Five members from Canada’s 2018 world junior team (Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote and Formenton) told to surrender to police, facing sexual assault charges

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

Sure was nice of the London police to wait after until this past year's WJC before releasing this statement, so as not to muddy the waters or anything, y'know?

Can't have any distractions! Maybe Hockey Canada asked them to hold off.

Or paid them to hold off.

There’s got to still be a little )$$ left in that slush fund account!!!

 

[hairylikebear]

It's just that these conversations about learning from the incident seem to only involve things the victim should've done differently and not the people that allegedly assaulted her.

That's fine. If you need to know someone's position on the perpetrator you can always ask them.

 

[Kane One]

In another thread, a poster raised a question which made me realized there's another layer to this with respect to publication bans and why these players aren't being named by anyone.

If any of the players in question were under 18 at the time of the allegations, their names could not be reported by operation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. No accused young person can ever be named. From said Youth Criminal Justice Act:

• 110 (1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.
• (2) Subsection (1) does not apply
  • (a) in a case where the information relates to a young person who has received an adult sentence; or
  • (b) [Repealed, 2019, c. 25, s. 379]
  • (c) in a case where the publication of information is made in the course of the administration of justice, if it is not the purpose of the publication to make the information known in the community.

Why would this apply to anyone who is currently an adult? Plus, 2a says it doesn’t apply if it’s an adult sentence for minors. These players will be tried as adults.

 

[Aoko]

Also imagine you are a woman in a room that just had consensual sex with 5 famous Canadian hockey players and now you want a payday...so you say it was rape, get a big settlement from Hockey Canada and now you can go after each of the 5 civilly...you're set for life in your early 20's and all you had to do was lie a little bit.

And concisely, imagine if you were any one of the five dudes. You could have easily escaped this whole situation if you kept it in your pants. Problem averted!!!

 

[wonton15]

NHL about to announce expansion opportunities to Europe on Feb 5th

 

[snag]

I moderated for like two months 20+ years ago and still have the scars. What a thankless slog that was... the mods here are saints. Or foolish. It might be a little of column A and column B.

Are any of those synonyms for sadists?

 

[AnInjuredJasonZucker]

There is validity to that phenomenon and certainly should be a consideration. The problem with applying it universally to every situation comes from assuming that every accuser is behaving in an "honest/level" manner. Unfortunately, the reality is that there are narcissistic/mentally imbalanced/plain evil/etc people in the world that do have the capacity to either make knowingly false claims or be so detached from reality that they make claims that exist only in their own head.

That reality is why the need for a presumption of innocence judicial system is necessary. No matter how convincing or apparent an individual's claim is, the best chance to determine the validity is to try the case.

That's not correct in rape cases. Because there is so little evidence to go by, and the overwhelming majority of accusations are legit, the current system is set up to let a lot of rapists skate.

Only going by accusations has its own problems, but the probability of having the validity of the accusation accurately determined would be higher.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

@Zirakzigil idk why it won’t let me quote your post you replied to me with but it actually proves my point lol

 

[abax44]

Dec 2022:

The law of sexual assault in Canada can be surprising. If you polled members of the public about whether certain scenarios amount to sexual assault, many would wrongly guess that something that isn’t sexual assault is, or vice-versa. Here are five laws of sexual assault and consent law in Canada you should know.

Five Consent Laws In Canada​

1. Consent must be continuous throughout the sexual activity​

At first glance, this doesn’t seem like a surprising fact about the law of sexual assault. If someone consents to sex with another person, then revokes it partway through, the other person must stop having sex with them. Otherwise, the other person has committed a sexual assault. None of this is counterintuitive.

However, what if someone were to give advanced consent to having sexual acts performed on them while they’re unconscious? They could even have a particular sexual fantasy about having sex acts performed on them while sleeping, or about being woken up by a sex act.

It turns out that Canadian law still says that’s sexual assault. It’s simply illegal to perform a sexual act on someone who is in a state where they can’t consent to sex, like being unconscious. There are no exceptions, not even if someone gives their sexual partner consent in advance.

2. Apparent consent is not necessarily actual consent​

Canadian law says that in certain circumstances, a person can seem to consent to sex, but their consent wasn’t true consent. In such cases, the seemingly consensual sex was actually a sexual assault.

