedings victims aren't parties in the case at all.

in fact, a victim can refuse to participate in a trial and it will still proceed because the state is the "victim"

 

[MrCaffeineX]

I think there are some issues with the law, but it doesn't actually change the criminal standard for rape. It requires that universities apply an "affirmative consent" standard when adjudicating cases internally, otherwise they will lose state funding.

That makes sense.

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

I explained to you how the burden of proof has shifted.

Once an accuser comes forward and states that he or she has been raped, the accused must present evidence that he or she had affirmative consent.

Easy, record it.

 

[mope54]

sorry if that came across as abrasive,

I should clarify, in trials (and informal hearings), affirmative defenses always shift the burden of proof to the accused.

Affirmative defenses take the form of, "I did the action but I was justified on these grounds..."

common affirmative defenses are self defense cases
the state would normally have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the accused did the crime, but the accused doesn't dispute the allegation but rather admits it and explains why it was appropriate

in these cases, the accuser doesn't have to present evidence that the rape occurred. That's how it used to be. Now she (or he) simply states that the sex was non-consensual and the accused either denies that any sex occurred (and the burden of proof would go back to the accuser) or admits that sex occurred but that it was completely consensual (in which case the burden of proof that the sex was, in fact, fully consensual is the accused responsibility to demonstrate).

 

[jimmyb]

I explained to you how the burden of proof has shifted.

Burden of proof refers to which party has the responsibility to make their case. In systems where there is a presumption of innocence, the burden of proof lies on the accuser. Where in the law has that changed?

Where in the law does it say that the accused is to be presumed guilty upon accusation?

 

[MrCaffeineX]

Easy, record it.

So how does that work if you illegally record something then submit that as evidence in your defense?

 

[jimmyb]

affirmative defenses always shift the burden of proof to the accused.

Affirmative defense and the "affirmative consent" standard are different things.

 

[FiveFig]

holy shit, you've got to be a real fucking lowlife if you can't muster up a simple, "do you want to have sex with me?" or "is it ok if I do this?"

if your only chance of having sex is waiting until the person is too fucked up to answer a basic question then jump off a bridge

please read the article before posting, kthxbai!

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

So how does that work if you illegally record something then submit that as evidence in your defense?

If she consented to the recording it wouldn't be illegal. Have her wave in the video. Way to go weirdo on me though. I was just pointing out how ridiculous your point of view is.

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

Edit: Not MrCaffeineX view, mope54 view.

 

[mope54]

Burden of proof refers to which party has the responsibility to make their case. In systems where there is a presumption of innocence, the burden of proof lies on the accuser. Where in the law has that changed?

Where in the law does it say that the accused is to be presumed guilty upon accusation?

When you voice an affirmative defense in a legal proceeding the burden of proof shifts to you, the accused, in order to demonstrate that your actions were justified.

Keep in mind that you don't have the same level of protections in an informal hearing as you would in a criminal trial. You can not have a lawyer present and when it comes to rape cases in particular, presumption of innocence goes out the window.

In fact, I tell all my students to contact me or any other faculty from our criminal justice department if they get called into disciplinary hearings so we can offer them advice during the proceeding. I can't represent them, but I can give them the right questions to ask the hearings officers to tear them a new asshole so that if they really feel they have a legit case they can refer it out to the DA where we can get our student the appropriate legal protections. (I didn't state earlier, I'm a CJ professor at a large, public university in California)

 

[mope54]

Affirmative defense and the "affirmative consent" standard are different things.

When the accused states, "I had affirmative consent from [him or her] to have sexual intercourse" that constitutes an affirmative defense.

A non-affirmative defense would take the form of, "We never had sex"

Sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

For thousands of years men and women walked the earth during times more dangerous than today. Most of the traditions that feminists want to break evolved because they contributed to the survival of the human race. The underlying premise of this whole consensual sex deal is that Women are always right and Men are always wrong.

A lot of that stuff doesn't apply in a modern context though so there's no reason to keep up with it. Yes, we did stuff a certain way for good reasons in the past, but we've gotten over that past.

If a Woman gets all dressed-up sexy, goes to a frat house, gets plastered, goes up to a frat guys room and wakes up the next morning without her panties than she is not responsible for the consequences. It is entirely the guys fault. He raped her. She is right and the guy is wrong.

Yes, absolutely he's wrong. Of course, she should have gone to a party with men anyway since the vast majority of sex crimes a the result of males and knowing better is a good idea, but no one "deserves" rape because of poor judgement. That's like blaming someone for getting hurt in by a drunk driver because they were driving around on a Friday night.

Feminists are not about equality; they are about domination. If you are a man and support feminism than you are either:

1) a young guy who foolishly believes women will like you because you are progressive.
2) gay.
3) cognitively challenged.

No they're not about domination. There are some crazies that wave the banner for dumb, selfish reasons, but they largely are trying to change generations old thinking that doesn't fit in the overall changing model of society.

And on top of that, you're not only being insulting to women, you're also insulting men even. I know it's like a guy thing to insult one another all the time, but haven't you grown past the point where pointing at someone and calling them gay or cognitively challenged (retarded) seems a little immature and silly? Are you even an adult?

 

[mope54]

please read the article before posting, kthxbai!

not in respones to the article, was written in response to the guys in the thread justifying date rape

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

not in respones to the article, was written in response to the guys in the thread justifying date rape

Extreme are we. I don't think anyone took it there. You just want it to be that.

 

[jimmyb]

When the accused states, "I had affirmative consent from [him or her] to have sexual intercourse" that constitutes an affirmative defense.

A non-affirmative defense would take the form of, "We never had sex"

Having sex is legal. The accuser must show that both:
1) sex was had
2) it was non-consensual (according to some standard of consent)

The non-affirmative defense in this case is "we never had non-consensual sex".

 

[mope54]

Extreme are we. I don't think anyone took it there. You just want it to be that.

virtually all Japanese girls have been trained to pretend not to want it, but then "give in" while complaining "no its too big"

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.

The purpose of the law to me seems to be to lower the bar in making assault accusations to create a 'rape epidemic' when there is none.

when a girl is giggling and acting super drunk after half a beer and saying "gosh I'm so drunk" when hanging off you, that's supposed to code for "have your way with me" without sounding like a slut that always bones on the first date.

Get fucking real, it you flat out ask [for sex], your chances of sex just dropped 90%.

Three other posters made the same observation I did independently.

Having sex is legal. The accuser must show that both:
1) sex was had
2) it was non-consensual (according to some standard of consent)

The non-affirmative defense in this case is "we never had non-consensual sex".

No, that's an affirmative defense. The accuser admits that they had sex and then has to demonstrate that it was consensual.