₦airaland Forum

pleep: Like i was saying earlier its disgusting that adult women hold beliefs and woldviews i would be disappointed to see in a 10 year old. So if you go out drunk and have sex with another drunk stranger, its his fault for "stupidly having sex with you"?

You are fuking retarded. If the man is drunk too, by your same logic he cant consent to the rape. Your reasoning makes no sense, get that through your urine saturated brain. Grown up children like you make all women look bad, if i sign my house to a neighbor under the influence of alchohol that does not make the consent invalid under law.

Do we need to make another set of rules for estrogen saturated hags like yourself who cant even add up simple logic?

In reality that is the perception of "equality" to most women.

Equality to them is women should have special privileges and no disadvantages or responsibilities when compared to men. While men should absorb any disadvantages or responsibilities that favour women and respect their privileges.

To them, that is just "logical".

EnlightenedSoul: Mutual drunk sex wherein both parties were equally drunk att isn't ra.pe because neither is taking intentional advantage against the others will and both are in a compromised intoxicated state. In these cases, if either of them were to feel violated and report it as ra.pe, the surrounding circumstances would be investigated but it's generally considered a weak case.

If a DRUNK person comes onto you, you need to diffuse the situation. There was no valid consent given.

When people are mutually drunk and the woman screams raape, the men still faces potential charges, but the reverse is not possible. Does that make sense to you?

Why does one need to diffuse the situation? What about the drunk person taking responsibility for not getting drunk or knowing the effects of drunkenness if they choose to be drunk?

That word "responsibility" pops up again.

EnlightenedSoul: 'cuz she's drunk!

How does that answer my 2 questions?



Try again!

Answer!

EnlightenedSoul: A theft occurred. The owner of the item saw the theft occur, but cannot prove it. If no evidence of theft is found, does that mean it simply didn't occur? No.

Apply the logic you speak of.

Let me give you the logic.

Get your notebook out and jot the response down because this is a short but powerful education.

Here it is:

"It occurred to him. But as far as society and all those not privy to it are rationally concerned, it did not occur if no evidence of it exists".

And that should be the official record for history!

Anyone without evidence and who was not privy asserting it occurred is a quite dim and gullible.

They are as gullible as the reetards that give their money to pastors for private jet while believing the chimera they got is a miracle.














Oops! Saga went out of the place again o to give a comparism.

EnlightenedSoul: PRIOR consent, my turd. Whether one or both partners are drunk during the sex is irrelevant so long as valid consent was given. Completely different from manipulating a wasted girl/guy you found into sex, don't ya think?

If both parties don't give prior consent, why is it raape by a guy but not by the girl?

What if the girl is drunk, and the guy is not, and she starts getting sexual with him, why would that be raape (assuming she did not give pre-drunk consent)?

EnlightenedSoul: Ebola now? You're all over the place! You're just not getting it, and I refuse to regurgitate my words. Have a good one.

You must be dim not to get it.

The Ebola is another example of people making unsubstantiated claims without evidence.

People that believe (or believe people should believe) something without evidence are fcktards!

Intelligent people believe something when they see evidence or experience the something.

EnlightenedSoul: It appears you don't understand a thing.

That's because you can’t legally consent to sex if you are intoxicated above the legal limit. This makes sense—when you’re drunk, your faculties are lowered, and you’re more vulnerable. Alcohol is actually the most common drug used in sex.ual assaults. But if you're in college, there’s a solid chance that you'll be dabbling in alcohol. So how do you balance legal consent, which is absolutely necessary for any sex.ual conduct, when you're barhopping? PRIOR CONSENT. It's not rocket science. If you KNOW that a DRUNK stranger can't give CONSENT under law, then why are you putting yourself on the line by stupidly having drunken sex with them by way of their INVALID DRUNKEN consent??

But, if you are male, you can be held legally responsible for raape if you are intoxicated above the legal limit and then engage in sex with her?

And that makes sense to you in your turd?

EnlightenedSoul: Smh. You're shifting the tone of the argument. I was arguing against your nonsense notion that "if there was no proof, there was no ra.pe", not on the required evidence needed to prove ra.pe. Step out of your turd for just a sec, why don't you?

You are a cretinous person!

Except you are the victim, you were there, you see personally satisfactory evidence of raape or there is a court conviction for raape, you cannot say it is raape!

Her "she said so" does not make something raape. It is a mere, unsubstantiated accusation without evidence.

It is as moronic as believing the fcktards on NL that said it is the West that brought Ebola so they can sell the cure to Africa to make money.