One example of this is if someone is in a position of authority and uses it to induce another person into consenting to have sex with them. The person in a position of authority doesn’t need to coerce the person below them. It’s enough if they use their position of authority to induce the person below them to consent to sex with them.

Another example of this is if someone has unprotected sex with another person without disclosing to them that they’re HIV positive. Assuming the other person wouldn’t have consented to sex if they had known about their sex partner’s HIV positive status, the HIV positive person is guilty of a sexual assault. The law says that the HIV positive person obtained the other person’s consent by fraud, and therefore the other person never truly consented to sex with them.

The example above might raise concerns about what amounts to fraudulently obtaining consent to sex. The law doesn’t say that a person obtains consent to sex fraudulently because, for example, they lied about their age, income, or sexual history, and had sex partner known the truth they never would have consented to sex with them. The fraud must have put the victim’s health at serious risk or related to the central character of the sex.

3. Consent occurs entirely in a person’s mind​

Canadian law says that consent is entirely a matter of what someone was thinking at the time. If they thought “I don’t want to do this”, then they were not consenting to sex, even if they said out loud “this is great, let’s keep going”.

This might seem scary. It suggests that someone could theoretically be accused of sexual assault because their sex partner didn’t want to have sex with them, even though they said the opposite at the time. However, in such a case the person accused of sexual assault would have a defence of honest belief in consent.

Honest belief in consent means that if an accused honestly believed their sex partner was consenting and took reasonable steps at the time to find out if their sex partner was consenting, then they’re not guilty of sexual assault.

4. A drunken consent is still consent​

There are some people who agree with the message “if you’re too drunk to drive, you’re too drunk to consent to sex”. This is not the law in Canada, but there is a level of intoxication where a person loses the capacity to consent.

The degree of intoxication required to no longer be legally allowed to drive is not high. In British Columbia, this is only 0.05 mg alcohol in 100 ml of blood. Most people will have blood alcohol levels above that number if they consume three standard drinks within an hour or two.

Having a few standard drinks will certainly be enough to impair someone while driving, but it will not be enough that the law says they can no longer consent to having sex with another person.

A person will be guilty of sexual assault if they have sex with someone so intoxicated that they no longer have the capacity to consent. To reach that level, there should be signs that the intoxication is very high. Examples of the kind of evidence that would support a person’s incapacity to have sex includes vomiting, difficulty standing up, slurred speech, slouching, sleepiness, stumbling, and confusion.

5. No one can bring up a sexual assault complainant’s sexual history at trial​

As a starting point, neither the Crown prosecutor nor the defence lawyer is permitted to bring up any sexual history of a sex assault complainant, unless they get permission from the judge first. This might not seem surprising because a sexual assault complainant wouldn’t want their privacy invaded by the trial process, but this rule has a few surprising elements to it.

First, the rule applies both to the defence and the prosecutor. Even though the prosecutor is the one attempting to obtain justice for the complainant, they’re not allowed to bring up a complainant’s sexual history as part of their case. They need permission from the judge first, just like the defence does.

Second, the rule applies to all sexual history, even if the complainant and accused have been married for 40 years and have had many children together. By default, the jury is not allowed to hear about the married couple’s sexual history at all.

Third, there is no parallel rule protecting the privacy of the accused. The Crown can cross-examine them as much as they want on their sexual history, without limit, subject to the usual rules of evidence (e.g., relevance, self-incrimination, etc.).

Fourth, the rule applies to all sexual communication. This means that in a case where an accused and complainant were texting each other sexual things before the incident (e.g., the complainant messaged the accused “I can’t wait to f*** you tonight”), those communications are not admissible in court unless the judge allows it.

Fifth, in the vast majority of cases the judge doesn’t allow the prior sexual history of the complainant to be admitted at trial. The legal test for allowing this kind of evidence to be admitted is high and difficult to overcome for the defence. Even in a case where an accused is alleged to have sexually assaulted a complainant during BDSM, the accused and the complainant’s prior history of engaging in BDSM together is presumptively inadmissible. This could distort the jury’s view of the case because they might hear that an alleged sexual assault occurred in the context of BDSM without knowing the accused and complainant had previously engaged in consensual BDSM. Without that knowledge a jury would be much more inclined to think the accused is guilty because it would be strange to imagine a complainant agreeing to BDSM the very first time they had sex with someone else.

