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.

This is Lemmy and the topic was sex and consent and sexual propriety, which as a guy who’s been married twice, once the wrong way and once the right way, I happen to have some opinions on. Not a expert, just know the difference between a good sexual relationship and a bad one so my experience is applicable. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.

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

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.

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.

I clearly fundamentally dont believe in casual sexual relationships where consent is an issue. The problem isn’t consent. Its that people have normalized hooking up with sexual partners they barely know, before they’ve even formed any kind of a bond, and then have to precariously navigate all kinds of sexual etiquette because there is little trust, little relationship and no commitment. Sexual assault from lack of consent is a problem created by people who have not made a commitment to love, cherish, protect and nurture the love of their life and made a lasting commitment to them. Its not rocket science to note that the people in this case only met each other a few hours before this whole sordid event happened and were only out for some ‘fun’. Its also not rocket science to note that the number of cases of committed couples who have been together for years dragging the issue of ‘consent’ into a courtroom is far far less, if you can even find those cases at all.

If you play with fire, you’re gonna get burned. Just ask some hockey players.

And Im 100% sure that my opinion will be fully accepted here on Lemmy especially by those who love their bar crawling hookups so Im gonna leave it at that. lol. I’m out.

I clearly fundamentally dont believe in casual sexual relationships where consent is an issue. The problem isn’t consent. Its that people have normalized hooking up with sexual partners they barely know, before they’ve even formed any kind of a bond, and then have to precariously navigate all kinds of sexual etiquette because there is little trust, little relationship and no commitment. Sexual assault from lack of consent is a problem created by people who have not made a commitment to love, cherish, protect and nurture the love of their life and made a lasting commitment to them. Its not rocket science to note that the people in this case only met each other a few hours before this whole sordid event happened and were only out for some ‘fun’. Its also not rocket science to note that the number of cases of committed couples who have been together for years dragging the issue of ‘consent’ into a courtroom is far far less, if you can even find those cases at all.

If you play with fire, you’re gonna get burned. Just ask some hockey players.

And Im 100% sure that my opinion will be fully accepted here on Lemmy especially by those who love their bar crawling hookups so Im gonna leave it at that. lol. I’m out.

Oh yeah. Yep. That makes sense. Personally, I’m a fan of “unalive,” but only because it’s funny.

I clearly fundamentally dont believe in casual sexual relationships where consent is an issue. The problem isn’t consent. Its that people have normalized hooking up with sexual partners they barely know, before they’ve even formed any kind of a bond, and then have to precariously navigate all kinds of sexual etiquette because there is little trust, little relationship and no commitment. Sexual assault from lack of consent is a problem created by people who have not made a commitment to love, cherish, protect and nurture the love of their life and made a lasting commitment to them. Its not rocket science to note that the people in this case only met each other a few hours before this whole sordid event happened and were only out for some ‘fun’. Its also not rocket science to note that the number of cases of committed couples who have been together for years dragging the issue of ‘consent’ into a courtroom is far far less, if you can even find those cases at all.

If you play with fire, you’re gonna get burned. Just ask some hockey players.

And Im 100% sure that my opinion will be fully accepted here on Lemmy especially by those who love their bar crawling hookups so Im gonna leave it at that. lol. I’m out.

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.

Neither DDG or Google has any idea what nvidronfor means. Please explain.

I clearly fundamentally dont believe in casual sexual relationships where consent is an issue. The problem isn’t consent. Its that people have normalized hooking up with sexual partners they barely know, before they’ve even formed any kind of a bond, and then have to precariously navigate all kinds of sexual etiquette because there is little trust, little relationship and no commitment. Sexual assault from lack of consent is a problem created by people who have not made a commitment to love, cherish, protect and nurture the love of their life and made a lasting commitment to them. Its not rocket science to note that the people in this case only met each other a few hours before this whole sordid event happened and were only out for some ‘fun’. Its also not rocket science to note that the number of cases of committed couples who have been together for years dragging the issue of ‘consent’ into a courtroom is far far less, if you can even find those cases at all.

If you play with fire, you’re gonna get burned. Just ask some hockey players.

And Im 100% sure that my opinion will be fully accepted here on Lemmy especially by those who love their bar crawling hookups so Im gonna leave it at that. lol. I’m out.

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.

Neither DDG or Google has any idea what nvidronfor means. Please explain.

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.

Quite the source you’ve got there!

Neither DDG or Google has any idea what nvidronfor means. Please explain.

God, I fucking hate the self censoring so much. There is just something so corpo-cucked about it.