I couldn’t follow much from news outlets out of Canada.
Rotten Mango takes us through the deep dive. I think anyone with even a passing interest in Hockey, should give this a watch. But, just as the video warns, for those of you who cannot handle topics of sexual assault, please take care and stay safe.
EDIT: Here’s part one.
Honestly, this video is disingenuous.
No one is arguing that it can’t be SA just because they’re athletes, and that had nothing to do with the judge’s ruling.
The judge went through the evidence and it seemed more likely that she consented then not.
This is a better article and was extremely easy to find: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0qlwnyy70o
I’m I wrong or is it odd she did a consent video after the fact surrounded by a bunch of guys. Like they doesn’t seem like pressure to anyone else.
Maybe but like that there is no way to do anything like this anymore.
This may come as a shock to some people but many women enjoy sex, many women enjoy gangbangs, and a women making a consent nvidronfor a gangbang is something I’ve never heard of before and FFS, shouldn’t be necessary.
But she did anyway and the result on the Internet is: weeeeellll, I think she was forced anyways!
So now what? Do we need a notarized confession of consent before we can have sex?
I get the problem, but I also get that we remove any natural normal human interactions with this.
The world needs more nvidronfor period. I don’t care what people think. If you agree with me or not. Any woman, and any man for that matter, should be able to make as many nvidronfor as they want.
A valid point raised in the video as well. These 19 something year old players allege that the complainant was begging for sex, and everyone felt awkward. No one films to document this remarkable scene that sounds like a porn video.
But, they definitely had time to record a consent video.
What’s wrong with exploring the details of a high profile case involving Hockey players sexually assaulting a woman? I think the videos are well researched, and together form up 3 hours of well thought out detail.
I point out that this is a deep dive into the issue, and you roll up with a BBC article that probably takes 5 minutes to read.
Also, I watched the videos, and there’s discussion about how badly the case was handled from all fronts; and, there’s treatment on how netizens have some consensus that there was very little likelihood that the charges would result in convictions because of how the laws are.
I won’t go over all the highlights. A few points raised for me were:
Criminal law standards vs morality standards - I felt that the video also distinguished the issue of the court’s formal finding of guilt or innocence based on a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. They even went over the moral issues that arose when exploring the culture of sexism in the Hockey players online “bible”, consent, and even the pinch points on evidence that were in favour of either the Hockey players and the complainant.
What’s society comfortable with issues of team sports and toxic behaviour? We’re being reminded about the ugly side of Hockey culture and whether we want these players to be flaunting their wealth and power around in this way. Or should they pay a price? Who should trust these roving packs of guys, travelling from town to town, grabbing at booze and women, then rushing home to their well compensated handlers at the first sign of trouble?
What credibility does Hockey Canada have? An organization that’s supposed to be hand holding these guys, and upholding some semblance of a honour/conduct system? There’s clips of the players making alleged statements to Hockey Canada for conduct over the allegations of sexual assault, and their statements are not even consistent with what ends up out during the criminal proceedings.
its a tricky case just on that consent video alone. part of me says she consented, another part of me says she was forced to do it. and i do take into account of hockeys history of things around a topic such as this. Personally, if i was given a gun to my head to choose, id say she was pressured into doing the consent video.
It took me too long to figure out she was saying ‘SA-ing’ and not ‘essay-ing.’ I thought it was new Gen Z slang.
God, I fucking hate the self censoring so much. There is just something so corpo-cucked about it.
yeah SA is kinda new and a way to keep videos flagged for inappropriate content. Honestly i know its annoying but they have to cover themselves so the video doesn’t get flagged.
How about you stop using fucking platforms that do this shit?
Fuck the platforms and fuck all the shit-eating cocksmiths that perpetuate this asinine bullshit.
It is new slang, and it wouldn’t be an issue if they simply used a video sharing platform that doesn’t subscribe to the Chinese communist government’s moral guidelines.
Are you seriously too young to remember the Adpocalypse?
Oh yeah. Yep. That makes sense. Personally, I’m a fan of “unalive,” but only because it’s funny.
I didnt watch the video (2 hours? No thanks) but I think the judge made it clear that the primary witness gave unreliable and untrustworthy testimony which really sank her credibility in this case.
It hit peak head shaking wonder when the Crown prosecutor argued that just because she was sucking on a guy’s johnson doesnt mean she was consenting to other sex acts? Specifically “You cannot treat that as a communication of consent to any other sexual act.” Which means, in that lawyer’s world, one must ask consent to every individual act.
Does that include changing positions good sir? “Uh, just because I did doggy style doesnt mean I consented to reverse cowgirl. How DARE you assume I consented!”
Hmm, I get the impression these people have never actually had a sexual relationship? Probably just safer to print out a consent form for each act and then have both parties sign before each act to make it clear they were both ok with it. I heard that works /s
??? By your logic, if you’re ok with me sucking your dick, then tying you down and fucking your urethra is clearly ok
What the fuck? Yes, as you’re having sex with someone it is completely normal and good to ask AT LEAST “would this be OK?” or “can we …” as you go along. Consent to one thing isn’t the same as consent to everything. Having consensual sex with a condom becomes unconsensual if one removes the condom unbeknownst to the other, for example.
