ryno_ wrote:
Same as the difference between the video ref having enough evidence to confirm a on-field ref's call or merely uphold it.
This guy NRLs.
NRL Fantasy Fanatics - A place for discussion of NRL Fantasy / Virtual Sports / Super Coach and other Fantasy Sports
ryno_ wrote:
Same as the difference between the video ref having enough evidence to confirm a on-field ref's call or merely uphold it.
Krump wrote:What's the difference between innocent and not guilty?
You can always be relied on for a great metaphorNo Worries wrote:
It's a civil case, it's not about innocence or guilt it's about compensation. Hayne broke her one and only hymen. Something that can never be replaced. Yes, that was today's news report, she was a virgin. So if she can prove she was and that she was too drunk to consent its a pay day. Nothing to do with the criminal act of which one is presumed innocent till found guilty.
Think of it like music piracy/copyright. You infringe on a copyright, use someone's riff you have deprived them of potential income it's a civil matter, you pay compensation. You pay them for what the court says the value is of what they potentially lost and case closed. You burn a shitload of their latest CD and sell them, that's piracy and criminal. Apparently in this case there were no CD's, but he was heard whistling the tune.
Revraiser wrote:Imagine how many guys and girls across the globe will now be brought to court for taking someone home under the influence.
Dip wrote:I wonder if Hayne was sober enough at the time to give consent?
Ice wrote:1. He'd made it, he realised his dream of cracking the NFL, why did he leave all of a sudden? To pursue Rugby 7s, I mean, it just didn't seem right then or now.
I get the jist of what you are saying but drink driving over the limit is always illegal, having drunk sex is not illegal.surmo13 wrote:
to clarify before i speak, i'm not talking about pre-meditated situations with roofies or those that exhibit predetory behaviour, who should be locked away for a long time, but it's always troubled me that when it comes to drunk sex, a women can be absolved of her mistakes by using the word 'rape', and then the bloke is to blame, no matter how sloshed he was, we don't look at drunk drivers and go "let 'em go, they were too drunk to know better"
Pieman wrote:
I get the jist of what you are saying but drink driving over the limit is always illegal, having drunk sex is not illegal.
But yep as soon as the word Rape is dropped by a woman - she has all the power/media/community behind her even if there is no evidence or if its his word against hers
surmo13 wrote:
yeh, i'll admit it's probably not the best of comparisons, what i mean is that whatever they may be, the consequences of a person's actions should be theirs and theirs alone, 'i can't be held responsible for any decisions i make after the one where i've decided to get so hammered i won't remember any of them' doesn't fly as a legal defence and it shouldn't fly as the crux of a legal accusation.
Ice wrote:Starting to go down the path of victim blaming here. It's not against the law to get so hammered that you can't consent or remember what you do. It is against the law to have sex with someone against or without there conscious consent.
If you don't want to potentially get accused of rape, don't fuck drunk girls, unless you record them verbally consenting on your phone. The reverse does NOT apply, that is "if you don't want to get raped, don't get drunk". You're entitled to get drunk without the threat of someone taking advantage of you, whether your a guy or girl.
Ice wrote:Starting to go down the path of victim blaming here. It's not against the law to get so hammered that you can't consent or remember what you do. It is against the law to have sex with someone against or without there conscious consent.
If you don't want to potentially get accused of rape, don't fuck drunk girls, unless you record them verbally consenting on your phone. The reverse does NOT apply, that is "if you don't want to get raped, don't get drunk". You're entitled to get drunk without the threat of someone taking advantage of you, whether your a guy or girl.
surmo13 wrote:
nope, like i said, predatory behaviour is not on in any way shape or form, and the moment she says no or is to far gone to be an active participant, it's over.
i'm not saying it's against the law to fuck while drunk, i'm saying that if you do, when you wake up the next morning, you have to own whatever decisions you made and not ruin some-ones elses life over it, i'll bet there are TONS of blokes out there who wish they could get a boatload cash out of the minger they found themselves next to in bed the morning after.
Pieman wrote:
totally going down the victim blaming path there surmo IMO
Ice is 100% correct - dont put urself in that situation if you dont want to get accused of doing it
surmo13 wrote:
replace the words 'accused of doing it' with the word 'raped' and you have the text-book definition of victim blaming.
so what you're saying is, it's not illegal for a women to have drunk sex, but it is illegal for a man... 'sorry Johnny, i know the girl you hooked up with after the club last night was down for all kinds of kinky shit at the time, but she woke up the next morning and decided she shouldn't have done that, so even though you matched her shot for shot, you're a rapist now"
forced drunk sex while displaying either some kind of resistant behaviour, or not being responsive enough to display resistant behaviour is rape and the man is a piece of shit that should be locked away for a long time. Having drunk sex and then regretting it afterwards is not.
I think it's weird that it's controversial not to hold the rather sexist notion that women are just wilting flowers that need constant protection from anything and everything, including their own decision-making.