Jarryd Hayne guilty of ‘bad sex’, not rape, lawyer tells court Woman only complained because she was 'upset about her injuries', defence barrister says https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/03/jarryd-hayne-guilty-of-bad-sex-not-lawyer-tells-court Former NRL star Harry's Hayne has told a jury he knew a woman didn’t want to have sex with him in her bedroom but he wanted to “please her”. (by "sex", he is referring to normal sexual intercourse) Giving evidence in his defence during his rape trial in Newcastle district court on Friday, Hayne said he had been kissing the woman before she removed her pants and he performed oral sex on her. “She was breathing heavily, she was fine,” Hayne said. “I knew she didn’t want to have sex. I thought I would just please her.” He said he was suddenly in shock and jumped up when he “first felt the sense of a different liquid hit my lip”. Hayne didn’t have a clue what it was and looked at his hands before realising it was blood. https://theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/27/jarryd-hayne-tells-court-he-knew-alleged-victim-didnt-want-sex-but-he-wanted-to-please-her
Well I think you would have been much wiser to have made that the focus of your thread. But your inclusion of this rugby-player's case, changed that. Well the new Australian law which, supposedly, is the whole concept behind this thread, says that the woman doesn't even have to say, "no." She now must say, "yes," right? And I think there is little doubt, in the case you present, the woman never did. You, instead, seem to be saying that she let it happen, without putting up significant resistance. In a U.S. court, I think you'd have a winning defense. But not under Australian law.
It sounds like he interpreted her no as meaning she didn't want him to put his penis inside her, so instead he decided he would try giving her oral sex. That complicates the whole issue of consent here, a little bit. From his perspective, he could have interpreted that as "consent" when she didn't say no to it when she realized it was going to be oral sex, instead of "normal" sex.
I am not arguing that he is not guilty under the wording of the Australian law, but arguing that this is an example of how the Australian law is wrong. This should have been a grey zone case. Instead, the wording of this Australian law gives the entire benefit of the doubt to the woman. article about affirmative sexual consent in Australia: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sm...ot-enough-in-some-states-20190805-p52e1p.html
It looks like this wasn't even the law in the Australian state of Victoria until the 2016 Crimes Amendment Sexual Offences Act, which clarified and drastically altered the definition of consent. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/caoa201647o2016349/s1.html
which is proof that it's not rape... it is an insult to real rape victims to call something that is not rape... rape
Technically they are using the legal definition "sexual assault" here. Which can have a broader meaning than the word rape (even though in the minds of most people they view the two as synonymous).
the other way to think of it is, say a woman tries to have sex with a married man and he says no, but then after she keeps coming on to him, seducing him when he said no, he gives in and has sex anyways, never giving consent, is she a rapist? he did say no... no means no, so is the married man a rape victim?
You really should have done a better job of research, before posting this thread. You first described the situation this way: Now you are depicting a COMPLETELY different scenario: The facts that THE WOMAN removed her own pants, and that it was CUNNILINGUS, not (femoral) intercourse which led to her bleeding, cast a much different light on the incident, if we can now trust what you're telling us. But I can't help but feel as if I am waiting for the other shoe to drop-- will we later discover that the, "woman," was a 16 year old girl? Based on your revised details, I predict a backlash over this. Whatever the name of the party or the movement that led to this new law, it was clearly a case of over-reach. The question is, when those on the other side of the spectrum lead a popular reaction to it, will they, likewise, push too far in the opposite direction, instead of settling for just trimming back on the feminist-friendly excesses?
Like I tried to explain before, the accounts are different because they are two different perspectives. The accounts are mostly similar, but on some points they disagree, or give a different interpretation of what happened. He claims she removed her pants. She claims he did. I personally strongly suspect he was the one who removed her pants, but she didn't really do anything to stop him. I can imagine that her facial expression probably gave the message "I'm really not too much into this, but go ahead". That's what the situation seems to indicate to me, trying to combine and interpret both of their testimonies. But of course no one other than them truly knows exactly what happened.
