THX_1138 Posted July 15, 2008 Posted July 15, 2008 If this law was applicable in US of A ' date=' 50 % of American men technically have committed "Rape" !:-D[/quote'] of course... after all we are all immoral *****s arent we?
Lurker Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 I explained how "consent" has been defined under law and interpreted by courts. Whereupon you asked me to explain the "legal scenario". I replied saying there is no legal scenario here; merely a definition simpliciter which has been accepted across jurisdictions. I further said I cannot be arsed to quote sections and cite judgments and that in the event you think I am making things up, you can check on your own. Errr no. You keep yapping about that but you have NEVER explicitly defined consent. Let me quote your words - A consent obtained through misrepresntation of facts or suppression of material facts is technically not a "consent". Where have you actually defined consent here?? What exactly is meant by consent here. Let me help you out here. Q) What is a six in cricket. A) A six happens when the authority(umpire) declares it a six. What kind of explanation is that? You have NEVER explicitly defined what consent stands for. Instead you keep yapping about feel free to check this that and other. So yes if you want to further your argument you should start by defining consent first. Your original assertion was that a consent is a consent, regardless of circumstances under which it was obtained. I told you why courts, in India and elsewhere, would deem that wrong. Further, a consent does not always have to be written. My assertion has always been that men and women are responsible for their actions. Please feel free to read all my posts within this thread and you shall get that notion time and again. The action to have sex requires equal rights, and responsibility, as well. There is no way why the law should be in favour or one without being unfair. And yes a consent is a consent. By that I dont mean a girl has to do it on gun point, or tied down whatever. It is simply a case of two people agreeing to mate. Whats wrong with that? An adversarial proceeding is always about he-says-she-says. Whether a consent was given or not, as mandated by law, is determined only after the court has reached it verdict. We are talking about ex-ante scenario not ex-post. Again not convincing. I shall pick your point what you clearly mentioned. I quote - How exactly does one prove whether the consent was freely given is a matter of evidence. Please EXPLICITLY define evidence in a man-woman's sex scenario and help me understand how one can escape a he-says-she-says in this situation. You shifted from your initial remark about how a consent is a consent, in all circumstances to how one would prove that consent was not given. Appreciate the difference. What shifted? Have redefined it once again within this thread. Quite possible last time I was not very clear, you could obviously have checked with me to see where I was coming from rather than assume without any reasons. xxx
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 My wife`s comment: `So basically this lagislation shouts that girls back home are stupid and can`t make their own deicision.:--D
DomainK Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Girls in Bombay are good. You dont have to promise marriage to sleep with them. In fact they would run away the moment you even talk of marriage.:D
theguyinallblue Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 i posted an audio of a Bombay girl fighting with her BF... i think it was it Predator's dirty thread... kya mast le rahi thi ladke ki..i mean gussa kar rahi thi..:haha:
flamy Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Consent for sex, except with prostitutes, is most of the time hardly verbal and seldom concrete. :D And what happens if I like to hit it with married women and turns out the woman lied to me? She raped me, eh?
Lurker Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Your analogy is poor, as was your politician example. Consent is defined negatively (as are many other terms in law) and it serves it purpose in a court of law. Courts and people associated with the judicial process never had any problem in applying this definition. If you cannot comprehend it, hard luck. I would much rather come across with "poor" anaologies than keep posting the same dumb rhetoric over and again. For the 75th time you choose to be argumentative and NOT get to the meat of the argument. Good luck with legal career! People always are responsible for their actions. Consequently, a man who fraudulently obtains the consent of a woman to have sex shall be held liable. How do you establish "fraudulence" ace? You keep yapping about "consent" but for the 75th time you will run away from describing it explicitly. The offer is still open, if you can be arsed enough that is! You are again shifting your argument, as you always do, by pointing out how the law is suppos edly unfair. My intial response was never about what the law should be. It was about the law as it is and the rationale of Court's verdict. Again, appreciate the difference. More BS. Talk to the hand! A consent is not always a consent, for the umpteenth time. It doesn't matter what you think. The law is clear and the Courts have pronounced judgment based on that definition since 18th century without any inconsistency. I have already explained it. It seems like you are unable to appreciate the difference. And for the twice the umpteenth time what exactly is "consent". Define it in black and white and then carry this argument. Clear? You've been shifting the proverbial goal post all the time. In this post you even talked about "what the law ought to be" despite my original post being an explanation of the case based on the "law as it is". You also made a blanket statement that a consent is always a consent. Once you realised the folly of this remark you ran for cover and took cover saying "how would one prove consent". You've also not told me how you are going to drag a politician in a court of law and spcifically prove that you voted for him. I am quite aware you'd come back with same repititive posts and frankly they wouldn't interest me. Please tell me how you'd prove in a court of law that you voted for a particular politician and implicate him Yep keep BSing. No time for wasting with you. Come back when you can: a) Define CONSENT in Sexual Encounter. b) Define EXPLICIT EVIDENCE in Sexual Encounter. Till then I suggest you brush up on legal knowledge..and patience my dear :hatsoff:
Lurker Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 P.S: I couldn't help notice how you've been avoiding your own politician example. Poor stuff, but expected, from a semi-literate, cognitively-challenged IT coolie! Okay before I waste a few minutes do help me understand why I should even bother with a such a foolish specimen?? Really is this how fast you lose your plot mate? So give me some confidence that you are worth my time you ill-mannered fool. And then we can carry this further. Fair? xxx
Lurker Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 One possible reason, amongst many others, could be that you are indeed what I suspected you to be, i.e., cognitively-challenged. I'd strongly recommend you seek help elsewhere. Before you start sulking again, let me remind you that it was you who intially accused me of acting "high and mighty" and everything I said was "yapping". I just took the thread to its natural conclusion. P.S. Still avoiding the politician example, eh? Ah yes the uncouth I expected. Carry on the rant you aren't worth my while..or most people for that matter! Good luck with that blood pressure :hysterical:
THX_1138 Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 i am curious... who actually falls for that trick "i love you, i ll marry you... now remove your bra"
Recommended Posts