Student Activist Resigns after she "failed to properly establish consent before every act" - Polidicks

Seriously? This chick stuck her thumb in her boyfriends ass or something and now she is quitting because he didn't like it? As a guy, I feel that if you don't say No then you can't really claim rape (or be claimed to have been raped?). Even if he said no after the fact, I don't see how that is an issue that should leave the bedroom. Sure you might be "embarrassed", but in my experience, of myself, a guy is pretty obvious when he does or does not want to do something sexually. Who knows, the details are missing, maybe she strung him up and electrocuted his balls or something.

[QUOTE=discofex;48907849]She wont,1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. Notice the use of he.[/QUOTE] In English if you don't know the gender you usually just go with a generic he. [QUOTE=Svinnik;48907926]While her definition of rape is retarded at best, it's great that she practices what she preaches.[/QUOTE] No it isn't, if you have a retarded definition of rape and you practice or live by that definition you're still retarded. But so I'm getting this right, there was technically under the law no rape right? But by their version of consent there was rape? So they literally have to get some type of consent for every sex act, instead of someone just outright telling you no?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;48908202]Seriously? This chick stuck her thumb in her boyfriends ass or something and now she is quitting because he didn't like it? As a guy, I feel that if you don't say No then you can't really claim rape (or be claimed to have been raped?). Even if he said no after the fact, I don't see how that is an issue that should leave the bedroom. Sure you might be "embarrassed", but in my experience, of myself, a guy is pretty obvious when he does or does not want to do something sexually. Who knows, the details are missing, maybe she strung him up and electrocuted his balls or something.[/QUOTE] One detail that is ambiguous is the sex of the person she "raped". Everyone is assuming it's a guy.

[QUOTE=MR-X;48908276]In English if you don't know the gender you usually just go with a generic he. No it isn't, if you have a retarded definition of rape and you practice or live by that definition you're still retarded. But so I'm getting this right, there was technically under the law no rape right? But by their version of consent there was rape? So they literally have to get some type of consent for every sex act, instead of someone just outright telling you no?[/QUOTE] Ithat would be true if thus were not in line with rape laws in the US and Canada. Also person b is a defined as A the law is defined as male. Which is why in the law person B is defined as victim of penetration. It is not some generic we don't know the gender.

but reddit told me that feminists dont believe that women can rape men so whats going on

We don't know its a dude. But knowing the response and having read the letter it sounds like she gets touchy/cuddly when she gets drunk.

The NUS is the biggest joke ever, why it hasn't been disbanded is beyond me.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;48907926]While her definition of rape is retarded at best, it's great that she practices what she preaches.[/QUOTE] She would turn herself in to law enforcement if she believed that it was rape.

[QUOTE=discofex;48908368]Also person b is a defined as A the law is defined as male. Which is why in the law person B is defined as victim of penetration. It is not some generic we don't know the gender.[/QUOTE] You interpret it this way. But do the judges? Law is not always applied 100% literally. To find out, we'd have to look at actual prior cases that have been brought to court. [QUOTE=Jame's;48908517]The NUS is the biggest joke ever, why it hasn't been disbanded is beyond me.[/QUOTE] Why would it be disbanded? They're not a criminal organisation just because you don't like their politics.

[QUOTE=draugur;48907900]Probably because she is so uhh?[/QUOTE] Retroactive withdrawal of consent is stupid.

What a shitstorm you guys make, without knowing any of the details. You don't impress by clamouring together to bitch instead of analysing.

[quote]'I become sexually entitled when drunk'[/quote] Don't we all?

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;48908637]You interpret it this way. But do the judges? Law is not always applied 100% literally. To find out, we'd have to look at actual prior cases that have been brought to court. Why would it be disbanded? They're not a criminal organisation just because you don't like their politics.[/QUOTE] Maybe because they are a huge joke and in no way represent students with the bullshit they pull.

[QUOTE=bitches;48908734]What a shitstorm you guys make, without knowing any of the details. You don't impress by clamouring together to bitch instead of analysing.[/QUOTE] This needs to be ridiculed. Every sexual partner I have is responsible for telling me if she's uncomfortable or not. I'm not going to stop every 30 seconds of foreplay to bring out the disclosure forms.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48907199]50-100 years ago you can imagine gays and blacks being lynched on the streets and shit. Times change. Don't act like such an old fart, you're a voter too and people who are stuck in the past are just as bad at the whole voting thing.[/QUOTE] gays were never lynched, and lynchings were more racially egalitarian in outcome than the justice system is today.

[QUOTE=Jame's;48909123]Maybe because they are a huge joke and in no way represent students with the bullshit they pull.[/QUOTE] I've always felt this way about student activism. It's an 'official' comity to complain and drone on about bullshit that is only important to the few who gave enough of a shit to enter the comity. They don't represent the students. They never have. The fact that this one is resigning because of post-sex revoking of consent is firstly: retarded because no one gives a shit what you do in your personal life, especially if its an issue of which only you are worried about. Secondly, the students don't give a fuck whether she is resigning or not. For her to pull this resignation bullshit just seems like a stunt for attention. All of this student activism shit is is a stunt for attention.