That is what is the real turd!

Do you fcking understand that or you are too fcking stuuupid to comprehend that logically.

pleep: Oh and the fact that the woman gave consent while drunk (unless the drink was drugged, which can be proven) does not make it raype either. If you consented to get drunk with full knowledge of the effects of alcohol, whos fault is that? Should the man be expected to administer a breathalyzer test before having intercourse?

Also, what if he is drunk too, doesn't the alchohol impair him as much as it impairs you? Can he now claim that he didn't consent to the sex because he was drunk as well?

What if sign over my car to a neighbor while drunk? is my consent no longer valid?

Modern rape laws represent the apex of liberal regressivism, they spit in the face of logic, reason and everything else law should be based on. Adding another layer of B.S (yes, means yes,) just makes the problem worse

So fcking well said!

Another: How is it not raape that she had sex with him while he was pissed?

Because she has no responsibility, hence no blame. Only men should have responsibility.

Princek12: What if she says no but she pulls down her pant (pata) nko?

[size=18pt]RAAAAAAPE![/size]

It is a man that has responsibility.

She is just naive!

All evidence pointing to consent in just unnecessary intentional conflation.

That is "rational" arguments your type and Sagamite will never accept!

EnlightenedSoul: Just like the pleep fellow, you are INTENTIONALLY conflating what is required to prove ra.pe with what is ra.pe, so who exactly is the mindless fvcktard here? Do keep up!

You are a cretinous person!

So what should be required to prove raape?

"She said so"?

Evidence is an unnecessary "intentional conflation of conflagomaricasism"?

deols: I didnt want to have an arguement with you since you are a well known opinionated person whose thoughts would not be changed by the most rational opinion.
It is dumb to say that I regard all women as being retarded when the 'some girls' in my post is well spelt out. And naivety does not mean brain retardation. Some girls could really be naive especially when some shameless older men are constantly lurking around.
I dont care for your prejudice. You must think that your life-long goal of continuous sex is being tampered with. There are other places you can get it from for now. The law aint yet universal. So, stop being angry.

When I see rational arguments, I don't ever have to change my opinion because it is always the same as mine.

What I rarely get from you is a rational argument, that is why you will find it a struggle to "change my mind".

If you had rational arguments, you would realise that adults are responsible for their own actions and we do not moronically pass responsibilities of one adult on another EQUAL adult all in the name of "oh, eh, vee, kiii, shoo, she is so naiiiive".

Kids are naive and need to be protected and all responsibilities passed to the other interacting party. ........Rational.

Mentally challenged people are naive and need to be protected and all responsibilities passed to the other interacting party. ..........Rational.

So which do women fall under for them to need such special protection and all responsibilities passed to the other interacting party?

Kids are widely regarded as 0-17 years of age. So that leaves us, under your naivete arguments, that they are mentally challenged.

Can you see how your arguments are irrational and dumb even despite you using the adjective "shameless", hence cannot change Saga's mind?

Now say after me: "It is the responsibility of all mentally sound adults to look after themselves".

deols: I wonder if saying this makes you feel smart or whether typing about retards already made you a cretin. Did I not say that No means No in marriage??

I dont know what happens in Saudi. I just told you my thoughts on sex in relation to marriage. Take it or leave it.

You are a person!

I educated you on progressive jurisprudence.

If a married woman says No, then any sex with her is still raape. In Saudi, it is not.

So using your Saudi philosophy to justify this moronic law by saying "well people should only have sex in marriage" is fucktardism.

deols: Not for lack of words, I decide not to answer. Now, bite.

It is due to a lack of sense.

pleep: pretty much, its pointless trying to reason with them they will just retreat into this endless victim victimhood narrative and continue to argue when they are obviously wrong.

Society is just going through one of its wierd phases, when it gets extreme enough (laws like this are a step in that direction) there will be a massive backlash, and the few voices of reason wont be in the minority anymore.

Fcking well said!

That is the way this stuupid world functions.

EnlightenedSoul: FALSE. Ra.pe is ra.pe. You should re-read the piece as I do not care to repeat myself. If that and all else fails, pick up a dictionary.

So many disgusting mindsets out there. I'm reminded of CeeLo's tweets. He said, "It’s not ra.pe if the person is passed out. People who've been ra.ped REMEMBER it". As an intellectual god, you should really stop spreading a similar brand of stupidity in saying that it simply isn't ra.pe if you don't have "proof". That is pure nonsense, and I'm sure you know it!

Oh, so all that and all else fails but a woman merely saying I was raaped makes it raape?

