Sexual Assault: Does The Victim Share Responsibility? [Archive] - Page 2

MartinH

09-22-2009, 01:44 PM

I've got a good idea for how we might alter our lives: Rape is a crime which warrants the use of deadly force to prevent it. We shall therefore undertake a serious study of how to resist violent offenders by means ranging from polite requests ("Please get away from my car.") to clear statements which establish a boundary ("Come any closer and I will shoot you.") to the use of physical force ("Bang."). This has the advantage, among other things, of giving people a very good immediate reason not to undertake the task of rape.

A fine plan, better than punishing offenders is not to get attacked in the first place. We don't carry firearms in the UK, but part of my kids education will be extensive practice in a nasty martial art, as well as whatever other ways there are to resist being attacked.

Oh wait, we aren't supposed to do that either.

Oh yes we are... :) I have a girl and two boys, and they'll all be expected to know how to deliver disproportionate amounts of damage for their relative sizes, and be expected to do so if they're actually physically threatened. They're also expected to learn to respect other people and have proper self control - to be able to have fun, live freely, respect other people's limits and have the capability to police their own.

I absolutely reject the idea that my daughter should have to circumscribe her life in ways that my sons don't have to do because there are idiots in the world. Far better that she also be able to disable or kill them too. EDIT: Kill the idiots, not her little brothers. Much to her disappointment, no doubt.

MartinH added to this post, 2 minutes and 32 seconds later...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But, in a plurality decision, the court held that "a woman may withdraw consent for vaginal intercourse after penetration has occurred and that, after consent has been withdrawn, the continuation of vaginal intercourse by force or the threat of force may constitute rape. We iterate that force or the threat of force is, however, an essential element of the crime of rape."

I think Autoptic meant where she didn't withdraw consent during, or did but never expressed it at all. EDIT: Yep, the question was "where she remains silent and compliant throughout"

MartinH added to this post, 4 minutes and 54 seconds later...

I was mostly questioning how provoking wrath is taken into account while lust is somehow special despite parallels as a baser drive. My example was intended to push the female's action beyond her assumed freedom as most provocations require. Throwing alcohol into it would certainly lubricate his reaction. That he'd have an extreme reaction would be expected and, if purely violent and still resistant, would probably be considered grey.

Setting aside the grey bit, I'm still not picturing what it is she's doing - can you give me an example of the sort of behaviour on her part you think would/should be taken into account?

MartinH added to this post, 7 minutes and 5 seconds later...

Says the US Court of Law. It may not be so, in the minds of men as I have stated earlier. Law does not always coincide with what people are thinking. Just as drugs are illegal but people don't agree with it.

Which men?

Killing people and taking their stuff is illegal in the eyes of the law, but it may not be so in the minds of men.

Causa Mortis

09-22-2009, 01:52 PM

Says the US Court of Law. It may not be so, in the minds of men as I have stated earlier. Law does not always coincide with what people are thinking. Just as drugs are illegal but people don't agree with it.

I wasn't arguing what was legal, I was arguing what I think is right.

Pathetic men may be thinking that in desperation to get laid. Those of us who actually think women have the right to freedom of identity and the right to consent, and who are content sexually, strongly disagree.

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 01:55 PM

Which men?

Killing people and taking their stuff is illegal in the eyes of the law, but it may not be so in the minds of men.

The men who are out to rape (or the ones who didn't have intention but did later). Yes, that's my point. If you give a guy a reason to and he BELIEVES HIMSELF to be in the right, how are you going to stop him from trying? Just as when one guy assaults another guy, it's against the law, but he believes he had reason to do so. People are emotional beings, the more 'emotional triggers' you give them, the more chance they will act on it.

Autoptic

09-22-2009, 01:55 PM

Any convictions on that basis?

I vaguely recalled one that went to trial, but I'm not sure of the verdict. I remember the male was a large police officer. Both facts were cited as part of the allegedly implicit intimidation. I wasn't actually implying that he was convicted but merely that he could've been truthful about his actions and intentions while she could've been truthful about her beliefs. That was an odd case. A short, weak "no means yes" incident would probably be a more likely setup for such a thing.

Seriously

09-22-2009, 01:57 PM

No my point is that men can be harmed just as much as women from what they perceive was consensual but what she perceived as rape. It exists. That's the key word, PERCEPTION.

And I'm saying she should be punished for the harm she inflicted and that they were not to blame for what happened to them. If they had actually raped her then they should be punished for the harm they inflicted and she would not be to blame for what happened to her.

Again, what is your point?

Cygnus

09-22-2009, 01:58 PM

Agreed MartinH, the example provide fits into the "close enough" and colors a shade of gray. Consent was given and at some point during the intercourse withdrawn..it took about 5 seconds for the man to react and stop intercourse...for it to be considered rape it now has to have an element of being forced or the threat of force. That can be rather difficult to prove or disprove...it is very much at that point a situation of "he said...she said."

vern

09-22-2009, 01:58 PM

I am going to enter this discussion by disclosing a personal account!

Please keep in mind this is a personal account and not something I wish to debate on, I only wish to add it because it is perhaps for some food for thought and for others a real life demonstration of how the concept of sexual assault/intent is not understood equally by the sexes and perhaps I am purging a little but will try to keep it brief but doubt I will succeed.

Scenario, me an intj female, some years ago, when I was in my early twenties, like now there was a recession, I am working in a business with two males, one younger, one older, (business owner although we functioned as a collective.) Location, greasy city and with the economic situation underground activity was flourishing, in short I lived, was nurtured in a hard core society and had gotten my chops in shape which left me devoid of fear, which has served to protect me at times because that is what predators look for in many cases. However my basic trusting innocent nature was more powerful and my love of living which got me in to trouble sometimes. Some people in my neighbourhood who understood my eccentricities and potential to get into trouble therefore, usually unknown to me, had my back, so overall I had very little trouble considering the environment and situation.

