Another case of Australia's sexual consent law

For those of you who may not be aware, due to the feminist element having taken over, Australia has what are called "affirmative consent" laws concerning sex and sexual assault. Meaning the man can still be guilty of sexual assault even if the woman did not clearly say no.
The typical such case involves a reluctant woman who regretted it afterwards. The men are not entirely without blame but it is the farthest thing away from what most people typically imagine as a rape.

It looks like it has happened again, this time to rugby star Jarred Hayne.

He met a woman through the internet and met her for the first time at her house. While he was in the middle of playing her a song off his laptop, the taxi outside which had dropped him off beeped its horn, and the man had to go out to convince the taxi to keep waiting. Before that the woman had not realized there was a taxi waiting outside. That seemed to ruin the mood.

He went back inside and watched grand final football coverage on the TV in the lounge room for several minutes with the woman's mother. He then went into the woman's bedroom where he began to touch and kiss her.

The woman was not interested in sexual contact after finding out about the taxi.

The woman said "What do you think you're doing? There's no way I'm going to touch you."
The man removed her jeans, while the woman claims she said "no".
But apparently the man didn't get the message that she was saying absolutely no.

It's like the difference between a "little no" and a "big no".

Many people believe this sounds more like a case where the woman was just being reluctant.

The man was not completely without fault here, but it wasn't exactly the classic case of date rape.

In many other countries this might be somewhere in the spectrum between a just a reluctant woman and being date rape. But not in Australia.

The man does not believe he committed rape, he seems genuine about this belief.

One additional factor here, the man was a muscular built rugby player and did weigh twice as much as the woman.

During intercourse the woman began to bleed, and when that happened the man stopped and did not finish.

The woman later explained "My vagina was stinging in a throb-like sensation and I couldn't understand or fully comprehend that he had just done that to me. I sat on my bed hugging my knees and staring into nothingness."

There are many people very skeptical about the claims that what happened constituted a rape, due to the situation and facts of the case, although nobody besides those two people can know for sure exactly how much the woman did or didn't protest in that bedroom.


The man was sentenced to 5 years and 9 months, but will be eligible for release on parole in a little less than 4 years.

Apparently the man could not believe he had been found guilty and would be going to prison.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...onths-for-sexual-assault-20210506-p57phs.html


Now, it should be pointed out that the woman did technically say "no" here, but due to the background context of the situation, it may not have been interpreted, and there is good reason to believe it was not, as a serious no.

There are some intricacies with consent. A no isn't exactly always a no. A woman can subtly communicate she's going to have sex with man, and then seem to suddenly change her mind, but not be very decided about it.
In countries with affirmative consent laws, this is very dangerous territory for the man.

This might have been more like "I don't really feel like it right now, maybe some time later" and then the woman doesn't put up much psychological resistance to the man's advances and is implicitly communicating "Oh, okay, I'll let you have your way" somewhat reluctantly.

Of course, if a woman doesn't feel like she specifically said yes, wasn't the most enthusiastic about it to begin with, and there was something unanticipated that went bad during the experience that caused her to feel unpleasant (especially if it was bleeding and soreness, which is not extremely uncommon), then the woman is more likely to feel violated in a serious way. That's when the sexual assault claims begin.

Now at this point some of you have already made up your mind, and are going to say "this is date rape".
Before you do that, I want you to consider this, and give it some careful thought:

The trouble is, the way the woman is describing it, I don't think we (as outside impartial observers listening to her testimony, with the assumption she is not blatantly lying) can really decide what actually went on exactly in that bedroom, or what it might have looked like from the man's perspective.

It's one thing if a woman was blatantly lying and falsely accusing a man of something he totally did not do, but in this case that's not the issue here.
The woman could be describing things from her perspective (not so much trying to lie) and the situation she describes may not be the objective truth.

It reminds me of one of the scenes in the Star Trek Next Generation episode "A Matter of Perspective", where a woman describes what events transpired (her side of the story), and Riker is absolutely sure she is lying, but Troy (who has the ability to sense what others are feeling) tells him that she is not. Riker asked how can that be, "We both can't be telling truth!", and Troy responds "You are both telling the truth as you remember it."


video here, with annoying ads, scene begins at 25:08 and ends at 28:26


season 3, episode 14, link here

Some more background about the plot in this episode, Riker is suspected of killing Dr. Apgar. They are trying to determine what happened. Each witness to the preceding events makes a hologram recreation of what they remember happening. In Riker's version, Dr. Apgar's wife makes strong romantic advances towards him. In the wife's version, it is Riker who was strongly making sexual advances towards her. That version makes Riker look guilty, like he had a reason to kill Dr. Apgar to try to cover up his misconduct, because Dr. Apgar got jealous when he suddenly walked in on the two and saw what appeared to him to be inappropriate physical contact, and then threatened to report him.
The two versions of the story share many of the underlying facts and conversations, but they get interpreted in very different ways.