Sure they can - but they are STILL hardwired to **** anything which moves. Work with the reality, and our sons will be better men and our daughters safer. Pretending that those instincts have been wiped out means we ignore their impact on our sons' behaviour, and sends the message to our daughters that they should not have to operate carefully. IOW puts them in real danger.
Many years working with human nature, is your source material Dear. Ignore the animal in our nature at your peril. It can be 'contained', but it can't be erased. There will ALWAYS be predatory males prepared to do the unthinkable. There is no possibility of deleting them from the gene pool. Our daughters must work with that reality if they're to survive and thrive.
No I am not being naive I am being a male chauvinist pig, I was brought up to. Never swear in front of a woman, open doors for women, never hit a woman and never have sex with a woman who does not indicate she is 100% into it.. Now I realise that is a very non PC way of thinking of things, but it is how my father brought me up to be a gentleman with the fairer sex, and that is the way I brought up my son. It might be that promotes equality issues but it does protect our daughters and sometimes I think feminists threw the "baby out with the bathwater". Modern women can really push it, I have been swore at and physically attacked by some real foul mouthed bitches, but I have never given in to my animal instincts.
Even if that were true, that still wouldn't automatically justify criminal charges. You seem to be saying we shouldn't feel at all sorry for him because he didn't do what he was supposed to do. That's only a part of an argument, it does not constitute an argument by itself. How many men have we seen in recent times being hit with sexual assault charges when their only real "crime" was being a sexual pig and not being the most respectful / not having the best etiquette in the bedroom? If a woman made it totally clear she didn't want it, she could stop it. (If that is not the situation, then it really is rape)
If this describes the men you know then I pity you. It doesn't describe me or the men I know. It is the responsibility of men not to rape women, not of women to stop them. As long as boys are taught that it is their 'nature' to do as they please then some of them will act that out. As long as they are taught that the responsibility for preventing rape is on women then they will act that out.
Interesting to see who lines up on the side of the rapist. Sadly predictacle in some cases. Hayne has form for this sort of behaviour - right down to the bleeding. Unfortunately for the young lady in this latest case it happened in the US & didn't get a ton of publicity here. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/jarryd...er-alleged-san-jose-rape-20190829-p52lwj.html In fact, he abruptly abandoned his NRL career in the US when detectives started asking questions about that rape, which ended up in a civil settlement. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-soon-police-asked-question-alleged-rape.html This guy is filth & deserves to be in jail. Sadly I suspect his time won't be as hard as it should be, but at least he is off the streets for a few years.
It is true it is the responsibility of men not to rape women, but it is ALSO true women have some responsibility to avoid putting themselves in those situations, and it is also true that women can have responsibility in certain types of situations (like this one) to make it absolutely undeniably clear that she does not want to have sex. This wasn't some random man who came up to her off the street. This wasn't even a formal date. This woman met this man on a sex hook-up site. (Then she decided for him to meet her at her home.) The man had perfectly good reason to expect he was probably going to get some. It's a load of nonsense to say the woman had absolutely no responsibility in this situation.
No, it isn't. You are as wrong as a person can be. I have read enough of your posts not to waste my time trying to explain why. Fortnuately the time when the law reflected your views and it was basically open season on women has passed.
She could have easily stopped it if she wanted. I realize this is a little bit of a "grey zone", but she did not repeat herself or take any additional actions whatsoever when he pressed her. Yes, maybe she was a little scared and intimidated by his physical body size. But she could have said something, repeated herself. Made it even more clear. In his mind he reasoned that she was not really interested in conventional intercourse at that moment, so he was just going to lick her out instead, and maybe she'd be okay with that. The fact that she put up no further resistance after that (verbal or physical), sent the signal that she was acquiescing. "Okay, fine, I'm not really the most enthusiastic about this, but you can go ahead."
Something else I discovered about this case... The first jury was unable to reach a verdict. The article says "The jury in the rape trial of former NRL star Jarryd Hayne has been discharged after failing to reach a unanimous or a majority verdict." That means there had to be MORE THAN ONE juror who disagreed and believed the man should not have been found guilty. He was only convicted after a retrial by a second jury. Jarryd Hayne rape trial jury discharged after failing to reach a verdict - ABC News, Giselle Wakatama, December 6, 2020