You are a person!

So if she said she was raaped and he says we had consensual sex and all proof available indicates consent, we should say it is raape because ......... (wait for it) ............she said so?

What I know, you will never know half of.

EnlightenedSoul: I can agree with you from my own perspective. The real crux of the matter: date ra.pe or acquaintance ra.pe is very difficult to prove. It’s almost always a question of he said/she said, and that means that, in a system in which guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, actually guilty ra.pists are going to go free far more often than those who are accused but not guilty are going to be convicted. But this “system” is no solution: given that it allows consent to be given verbally or even non verbally, with no record created, it’s still a he said/she said situation. That is my only reason for questioning it.

That is where women have responsibility like adults to avoid such situations.

If they take responsibility more, many genuine raape claims would not go unpunished as the listed evidence I gave would be easily obtained.

If I was a judge and all the evidence I have in front of me is he said/she said (and they are both adults), I would not hesitate for a second in dismissing the case and find something better to do with my time.

EnlightenedSoul: You're the who's missing the "actual problem" despite the fact that it's the the TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: RA.PE.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required before a person is convicted of ra.pe and labeled a ra.pist; however, ra.pe is ra.pe even if there is little proof. That is, you are intentionally conflating (1) what is required to prove ra.pe with (2) what is ra.pe. Yes, additional witnesses, drugs, and violence make proving ra.pe easier, though none are required elements of ra.pe.

It seems to me that you are arguing for a default definition of ra.pe that includes specific physical evidence, an admission of guilt, or perhaps something like a surveillance tape.
Which means, therefore, if I (were I a man) wear a condom, don’t hit a woman or tear her clothes [all under category of no physical evidence]; if I don’t tell anybody I did it; and I am careful not to be caught on a surveillance camera, then I can have forcible sex pretty much whenever I want, and haven’t committed ra.pe.

The reality is that the crime of ra.pe exists independent of the evidence or the ability to convict the ra.pist. Many murderers go undetected and unpunished, but we do not raise doubts that murders were committed.
And who would be best positioned to know if she were having intercourse against her will, other than the woman?

Unless, of course, you believe that the default setting of such a high percentage of women is to lead men on and then cry, “ra.pe”, that we must bend over backwards to protect all men from these vampiric vaginas, even if that means letting serial ra.pists off scot free.

Now that I would be a truly "hilarious" notion if I could but laugh.

Under any sane law, raape is raape only when you can prove non-consensual sex took place, not because one party said so.

Under any sane law, you will need one or a mixture of the following evidence which I list inchoately:

- Signs of a struggle.
- Witnesses.
- Vocalised resistance by the victim (which is recorded or admitted by the accused).
- Accused used something to incapacitate the victim.
- Penetration bruises.
- The accused has a history that suggests attacking the opposite sex.
- Both parties are not familiar with each other or have no reason to be in such sexual dalliances.
- The victim is not regarded under the law as being capable of giving consent.
- Visual recordings

If you do not have AT LEAST one of the following but have only your claim that "I said no" or, worse still, "I did not say yes" (maybe with jara of tears) then you do not have a case and you cannot prove it is raape.

And you know what? Saga would not feel pity for her because she has "responsibilities" as an adult.

The law, if it is sane, practices "innocent until proven guilty". For these kind of offences, I agree with that philosophical practice.

So it is not raape just because someone said it is raape.

That is why I get really pissed off when I see the media allow people to come on TV and state "9 out of 10 raapes do not go to court". That is a lie if the phrase "alleged raape" is not used.

pleep: When your entire prosecution comes down to "i didn't say yes" with 0 evidence that this is true it is your responsibility to avoid that situation.

And cut of the "don't blame the victim crap" It is so brainlessly easy for a woman to protect herself from these "pseudo rapes" (i call it a pseudo rape when it comes down to saying yes or no) that i refuse to call them victims. Save your QQ for the people who got drugged or physically attacked in a dark ally not these irresponsible drunkards who had sex with a stranger and regretted it the next morning.

When u look at actual rape cases (with actual evidence) the prosecution rate goes up to 9/10

Fcking well said!

EnlightenedSoul: And yet these are defenses that customarily come up, with only 1 in 10 of the cases reaching prosecution.

Forgetting to lock your door doesn’t mean you’ve given permission for someone to enter. Inviting someone into your home doesn’t mean you consented for them to steal a valuable. Going to college, living in a dorm or swinging by a frat party one night ISN'T invitation for ra.pe. Yours is a typical vile mindset, and one that fits perfectly among the listed "defenses" you just swept aside. "She came to a frat party, she wanted to be ra.ped". Grow up indeed.