Finally, the rule exists not only to protect the privacy of the complainant, but to guard against the “twin myths” of sexual assault. These myths are that a woman is more likely to have consented to sex because of their sexual history, or that because of their sexual history they’re less worthy of being believed. Canadian law does not trust juries with the twin myths of sexual assault. Instead of judges warning juries not to think badly about the case, they prevent juries from hearing any of the evidence at all.

Sexual Assault FAQ: Consent Laws In Canada | Filkow Law

This article discusses canadian sexual assault law, specifically consent laws in canada. For more information, contact Filkow Law today.

filkowlaw.com

 

[Dr Pepper]

Why would this apply to anyone who is currently an adult? Plus, 2a says it doesn’t apply if it’s an adult sentence for minors. These players will be tried as adults.

Because our super-awesome Canadian justice system states that if they were a minor when the act was committed, the YCJA act still applies.

Not so much if they're tried as adults though, which may be the case here.

 

[AlphaLackey]

If they're really that paranoid about it all the time they probably wouldn't be gang-banging strangers in the first place. That line of reasoning doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny.

"Horny teenagers with a few drinks in them would think carefully and rationally before having sex" is the only reasoning I see here that fails scrutiny. You're welcome to disagree with me on this of course, but I can only assure you that you're in error about what's going through young men's mind's these days.

 

[Zirakzigil]

I moderated for like two months 20+ years ago and still have the scars. What a thankless slog that was... the mods here are saints. Or foolish. It might be a little of column A and column B.

Definitely both.

 

[Squiffy]

I was mainly looking at "Users Who Are Viewing This Thread" and it's impressive at how many staff alumni are here watching us try to keep this under control.

Appears to rivalling Moore-Bertuzzi levels of chaos, it’s impressive. Need a ringer?

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

That's fine. If you need to know someone's position on the perpetrator you can always ask them.

Nah. I'm more curious as to why when a person is sexually assaulted they're more interested in what the victim could've done differently.

 

[ERYX]

Why would this apply to anyone who is currently an adult? Plus, 2a says it doesn’t apply if it’s an adult sentence for minors. These players will be tried as adults.

No, you get tried as a youth if you were a youth at the time of the allegation.

Not too many years ago I represented a guy on charges from the 1960s. So I was defending a man in his 60s in youth court.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

That's not correct in rape cases. Because there is so little evidence to go by, and the overwhelming majority of accusations are legit, the current system is set up to let a lot of rapists skate.

Only going by accusations has its own problems, but the probability of having the validity of the accusation accurately determined would be higher.

The law isnt perfect to capture all of the rapist but we should never let one innocent person go to jail for something they didnt do. Thats morally worse and has been agreed upon in almost every civilized society.

 

[Nemesis Prime]

Not that it's important but wonder what happens to their hockey career

Do they go overseas or do they still play in NHL.

hard to play professional hockey in the pokey

 

[snag]

Why would this apply to anyone who is currently an adult? Plus, 2a says it doesn’t apply if it’s an adult sentence for minors. These players will be tried as adults.

Because they retain the rights they would have had had they been charged as a minor when they were still a minor.

 

[Kane One]

Because our super-awesome Canadian justice system states that if they were a minor when the act was committed, the YCJA act still applies.

Not so much if they're tried as adults though, which may be the case here.

No, you get tried as a youth if you were a youth at the time of the allegation.

Not too many years ago I represented a guy on charges from the 1960s. So I was defending a man in his 60s in youth court.

Well that’s interesting.

 

[roon]

And concisely, imagine if you were any one of the five dudes. You could have easily escaped this whole situation if you kept it in your pants. Problem averted!!!

Well - sounds like there is video of her wanting all 5 dudes to sleep with her. I'm not sure a crime or a problem exists. While I find it gross and strange that 5 guys want to be in a room together in a situation like that - if it was consensual and nobody was exploited or assaulted....then whatever I guess.

I just refuse to crucify a bunch of people because of the word of a single person. Let the evidence come out and we'll see what happens.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Dec 2022:

The law of sexual assault in Canada can be surprising. If you polled members of the public about whether certain scenarios amount to sexual assault, many would wrongly guess that something that isn’t sexual assault is, or vice-versa. Here are five laws of sexual assault and consent law in Canada you should know.

Five Consent Laws In Canada​

1. Consent must be continuous throughout the sexual activity​

At first glance, this doesn’t seem like a surprising fact about the law of sexual assault. If someone consents to sex with another person, then revokes it partway through, the other person must stop having sex with them. Otherwise, the other person has committed a sexual assault. None of this is counterintuitive.