It's an example of how two different people can see (and remember) the same events very differently, through different perspectives, and the implications that phenomena can sometimes have in criminal cases.

 

Why was she inviting a stranger she'd just 'met' online, into her bedroom? I realise that the male in question is famous, but still .. he was a stranger to her.

Not sure what's going on with young females today, but when I was that age we would NEVER have done that. No way in the world. Even the wildest girls would want to have at least met the guy and checked out his friends etc, before putting herself in that situation.

 

Probably this situation would never have been prosecuted as a crime in any part of the Muslim World.


Expecting sex while having a taxi wait is low class and most women would find that offensive. That probably explains why she suddenly became reluctant (or much less enthusiastic) about having sex, as soon as she found out about the taxi.

 

Let's focus on her initial invitation in to her bedroom. A male who is a complete stranger, and whom she knew was seeking sex.

We (women) must always remember that no amount of legislation or cultural imposition is ever going to turn the male mammal into something that it isn't. They are hardwired to mate, with as many females as possible - as often as possible. It's a fundamental part of human nature - which is, after all, an animal nature.

 

Wow!
What a load of crap!

Sooooo - men can’t help themselves?

 

What part of NO requires interpretation?

 

Exactly I cannot think of anything worse than sleeping with someone who is not 100% into it. I guess Crank was unlucky with the men she met.

 

Context is everything. You obviously did not read through the opening post, watch the video, and give careful thought to the issues that were being discussed.

Words can be said, but in this sort of situation they can mean completely different things depending on the way the woman says them, and exactly how she acts in the situation.
Unfortunately there is no way to really know exactly what happened, and I think even the woman's testimony leaves room open that the man may not have felt he was committing rape. Situations can be interpreted differently with different perspectives, especially after the fact.

Remember, the woman's mother was in the apartment this whole time and there were no screams for help.

 

Maybe in a world where you are desperate for sex, me I understand no needs no interpretation. My world is really simple! I will never have none consensual sex, you depend on context and interpretation.

 

Yes, but that isn't necessarily rape. Happens all the time.

The woman gave messages that she was interested in having sex, and then after she saw that taxi she started being much less enthusiastic about the idea.

 

Would you want to have sex with a reluctant woman?

 

It hinges on the exact semantic definition of the word "consent".

When she gives implicit signals that she is "okay" with it, and she's not putting up any resistance, and there is already a situation established (which there mostly was in this situation), it gives the man the green light to proceed.

(In my personal opinion concerning how the law should be)

 

Why would you have sex with someone who is not 100% into it.

 

That doesn't make it rape.

 

No it hinges on your reluctance to walk away from a situation where consent is not 100% clear.

 

Here is my guide, if in doubt walk away, then you will not ever be accused of rape. Simple.

 

Because she apparently didn't seem that reluctant before she saw the taxi.

This concerns the reasons that the man perceived she was not enthusiastic about it.


To use an example, it would be like if a woman said she was all ready to have sex, you were in the bed naked on top of her, and all of a sudden she hears the tea kettle whistling and at that moment doesn't want to have sex with you, saying she needs to turn off the tea kettle first. Her reasons for reluctance have to do with not wanting the tea kettle to boil dry.

 

The she saw the taxi and was reluctant, not rocket science is it. Unless you are desperate for sex!

 

Woman changes mind for whatever reason, they are allowed to do that, did you know?

 

That is the wise thing to do, yes, but that still doesn't justify legal action treating it like a rape.

 

Why didn't she scream for help? Why didn't she tell the man to stop in a loud voice?

The mother who was in the apartment heard nothing.

Sounds to me like the woman gave in, and just accepted it. But then the sex was painful and she felt violated.

 

Woman changes mind, for whatever reason, they are allowed to do that, did you know?

 

What century are you from, you do not need to make a woman "give in" you can meet other women who are very willing. Getting your dick wet is not a right!

 

I don't think she objected strongly enough.

I totally disagree with this "affirmative sexual consent" law.

This is all based on the testimony of the woman, and I've pointed out how the man could be innocent of rape without her intentionally lying.

 

Maybe that is because you are just a rapist at heart. "She did not object strongly enough" sounds like something a rapist would say. I guess it goes along with "she loved it really"