How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Anyway, regarding your point...if I can even call it one, it's just a shit smear on the page, but I'll try and bring something coherent out of it.
Men's rights activists advocated for text messages confirming enthusiasm before and after the act as a response to the MeToo movement, because your hateful little cult was too busy worshipping pedophiles to care about such things as due process.
This action is a direct attack on that practice based on flimsy logic that has one sole goal - regain the power that was lost when workplaces went online and you could no longer accuse us of impropriety, because everything is recorded.
First off: Stop accusing people you don't know online of worshipping paedophilia. It makes me feel I'm responding to a 12 year old.
I am responding though because even 12 year olds need to understand that sexting is not consent. Do not fuck anybody without their consent. Do not pretend that cybersex is consent for physical interactions. Do not be stupid. Do not rape.
Also do not be stupid enough to believe that text messages sent prior to meeting someone and having sex with them will save you from a false rape accusation. They won't. Protect yourself better than that.
Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)
Prosecutor reviewing evidence, text messages saying :
He : "Oh God I want meatballs so bad."
She : "Yeah meatballs would be nice, I want your meatballs in my mouth."
He : My place?
She : Sure.
Police complaint :
She : "He forcefully fed me, I never talked about wanting to eat with him!"
He : "She came to my place and we had dinner. Here are text messages leading up to that."
Sex itself isn't a crime. Castrating someone is.
Of course it's in the realm of possibility that she changed her mind before dinner and he actualy forcefully shoved meatballs in her mouth. It's also possible she lied because the meatballs weren't up to her expectations, or she regreted cheating on her diet, or felt shame about eating meatballs as she has Vegan friends, etc.
And extremely unlikely such a case would be entertained by a judge with circumstancial evidence, the texts messages, showing there was intent for consensual dinner.
Rape is a crime. Sexting is not consent. Sex without consent is rape.
It absolutely is indeed in the realm of possibility that she is willing to flirt electronically but has no intention of getting sticky. Which is all that this guidance points out.
I can answer that. You're so incredibly dishonest about everything you do that you genuinely are covering up the blindingly obvious motive behind this decision.
Go to hell, and take your "Coercive Control" laws with you, you horrid Nazi pieces of shit.
I'm honest enough to step back and read the guidance, understand it, and understand the reasons behind it, then discuss them sanely instead of attacking other people online.
Let's keep this simple: Sexting is not consent to sex.
SEXTING
IS
NOT
CONSENT
In case you didn't catch that, sexting is not consent.
I hope that provides adequate clarity regarding my position.
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Anyway, regarding your point...if I can even call it one, it's just a shit smear on the page, but I'll try and bring something coherent out of it.
Men's rights activists advocated for text messages confirming enthusiasm before and after the act as a response to the MeToo movement, because your hateful little cult was too busy worshipping pedophiles to care about such things as due process.
This action is a direct attack on that practice based on flimsy logic that has one sole goal - regain the power that was lost when workplaces went online and you could no longer accuse us of impropriety, because everything is recorded.
First off: Stop accusing people you don't know online of worshipping paedophilia. It makes me feel I'm responding to a 12 year old.
I am responding though because even 12 year olds need to understand that sexting is not consent. Do not fuck anybody without their consent. Do not pretend that cybersex is consent for physical interactions. Do not be stupid. Do not rape.
Also do not be stupid enough to believe that text messages sent prior to meeting someone and having sex with them will save you from a false rape accusation. They won't. Protect yourself better than that.
Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)
I do apologise, I was under the misapprehension that you were replying to me.
Since all of your message is clearly directed at someone else I shall ignore it.
Can you just call everyone an incel for me? I was close to finishing the bingo card.
Prosecutor reviewing evidence, text messages saying :
Police complaint :
Sex itself isn't a crime. Castrating someone is.
Of course it's in the realm of possibility that she changed her mind before dinner and he actualy forcefully shoved meatballs in her mouth. It's also possible she lied because the meatballs weren't up to her expectations, or she regreted cheating on her diet, or felt shame about eating meatballs as she has Vegan friends, etc.
And extremely unlikely such a case would be entertained by a judge with circumstancial evidence, the texts messages, showing there was intent for consensual dinner.
Rape is a crime. Sexting is not consent. Sex without consent is rape.
It absolutely is indeed in the realm of possibility that she is willing to flirt electronically but has no intention of getting sticky. Which is all that this guidance points out.
I'm confused that it's causing such distress.
I can answer that. You're so incredibly dishonest about everything you do that you genuinely are covering up the blindingly obvious motive behind this decision.
Go to hell, and take your "Coercive Control" laws with you, you horrid Nazi pieces of shit.
I'm honest enough to step back and read the guidance, understand it, and understand the reasons behind it, then discuss them sanely instead of attacking other people online.
Let's keep this simple: Sexting is not consent to sex.
SEXTING IS NOT CONSENT
In case you didn't catch that, sexting is not consent.
I hope that provides adequate clarity regarding my position.