However, what if someone were to give advanced consent to having sexual acts performed on them while they’re unconscious? They could even have a particular sexual fantasy about having sex acts performed on them while sleeping, or about being woken up by a sex act.

It turns out that Canadian law still says that’s sexual assault. It’s simply illegal to perform a sexual act on someone who is in a state where they can’t consent to sex, like being unconscious. There are no exceptions, not even if someone gives their sexual partner consent in advance.

2. Apparent consent is not necessarily actual consent​

Canadian law says that in certain circumstances, a person can seem to consent to sex, but their consent wasn’t true consent. In such cases, the seemingly consensual sex was actually a sexual assault.

One example of this is if someone is in a position of authority and uses it to induce another person into consenting to have sex with them. The person in a position of authority doesn’t need to coerce the person below them. It’s enough if they use their position of authority to induce the person below them to consent to sex with them.

Another example of this is if someone has unprotected sex with another person without disclosing to them that they’re HIV positive. Assuming the other person wouldn’t have consented to sex if they had known about their sex partner’s HIV positive status, the HIV positive person is guilty of a sexual assault. The law says that the HIV positive person obtained the other person’s consent by fraud, and therefore the other person never truly consented to sex with them.

The example above might raise concerns about what amounts to fraudulently obtaining consent to sex. The law doesn’t say that a person obtains consent to sex fraudulently because, for example, they lied about their age, income, or sexual history, and had sex partner known the truth they never would have consented to sex with them. The fraud must have put the victim’s health at serious risk or related to the central character of the sex.

3. Consent occurs entirely in a person’s mind​

Canadian law says that consent is entirely a matter of what someone was thinking at the time. If they thought “I don’t want to do this”, then they were not consenting to sex, even if they said out loud “this is great, let’s keep going”.

This might seem scary. It suggests that someone could theoretically be accused of sexual assault because their sex partner didn’t want to have sex with them, even though they said the opposite at the time. However, in such a case the person accused of sexual assault would have a defence of honest belief in consent.

Honest belief in consent means that if an accused honestly believed their sex partner was consenting and took reasonable steps at the time to find out if their sex partner was consenting, then they’re not guilty of sexual assault.

4. A drunken consent is still consent​

There are some people who agree with the message “if you’re too drunk to drive, you’re too drunk to consent to sex”. This is not the law in Canada, but there is a level of intoxication where a person loses the capacity to consent.

The degree of intoxication required to no longer be legally allowed to drive is not high. In British Columbia, this is only 0.05 mg alcohol in 100 ml of blood. Most people will have blood alcohol levels above that number if they consume three standard drinks within an hour or two.

Having a few standard drinks will certainly be enough to impair someone while driving, but it will not be enough that the law says they can no longer consent to having sex with another person.

A person will be guilty of sexual assault if they have sex with someone so intoxicated that they no longer have the capacity to consent. To reach that level, there should be signs that the intoxication is very high. Examples of the kind of evidence that would support a person’s incapacity to have sex includes vomiting, difficulty standing up, slurred speech, slouching, sleepiness, stumbling, and confusion.

5. No one can bring up a sexual assault complainant’s sexual history at trial​

As a starting point, neither the Crown prosecutor nor the defence lawyer is permitted to bring up any sexual history of a sex assault complainant, unless they get permission from the judge first. This might not seem surprising because a sexual assault complainant wouldn’t want their privacy invaded by the trial process, but this rule has a few surprising elements to it.

First, the rule applies both to the defence and the prosecutor. Even though the prosecutor is the one attempting to obtain justice for the complainant, they’re not allowed to bring up a complainant’s sexual history as part of their case. They need permission from the judge first, just like the defence does.

Second, the rule applies to all sexual history, even if the complainant and accused have been married for 40 years and have had many children together. By default, the jury is not allowed to hear about the married couple’s sexual history at all.

Third, there is no parallel rule protecting the privacy of the accused. The Crown can cross-examine them as much as they want on their sexual history, without limit, subject to the usual rules of evidence (e.g., relevance, self-incrimination, etc.).

Fourth, the rule applies to all sexual communication. This means that in a case where an accused and complainant were texting each other sexual things before the incident (e.g., the complainant messaged the accused “I can’t wait to f*** you tonight”), those communications are not admissible in court unless the judge allows it.

