Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 4:12:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 22:21:31 GMT -5
"yes" can be proven by action. That's the point you seem to be missing. "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent."a silent partner is not consenting, Richard. and you knew that, because it was the next sentence in the law. so, you are just.... messing with me, now. lucky for you, i consent to it. I don't disagree with that... however, "active and willing participation" DOES mean consent. You can't not see the obviousness of that. It's simply not possible. ETA: I didn't include that sentence because it wasn't relevant TO MY EXAMPLE QUESTION (of a VERY active and VERY willingly participatory woman, VERY "into" the sex)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 1, 2015 22:58:00 GMT -5
"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent."a silent partner is not consenting, Richard. and you knew that, because it was the next sentence in the law. so, you are just.... messing with me, now. lucky for you, i consent to it. I don't disagree with that... however, "active and willing participation" DOES mean consent. You can't not see the obviousness of that. It's simply not possible. ETA: I didn't include that sentence because it wasn't relevant TO MY EXAMPLE QUESTION (of a VERY active and VERY willingly participatory woman, VERY "into" the sex) in my reading of the law, "active and willing participation" does NOT equal consent. but ok, i THINK i see what you are saying now, i am just not at all sure it is true. this is a very weird law, in a very weird state. my interpretation is that anything other than "yes" in CA is NO.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,160
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 1, 2015 23:18:49 GMT -5
"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent."a silent partner is not consenting, Richard. and you knew that, because it was the next sentence in the law. so, you are just.... messing with me, now. lucky for you, i consent to it. I don't disagree with that... however, "active and willing participation" DOES mean consent. You can't not see the obviousness of that. It's simply not possible. ETA: I didn't include that sentence because it wasn't relevant TO MY EXAMPLE QUESTION (of a VERY active and VERY willingly participatory woman, VERY "into" the sex) First, active participation does not necessarily mean willing participation. And willingness may be difficult to ascertain in some circumstances. Fear is conceivably an issue. A "forced" willingness is certainly possible. But also I would again ask, if she is doing all of the work and you are just lying there, can it be said under the law being discussed whether YOU have consented? Since you dismissed the question earlier, should we just assume that your willingness is a given? And even so, that doesn't seem to satisfy the law, does it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 4:12:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2015 21:11:08 GMT -5
I don't disagree with that... however, "active and willing participation" DOES mean consent. You can't not see the obviousness of that. It's simply not possible. ETA: I didn't include that sentence because it wasn't relevant TO MY EXAMPLE QUESTION (of a VERY active and VERY willingly participatory woman, VERY "into" the sex) First, active participation does not necessarily mean willing participation. And willingness may be difficult to ascertain in some circumstances. Fear is conceivably an issue. A "forced" willingness is certainly possible. But also I would again ask, if she is doing all of the work and you are just lying there, can it be said under the law being discussed whether YOU have consented? Since you dismissed the question earlier, should we just assume that your willingness is a given? And even so, that doesn't seem to satisfy the law, does it? That's why I tied the two together. Active AND willing. If you are at a party and there's a chick bouncing up and down on a guy... you can pretty much assure yourself that she's doing it willingly. But to continue to argue the obvious just streams the whole thing down the rabbit hole... Remember the issue at hand and why his willingness is irrelevant to the question: The issue is "the willingness to act assumes an acceptance of the possible consequences"... she COULD BE raping him. I never said if she was or wasn't. Whether or not she is is irrelevant to HER WILLING PARTICIPATION and HER ACCEPTANCE (by that willing participation) OF POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT PARTICIPATION.
|
|