Really?! This again?

I just read this article. Honestly, I just can't believe it. What the fuck is wrong with people?

Sex is not consensual if the girl doesn't say no. It's consensual if she says yes! Didn't hear a yes? Then don't fucking have sex with her! Is she too drunk to say no? Then she didn't fucking say yes!!!

Section 349(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld) states that rape is carnal knowledge of a person without the person's consent. Section 348(1) of the Code states "consent" means ‘consent freely and voluntarily given by a person with the cognitive capacity to give the consent’. If someone is drunk, they obviously don't have the cognitive capacity to give the consent! This was further established in R v Camplin (1845) 1 C & K 746; and R v Fletcher (1859) 8 Cox CC 131. It is rape to have carnal knowledge of a woman who has been rendered insensible through liquor, or where she does not resist because her submission is due to the fact that she is drunk. A woman who is insensible is incapable of giving consent.

Further, just because the woman doesn't say no, does not mean she has said yes: a complainant who at the time failed by word or action to manifest his or her dissent is not in law taken to have consented to sexual intercourse ( R v IA Shaw [1996] 1 Qd R 641). Further, in R y Pryor [2001] QCA 341, the Court of Appeal said no element of violence is necessarily involved. The complainant does not necessarily have to forcibly resist in order to establish absence of consent. Absence of consent is establish WHEN SHE DOESN'T SAY YES!!!

Also, if you think it's a matter of he said/she said, and that if there's no evidence or witnesses, you'll get away with it, think again. A person may be found guilty of rape on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness (section 632(1) of the Code). A judge is not required by any rule of law or practice to warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness (section 632(2)). The judge must not warn or suggest that the law regards any class of persons as unreliable witnesses (section 632(3); Longman v The Queen (1989) 160 CLR 79), even if the complainant has a history of many sexual partners.

When will all you morons get it? If she doesn't say yes, you can't have sex with her! It's not about whether she didn't say no! Get it through your heads! Even if she was completely naked and walking down the street, then stopped to pick up a pencil, that is not an implied consent for you to have sex with her. If she didn't actually consent to you having sex with her, don't fucking have sex with her!!!!!!!

There was also another recent article in the SMH, the comments section of which nearly made my head explode (the article itself was pretty stupid, though). There were comments by men and women alike about how some girls are "asking for it", and how if the girl is too drunk to say yes, then why is it the male's responsibility, blah blah blah. It took all my strength not to go completely postal on those comments. I had to force myself to shut the article down and try to forget about it. I just don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp! Did she say yes? She didn't? THEN DON'T FUCKING RAPE HER!!!!!