Fifth, in the vast majority of cases the judge doesn’t allow the prior sexual history of the complainant to be admitted at trial. The legal test for allowing this kind of evidence to be admitted is high and difficult to overcome for the defence. Even in a case where an accused is alleged to have sexually assaulted a complainant during BDSM, the accused and the complainant’s prior history of engaging in BDSM together is presumptively inadmissible. This could distort the jury’s view of the case because they might hear that an alleged sexual assault occurred in the context of BDSM without knowing the accused and complainant had previously engaged in consensual BDSM. Without that knowledge a jury would be much more inclined to think the accused is guilty because it would be strange to imagine a complainant agreeing to BDSM the very first time they had sex with someone else.

Finally, the rule exists not only to protect the privacy of the complainant, but to guard against the “twin myths” of sexual assault. These myths are that a woman is more likely to have consented to sex because of their sexual history, or that because of their sexual history they’re less worthy of being believed. Canadian law does not trust juries with the twin myths of sexual assault. Instead of judges warning juries not to think badly about the case, they prevent juries from hearing any of the evidence at all.

Sexual Assault FAQ: Consent Laws In Canada | Filkow Law

This article discusses canadian sexual assault law, specifically consent laws in canada. For more information, contact Filkow Law today.

filkowlaw.com

Thanks for posting this information. I was previously confused why they would record themselves asking for consent after the act, rather than before, but it looks like point #1 addresses that.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Dec 2022:

The law of sexual assault in Canada can be surprising. If you polled members of the public about whether certain scenarios amount to sexual assault, many would wrongly guess that something that isn’t sexual assault is, or vice-versa. Here are five laws of sexual assault and consent law in Canada you should know.

Five Consent Laws In Canada​

1. Consent must be continuous throughout the sexual activity​

At first glance, this doesn’t seem like a surprising fact about the law of sexual assault. If someone consents to sex with another person, then revokes it partway through, the other person must stop having sex with them. Otherwise, the other person has committed a sexual assault. None of this is counterintuitive.

However, what if someone were to give advanced consent to having sexual acts performed on them while they’re unconscious? They could even have a particular sexual fantasy about having sex acts performed on them while sleeping, or about being woken up by a sex act.

It turns out that Canadian law still says that’s sexual assault. It’s simply illegal to perform a sexual act on someone who is in a state where they can’t consent to sex, like being unconscious. There are no exceptions, not even if someone gives their sexual partner consent in advance.

2. Apparent consent is not necessarily actual consent​

Canadian law says that in certain circumstances, a person can seem to consent to sex, but their consent wasn’t true consent. In such cases, the seemingly consensual sex was actually a sexual assault.

One example of this is if someone is in a position of authority and uses it to induce another person into consenting to have sex with them. The person in a position of authority doesn’t need to coerce the person below them. It’s enough if they use their position of authority to induce the person below them to consent to sex with them.

Another example of this is if someone has unprotected sex with another person without disclosing to them that they’re HIV positive. Assuming the other person wouldn’t have consented to sex if they had known about their sex partner’s HIV positive status, the HIV positive person is guilty of a sexual assault. The law says that the HIV positive person obtained the other person’s consent by fraud, and therefore the other person never truly consented to sex with them.

The example above might raise concerns about what amounts to fraudulently obtaining consent to sex. The law doesn’t say that a person obtains consent to sex fraudulently because, for example, they lied about their age, income, or sexual history, and had sex partner known the truth they never would have consented to sex with them. The fraud must have put the victim’s health at serious risk or related to the central character of the sex.

3. Consent occurs entirely in a person’s mind​

Canadian law says that consent is entirely a matter of what someone was thinking at the time. If they thought “I don’t want to do this”, then they were not consenting to sex, even if they said out loud “this is great, let’s keep going”.

This might seem scary. It suggests that someone could theoretically be accused of sexual assault because their sex partner didn’t want to have sex with them, even though they said the opposite at the time. However, in such a case the person accused of sexual assault would have a defence of honest belief in consent.

Honest belief in consent means that if an accused honestly believed their sex partner was consenting and took reasonable steps at the time to find out if their sex partner was consenting, then they’re not guilty of sexual assault.