[QUOTE=kurgan;48910060]gays were never lynched[/QUOTE] I'm sad to say that's simply not true. Maybe not lynched in the literal sense, with a rope and everything, but the level of violence against LGBT individuals is enormous. [img]https://i.gyazo.com/dee681821b14c114c68319fa1d8639ba.png[/img] [img]https://i.gyazo.com/1b1be08346f9775b9a16cf3873104796.png[/img] Trans women have a 1/12 chance of dying by homicide (1/8 if they're black), as opposed to the 1/133 chance for the general population, and gay men remain the most popular victims of hate crimes. Here's wikipedia's list of the last 45 years of hate crimes against LGBT people. [img]https://i.gyazo.com/40533a88253219c224b9587430505d70.png[/img][img]https://i.gyazo.com/708c787c1f986c83707688c0bce58d0c.png[/img][img]https://i.gyazo.com/18878803b31b304f3f621a3bdfad1dee.png[/img][img]https://i.gyazo.com/9a3ab950a81058e211587665261a818a.png[/img][img]https://i.gyazo.com/7a0de3cb914935d0982628968d7dd6bd.png[/img] The worst part is that the above list is incomplete because anti-LGBT violence goes horrible underreported. "The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated there may be 40 times more hate crimes occurring nationally than the FBI reports." [url=http://time.com/3999348/transgender-murders-2015/](src)[/url]

it's pretty hilarious actually, like a nixon-to-china moment. nobody is [i]really[/i] treating her like the rapist she claims to be, because she is part of the clique that pushes this ideology in the first place. if were actually sincere about what they say (or didn't have the right minority cred), they would be throwing her under the bus, agitating for police to get involved, etc. she's either so cynical that she knows she won't face any real life-ending consequences for this little stunt, or she has gone so far off the deep-end she thinks she's martyring herself in the name of social justice. in either case this demonstrates that it was never about consent, never about sexual abuse, never about protecting the weak against the strong. it's about asserting dominance over demographic-political opponents, and now it's out in the open to anyone who cares to look.

[QUOTE=Jame's;48909123]Maybe because they are a huge joke and in no way represent students with the bullshit they pull.[/QUOTE] Their voters don't seem to think so. People are free to form and join whatever organisations they want, so [I]on what grounds[/I] would they be disbanded? No legal basis for it, and it would be extremely authoritarian.

[QUOTE=Baboo00;48910652]I'm sad to say that's simply not true. Maybe not lynched in the literal sense, with a rope and everything, but the level of violence against LGBT individuals is enormous. [/QUOTE] lynching specifically means extra-judicial punishment for a crime (real or imagined), by a group of private citizens. it's not just someone getting beaten to death. the idea of doing it for sodomy was just not a thing that occurred in the hey-day of lynchings.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48908721]Retroactive withdrawal of consent is stupid.[/QUOTE] Drunk people can't consent.

[QUOTE=draugur;48910816]Drunk people can't consent.[/QUOTE] clown world

[quote] I had sex with someone. The other party later informed me that the sex was not consensual.[/quote] something is wrong about this whole statement, like it sounds like this person was genuinely surprised by this

Her Facebook post reads like a parody of itself.

[QUOTE=kurgan;48910060]gays were never lynched, and lynchings were more [B]racially egalitarian[/B] in outcome than the justice system is today.[/QUOTE] The flying fuck is that even supposed to mean? Lynching focused on individuals of specific race, which I'd say is hardly egalitarian at all. Also, technicality does not disprove the fact that LGBT individuals were and still are violently attacked.

[QUOTE=draugur;48910816]Drunk people can't consent.[/QUOTE]I don't get why "oh I was drunk..." is taken for face value in this situation when it is never accepted for anything else. I think if you can recall the incident and you consented then, it counts. Otherwise we live in a world of rapists raping rapists every time some drunk hookup happens.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48912866]I don't get why "oh I was drunk..." is taken for face value in this situation when it is never accepted for anything else. I think if you can recall the incident and you consented then, it counts. Otherwise we live in a world of rapists raping rapists every time some drunk hookup happens.[/QUOTE] I think that it's important that the option of acknowledging you've been abused remains open when you wake up in a stranger's bed after a night of drunkenness. Keep in mind that this sort of thing isn't mandatory - if a husband and wife, or a long-term girlfriend and boyfriend, have sex after several drinks, they will both wake up and be OK with having exchanged bodily fluids - and nothing will happen. People just have to learn to be more careful with consent in certain situations, eg when going for a girl you've never been with before.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48912866]I don't get why "oh I was drunk..." is taken for face value in this situation when it is never accepted for anything else. I think if you can recall the incident and you consented then, it counts. Otherwise we live in a world of rapists raping rapists every time some drunk hookup happens.[/QUOTE] The majority of drunken hookups aren't considered rape and would be unprosecutable anyway. With some exceptions (which are obviously bad, but bound to happen), the law is there to protect extremely drunk sex - to the point that the person isn't fully able to comprehend the situation, not 'I've had a few drinks now lets bang'.

[QUOTE=gufu;48911453]The flying fuck is that even supposed to mean? Lynching focused on individuals of specific race, which I'd say is hardly egalitarian at all.[/QUOTE] this is a myth. whites were lynched as well as blacks. [del]what I mean, is that the ratio of white people lynched to black people lynched was bigger than the modern ratio of say, white people imprisoned to black people imprisoned for the same crimes. (after accounting for relative differences in population)[/del] not true in general, I misremembered. it may be true for some specific crimes. [url]http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html[/url] 73% of lynched black, 27% white.

[QUOTE=Mellowbloom;48907920]people aren't psychic imo if you don't consent to something you should say so then and there, not 'later' you don't get to apply hindsight to the situation if the other person doesn't obviously there has to be allowances for people consenting under duress/being unable to give it due to being drunk etc[/QUOTE] in addition to this, revocation of consent should not equate to rape unless the revocation is mid-intercourse and the intercourse does not stop. sex is not a world of fiction you can apply retroactive continuity to.