@bolded It's best I say nothing at all to that.

There is no point I have seen him say "She came to a frat party, she wanted to be ra.ped".

That is what is called a "strawman".

It is the responsibility of individuals to lock their doors if they know undesirables can enter and don't want the undesirables to enter.

It is the responsibility of individuals to do their best to keep their valuables out of sight of thrifty guests.

It is the responsibility of individuals to not drink to stupor to the point they are helpless or don't know what happened to them last night.

Responsibility!

I don't drink. And I see how stuuupid people get when they do. For one person to now have an upper-hand to scream raape when they do something they would not want to do when they are sober is rubbish to me.

Responsibility!

That does not mean anyone has a right to raape.

But if you are likely to be a victim, then do your best to protect yourself and prevent any negative issue. Don't abrogate your responsibility and then expect society, or worse still, someone else to pick it up for you.

This is synonymous to my lack of strong pity for the Westerners that choose to go to war areas where some lunatics are known for cutting off people like them's head and screaming Allahu Akbar.

Stay the fck away from there! What kind of moronic journalism are you doing?

Responsibility!

pleep: First off, none of the examples you gave are considered valid defenses against raype, and Second off, if frat parties are these "hotbeds of raype" as you seem to think, it would make sense for women to stop going to them, but they dont... why?

Why do modern women have the accountability of children yet want respect? Men are trained to avoid dangerous situations while it seems like women are told its always someone elses fault. literally grow the hell up

The under-current philosophy of most women is "We should not have any responsibility".

Someone without responsibility can never have any blame since they have no duty. They want to pass all responsibility to men but think they are equal.

That is majority of them's ideal world.

all4naija: It is only a stupidity to a well known supporter of juvenile r a p e called p e d o p h i l e in Nigeria. Your time would soon be up. And, when you are caught in your criminal act you would be sent to max prison for years. Perhaps you will come back to your senses then.

This is coming from an homosexual?

The same ones known as proficient in molesting kids?

AIDS-infected person, never talk about senses again!

EnlightenedSoul: Though I question this law's ability to effectively make some sort of difference, I don't think you and others here are understanding the reasoning behind the law, and why it came to pass. Only 1 in 10 ra.pes are prosecuted, and when they are prosecuted (in a court or by a college) "she didn’t say NO" is always a defense. Always.

- She didn’t say no sternly, loudly, threateningly enough.
- She didn’t fight hard enough.
- She didn’t say no because… hey, just look at what she was wearing.
- She was sexually active, so she doesn’t say no to sex.
- She didn’t say no when we were making out/she wanted it.

no no no no no.

Every example above (and there are more) is claiming the victim "didn’t say no". This being California with its countless FRAT and wild Uni parties, officials do tend to run into these issues (intoxicated (or not) girls being ra.ped) more often than some of the more reserved areas of the US. They've recognized that they have a problem on their hands. Their courts are effing tired of repeatedly hearing the "she didn't say NO" line as a defense, to the point that their legislators thought it necessary to pass a "you have to say YES" law. In my eyes, it displays the magnitude of the problem.

Because I can spot a moronic law is moronic does not mean I don't understand the problem it is trying to address.

Always remember this: I am an Intellectual God, I can see all the problems in the world.

The reasoning behind the law does not justify the law or make it less stuuupid! It is a purely daft law.

Why?

Because:
- It creates another serious problem.
- It is not practical/feasible.
- It is an inferior solution to the problem compared to existing solution it is suppose to replace.

It is a purely moronic law!

natureblack: Nigga,I don't really know what makes you so stupid,but it really works.

If u are gonna be a smartass,first you have to be smart.Otherwise you're just an arss

#CyberWimp

You are a cretinous person.

So you think this is an opportunity to use a phrase you have read somewhere before instead of defending your moronic opinion?

person, know from today that moronic fcktards like you should not be entitled to an opinion.

Next time, shut the fck up and read what intelligent people say.

Do you understand that, person?

natureblack: you mean hell would have been let loose if u had mentioned me without insult.


Cyber wimp

person, use your brain next time before having an opinion.

Worse still, before giving it.

The brain is not meant solely for experiencing weed smoking.

deols: The law does not say they should not have sex. It says they should seek her consent. I think the law is OK. So many people taking advantage of some girls' naivety wont av an excuse.

No, the law did not say they should seek her consent.

The law said they should take responsibility that she says "Yes".

She has no responsibility. She does not even have to tell them she does not want to have sex.

