Social Justice Warriors Thread

[Ph64]

As for how one can prove or disprove guilt in cases like that? Evaluation of witness testimony is almost always the only sort of proof that can exist. Although, it seems she did sustain bruising. Can cases with only testimonies lead to miscarriage of justice if the accuser is lying? Yes. The alternative is letting any sexual crime against men, women and children go unpunished unless there's either video or forenisic evidence to charge them.

So in other words if 100 innocent people face the consequences for every one guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" person, that's just the cost of your form of "justice"?

"Guilty until/unless proven innocent"?

[apeman]

Future legal battle in UK: I gave him explicit consent to sex but not to kiss me, he kissed me during sex, lock him up

[Ex-California]

Future legal battle in UK: I gave him explicit consent to sex but not to kiss me, he kissed me during sex, lock him up

That's standard on college campuses now

[SuburbanFarmer]

Yayyyyyyyyy Government in the bedroom is awesome, ain't it?

[TheReal_ND]

[BjornP]

How can there be consent to sex but not to touching boobs?

Seriously, I bet if you have consent that you'll get blown, but then you cum on her face without warning, you are guilty of sexual assault in the UK.

By the other party vocalizing she didn't want her boobs touched?

I just literally cannot conceive of this outcome. If I was asked has a woman ever given consent to sex but not to touching boobs, I would have said of course not.

Doesn't matter if you, me or anyone, can't. Telling a woman: "No no, you can't actually say no now, because other women I've had sex with haven't had a problem with getting their tits grabbed during sex...." is a completely insane argument. Maybe he grabbed them too hard, maybe X, maybe Y, it does. Not. Really. Matter. If she said no, she said no. Doesn't matter if you, or anyone thinks her reason for saying no is foolish.

So in other words if 100 innocent people face the consequences for every one guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" person, that's just the cost of your form of "justice"?

"Guilty until/unless proven innocent"?

Why would it be guilt until proven innocent? That's not what I'm describing and the guy in the article btw has been proven guilty.

Why would 100 innocent people "face the consequences" (whatever that means) for every one guilty person? Any particular reason it's 100 to 1? You're not making any sense. Are you opposed to sentencing, or even charging people for crimes if the only evidence is the testimony of the accuser?

[Speaker to Animals]

Bye, Europe.

[Fife]

He touched my boobs! He kissed me! Take him away!

Rape Culture

[SuburbanFarmer]

Excellent developments. Now, any insecure feminazi can have a man destroyed on sight, just by playing 'red light/green light' in bed for a few minutes. Shit, probably doesn't even have to come near him. The accusation will do just fine.

[apeman]

Doesn't matter if you, me or anyone, can't. Telling a woman: "No no, you can't actually say no now, because other women I've had sex with haven't had a problem with getting their tits grabbed during sex...." is a completely insane argument. Maybe he grabbed them too hard, maybe X, maybe Y, it does. Not. Really. Matter. If she said no, she said no. Doesn't matter if you, or anyone thinks her reason for saying no is foolish.

Well no kidding.

I am not inferring foolishness, I am inferring bad faith.

Either way, you cannot touch someone against their will. Period.

It's like having sex with Simon Says though.