You clearly fundamentally don’t understand consent.
Yes, that is what that means. Consent is revocable, ongoing, and more complex than, “you were kinda into it before and said yes at first so now I can do whatever I want to you. No takesie backsies.” If you ever have sex, yes, that person can change their mind and it is rape if you don’t stop. That’s right, saying yes to doggystyle doesn’t mean they consented to reverse cowgirl and it takes a full two seconds to check in on them throughout sex, y’know, like they’re a person. You don’t sound like you’re talking about common sense like you think you do, you just sound like a fucking rapist who is pissed that consent language is more well known than it used to be.
Unironically, some douche named “LoveCanada” spewing rapist gaslighting talking points is just perfect, could even be a character bit.
LOL.
So because she’s giving one guy a blow job in your mind it means she wants to get relied from behind by another guy?
No because she’s giving a guy a blow job she can’t claim she didnt consent to having sex with that guy. Its a nonsensical claim.
Breaking news: you can give someone a blowjob and also not want to have sex with them.
i think the words both you and @LoveCanada@lemmy.ca are both looking for is intercourse
No I meant sex. Intercourse is sex. Blowjobs are sex.
no, a blowjob is not the same as intercourse. don’t even try to make it the same
Are you trying to say that a blowjob is NOT sex?
Bigger breaking news: Giving someone a blowjob IS having sex with them. Whoosh.
I just gave this guy a blowjob and he stuck it in my ass after. I guess it’s all just sex, right? It’s all the same hole in the end.
Eww. Not likely.
Yeah that’s why we ask first.
So you’re commenting on something you didn’t watch?
Yes, engaging in any sexual act is not implied consent for every sexual act. In what world is it hard to ask if someone wants something? They’re like, right there. Source: I’m a slut.
agree 100%. you can’t assume your partner unless consented beforehand is saying yes = do whatever you want (again, unless they specifically say that).
Yeah 2 hours of a full length feature movie with really good actors might hold my attention but two hours of a random youtuber, highly unlikely.
As for consent, sorry, Im used to being a loving committed relationship, not one night stands with strangers while cheating on my fiance after picking up someone in a bar. I know what my wife likes and doesnt like and once the train leaves the station, we’re not pausing to get ‘informed consent’ about every little change up. But you do you. Or someone else. Whichever :)
Okay… but like you get the whole thing where you can’t really have an informed opinion on something you didn’t watch, right? You don’t have to comment on things you don’t want to watch or read.
I’m happy for you and your wife! Super weird projecting though, where you equate promiscuity with cheating and short term relationships. I do enjoy short term sexual relationships on occasion, so I like to make sure I’m doing the things my partners want done. After all, you never know someone’s past or preferences.
No one ever said anything about getting consent to change positions and certainly not in a long term, committed relationship. They said consenting to a blowjob didn’t imply consent to other sexual acts. In fact, it’s in the criminal code. That’s probably why the prosecutor brought it up:
Sections 276 to 276.5 of the Criminal Code govern the admission of evidence regarding a sexual assault complainant’s other sexual activity. The Code makes it clear that evidence that a complainant has engaged in sexual activity is not admissible to suggest that the victim was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity which is the subject matter of the charge or that he/she is less worthy of belief.
I brought up the cheating because it was part of the case. The woman in question was at a hotel bar, got tipsy, picked up the hockey player and despite being engaged, went up to his hotel room for some fun.
Something that has nothing to do with whether she consented. What decade are you from?
so wait, when you had sex with your wife for the first time, did you just start having sex with her without her saying she wanted it?
You want me to discuss the intimate details of my sex life on Lemmy? LOL. Want nudes too?
don’t pull up and talk about consent when you won’t even tell someone if you even believe in consent in the first place.
Of course I dont believe in consent. Its a mans world. We take what we want when we want it. That’s the way its supposed to be. /s
C’mon man, its not your first day on the internet nor mine. You know and I know exactly where that kind of personal question leads and Im not that dumb.
listen, believe what you want to believe ya? When someone asks for consent, first learn what consent means and why it’s important.
You got a whole paragraph talking about fucking your wife and now you’re shy? Why did you even bring it up in the first place then I don’t get it.
:) This is Lemmy, not my doctor’s office.
Exactly, so next time maybe don’t bring up how you like to fuck your wife out of the blue.
I’m regrettably not surprised, just very disappointed.
when i heard the news come out from the acquittal, i was not happy with the outcome. I feel like it required further investigation and judicial action.
The very reason that SA cases are so hard to prove is that the investigations are often just character and hearsay based.
Personally I’d say filming a consent video after the act, surrounded by the men, is evidence against consent, not for it.