That is a pure moronic law!

Don't give me that tosh about "naivety".

Are they kids? Or you are publicly admitting now that women are dumb and inferior intellectually?

Or what makes a girl of 18 too moronic that she needs special protection from a boy of 18 because of her "naivety"? She should be regarded as reetarded due to her gender?

deols: Once you agree to marriage, you have agreed to sex. Your partnee has as much right over your body as you have over theirs. This law cant hold in marriage.

In marriage, the possible law would be, No means no. And silence and lack of resiatance, no.

Maybe in Saudi Arabia.

In the West, you do not live under Islamic law.

Your partner does not own your body or have rights to it except with situational consent. IF you say no and he goes ahead, then it is raape.

I still wait for the second question:

Are you saying if people do not have your religious beliefs and dogma, hence not interested in marriage, they should not be allowed to have sex?

deols: Well,a Yes means Yes. There are no blurred lines and all of those should dogmatically come after marriage.

Now D!

So you admit marriage is not a panacea?

Neither does it give any justification that this law is not stuuupid?

Now secondly, if people do not have your religious beliefs and dogma, they should not be allowed to have sex?

Sixix: She may not say anything but if the guy touches her in a her intimate manner and she responded in a like manner, that is explicit consent...I don't believe they will make that type of law

Nope.

That is not consent. That is "silence" or "lack of resistance"!

Do you know what "silence" or "lack of resistance" is under this extremely moronic law?

RAAPE!

That is how STUUUUUUPID the law is. The people that came up with it are fcktards!

Sixix: I won't interpret it as a oral no or yes

Once they say "silence" or "lack of resistance" is not a sign of consent, then you HAVE to interpret it as oral "Yes" or "No".

Otherwise you are saying deol's philosophy of elimination of blurred lines is wrong.

Sixix: The bolded is my interpretation however

Amanda Hess is a man-hating person that is trying to deceive people.

If the law says "silence" or "lack of resistance" is not consent, then except a woman explicitly tells you "Yes", nonverbal cues such as body language are just "silence" or "lack of resistance".

Do you know what "silence" or "lack of resistance" is under this extremely moronic law?

RAAPE!

Sixix: Well, this is crazy

One of the fcktards has explicitly told you what they meant with the law they created.

Sixix: Just like the paper said, the law is ridiculed with ambiguity, I will wait for the legal interpretation from the court because the above interpretation is too illogical to follow (putting human behaviour into consideration)

The minute I read it, I knew it was written by fcktards.

So, yes, it is illogical.

Fcktards don't understand logic.

Sixix: To be on the safer side of course

Some people are not interested in marriage, so what should they do?

They should never have sex?

What safe side can they be in?

deols: Structure your question better next time.

They actually should be married before it. So, Yes! A contract should be signed.

Let me first pack the religious dogma.

I will take it a bit intellectual.

So you don't think a "No" (that is raape) can exist in marriage?

amiskurie: Sharap jor,basket head....white butt licker.
Hopless being,Im sure you work in a place like mortuary or as a nanny in the UK

GOAT!

You are a cretinous person!

So you pulled that moronic assertion out of your moronic arsse?

Cretinous product of a failed education system.

You think the internet is like the daft schools that produced you?

deols: No. I didnt mean that blurred lines is a synonym for contract.

When Yes means Yes. The lines are clear and not blurred.

You can listen to Robbin Thicke's blurred lines to understand what I mean.

And what I asked you was that:

So they should sign a contract?

So there is zero blurred lines.

Sixix: I partly agree with the interpretation of the bolded but you also have to interpret and define what silence is. And I believe that it would be given the ordinary interpretation.

I am yet to agree with the label Yes means Yes, from my own point of view the law is misconstrued. I will wait for the legal interpretation before making assumptions

I don't think silence can be ambiguously interpreted when it comes to the use of vocal cords.

If they did not want to say it is raape if she did not explicitly state "yes" or something affirmative, then silence would not be in the law.

That is a catch them all phrase that ensures women have no responsibility except they choose to.

Typical.

Sixix: , say no to pre-marital sex

What kind of proposal is that?

Don't let me send my babalawo after you o.

https://www.omgnaija.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fadeyi_Oloro.jpg

all4naija: Wow! They should also extend this to young girls coerced into p o r n.

And hear the person think stupidity should spread!

Sixix: UK legislators will never pass this kind of law, that is US for you, the only state you can make millions if the coffee you bought was too hot

And this law screams political pressure

You must be joking!

The sexist, Theresa May, will propose and sign this law in an instance.