4. A drunken consent is still consent​

There are some people who agree with the message “if you’re too drunk to drive, you’re too drunk to consent to sex”. This is not the law in Canada, but there is a level of intoxication where a person loses the capacity to consent.

The degree of intoxication required to no longer be legally allowed to drive is not high. In British Columbia, this is only 0.05 mg alcohol in 100 ml of blood. Most people will have blood alcohol levels above that number if they consume three standard drinks within an hour or two.

Having a few standard drinks will certainly be enough to impair someone while driving, but it will not be enough that the law says they can no longer consent to having sex with another person.

A person will be guilty of sexual assault if they have sex with someone so intoxicated that they no longer have the capacity to consent. To reach that level, there should be signs that the intoxication is very high. Examples of the kind of evidence that would support a person’s incapacity to have sex includes vomiting, difficulty standing up, slurred speech, slouching, sleepiness, stumbling, and confusion.

5. No one can bring up a sexual assault complainant’s sexual history at trial​

As a starting point, neither the Crown prosecutor nor the defence lawyer is permitted to bring up any sexual history of a sex assault complainant, unless they get permission from the judge first. This might not seem surprising because a sexual assault complainant wouldn’t want their privacy invaded by the trial process, but this rule has a few surprising elements to it.

First, the rule applies both to the defence and the prosecutor. Even though the prosecutor is the one attempting to obtain justice for the complainant, they’re not allowed to bring up a complainant’s sexual history as part of their case. They need permission from the judge first, just like the defence does.

Second, the rule applies to all sexual history, even if the complainant and accused have been married for 40 years and have had many children together. By default, the jury is not allowed to hear about the married couple’s sexual history at all.

Third, there is no parallel rule protecting the privacy of the accused. The Crown can cross-examine them as much as they want on their sexual history, without limit, subject to the usual rules of evidence (e.g., relevance, self-incrimination, etc.).

Fourth, the rule applies to all sexual communication. This means that in a case where an accused and complainant were texting each other sexual things before the incident (e.g., the complainant messaged the accused “I can’t wait to f*** you tonight”), those communications are not admissible in court unless the judge allows it.

Fifth, in the vast majority of cases the judge doesn’t allow the prior sexual history of the complainant to be admitted at trial. The legal test for allowing this kind of evidence to be admitted is high and difficult to overcome for the defence. Even in a case where an accused is alleged to have sexually assaulted a complainant during BDSM, the accused and the complainant’s prior history of engaging in BDSM together is presumptively inadmissible. This could distort the jury’s view of the case because they might hear that an alleged sexual assault occurred in the context of BDSM without knowing the accused and complainant had previously engaged in consensual BDSM. Without that knowledge a jury would be much more inclined to think the accused is guilty because it would be strange to imagine a complainant agreeing to BDSM the very first time they had sex with someone else.

Finally, the rule exists not only to protect the privacy of the complainant, but to guard against the “twin myths” of sexual assault. These myths are that a woman is more likely to have consented to sex because of their sexual history, or that because of their sexual history they’re less worthy of being believed. Canadian law does not trust juries with the twin myths of sexual assault. Instead of judges warning juries not to think badly about the case, they prevent juries from hearing any of the evidence at all.

Sexual Assault FAQ: Consent Laws In Canada | Filkow Law

This article discusses canadian sexual assault law, specifically consent laws in canada. For more information, contact Filkow Law today.

filkowlaw.com

Most important post in this thread

 

[AlphaLackey]

And concisely, imagine if you were any one of the five dudes. You could have easily escaped this whole situation if you kept it in your pants. Problem averted!!!

"A good way to not be falsely accused of rape is to never have sex" is some fine victim blaming.

 

[famicommander]

"Horny teenagers with a few drinks in them would think carefully and rationally before having sex" is the only reasoning I see here that fails scrutiny. You're welcome to disagree with me on this of course, but I can only assure you that you're in error about what's going through young men's mind's these days.

So they think rationally enough to induce their partners to confirm consent on camera to avoid assault charges as a matter of course, but not rationally enough to carefully select their partners?

Do you see how that makes absolutely zero sense?

 

[hairylikebear]

Nah. I'm more curious as to why when a person is sexually assaulted they're more interested in what the victim could've done differently.

In my case I'm extremely sympathetic to the victim with little to offer that side of the conversation except my sympathy. However, I believe it's dangerous to propagate the illusion that the real world is a safe place for young people, and I see a lot of good natured people doing that here.