However I am not infallible and walked into it this time. Now this was a business situation, not dating, I did not date. Our little collective was hot property and one of our clients wanted exclusivity to our services. My literal response, 'no, you are a dick, fuck off!' and business owner (now to be referred to as twat) and I did not see eye to eye on the nature of this client. Long story short I was the only person standing between dick and his acquisition of our services which would have given him a distinct advantage over his competitors.

I love my work and tend to overly distracted by it, anyway dick convinced twat to undertake in a major project for him. Dick calls me, twat, dick, Mrs. dick and I, are to have a meeting about it, he is hosting, out of my neighbourhood. (my first mistake.) I never stopped to think about it, too busy, lots of projects on my mind and I did not have time to confirm with twat. (second mistake.) Show up at dick's, am hospitably greeted, offered a drink. (third mistake, although drugged drinks were not something I was aware existed back then.) 'Where is twat?' I ask. 'Running late.' comes the reply. 'Where is Mrs. dick?' 'Out of town!' Realization came too late, fortunately all dick managed to do was piss me off. Several, three I think, kicks to his face sufficiently deflated his manhood and forced his retreat.

Dick was a very stupid man, it is foolish to assume one can victimize someone based on their small stature and sex, you see being disoriented and with a head ache, fucking asshole, I had to phone a buddy for a ride. Buddy was not happy, and this is a place where the police had very little authority, and at that time would have rolled their eyes at me patted me on the head and told me to not be so stupid. However a different harsher law prevailed in these parts at this time. Had I divulged dick would have had, some very bad owies, much worse than the boo boo's I left for him to explain to his wife. I didn't send the boys, my feelings at the time were it was you see my problem, I fucked up and got myself into the situation plus I did not want the aftermath...high fucking drama, more violence, cops, who know what else? Besides he, a middle aged white guy of no small stature had just gotten his face kicked in by a one hundred pound young female, worked for me.

However for the purposes of this thread I will drop that aspect and move on to twat. Twat I did disclose to, it was business problem after all, and twat's response was 'what do you expect you are fucking hot.' Twat did not get it, despite the vivid and colourful explanation I gave him. Now my option's regarding twat were limited, I worked in this field and had no other means of support, short of perhaps becoming involved in prostitution or drugs, so had little choice but to tolerate twat's stupidity for the time.

Now we jump forward, life went on and twat, currently single, had gotten into the habit of following me down to my bar after work. My bar was a little rough perhaps but I was perfectly safe there and I was as I mentioned earlier watched over. On this particular evening I sat with a couple who I knew quite well, (bikers) twat sat with another twat. Sometime later after my friends departed I discovered twat no longer with his twat companion but with a rather large, menacing man in leather. I had brought twat a beer, twat takes it. 'see vern,' says twat, 'I am not the only one with biker friends.' 'is that so?' I reply. 'is that your old lady?' the rather large man asks twat with a disappointed and annoyed expression. 'no!' twat replies laughing at the suggestion, 'we just work together, vern is single you can hit on her.' jolly twat laugh (his first mistake), and a fucking asshole thing to say IMO. 'so who is this impressive new pal of yours?' I ask. 'I'm celebrating, I just got out of prison.' large man beams. 'did you now?' I smile, after assessing the situation I say to twat, 'you know twat I think it is time we call it a night.' 'what are you talking about vern? we haven't finished our drinks I'm not leaving good beer here.' (second mistake) 'fuck them, I bought them, we are out of here.' twat protested, I repeated the time to go statement, he scoffed at the idea, I said I was going and he should come, he refused. So he decided to stay with his cool new biker friend and let me, a lone young female walk home alone...

Later phone rings.

'vern did you make it home all right?' twat desperately inquires.
'of course I did, I always do.'
'I'm hiding in the studio.' (where we worked)
'I told you it was time to go.'
'he followed me into the bathroom.'
'yeah, I told you to come with me.'
'you bitch!'

No, I did not say to him 'what do you expect you are fucking hot.' nor did I offer to come walk him home after he put it on me. So you see both scenario's were my fault in his opinion and that is his right and problem if he is stupid enough to believe such a thing. Now we were both at fault, even though I was in a business situation and not behaving sexually, it is after all about power and I refused to submit to this asshole. The twat however inadvertently picked up a recently paroled felon in a bar and did not understand the gender preferences that may result from long incarceration's. The predators will always prey and the prey will always make themselves vulnerable and I am not excluding myself from that. It is easy to fuck up, I expect to again, although I try not to, but because as rickster pointed out that is the society I was born into.

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 01:59 PM

And I'm saying she should be punished for the harm she inflicted and that they were not to blame for what happened to them. If they had actually raped her then they should be punished for the harm they inflicted and she would not be to blame for what happened to her.

Again, what is your point?

My point is that you're presuming that the law would've sorted out who was right and who was wrong for what could've been a misunderstanding; that rape isn't so black and white sometimes.

Autoptic

09-22-2009, 01:59 PM

Uh no it would not. Her acting like a tease is her acting like a tease. It doesn't justify or mitigate anything else.

Setting aside the grey bit, I'm still not picturing what it is she's doing - can you give me an example of the sort of behaviour on her part you think would/should be taken into account?

Stuff like actual stalking, verbal sexual harassment, and even minor sexual assault (minor primarily because they'd be cut off simply by his superior force) on her part, possibly in great plurality and for an extended period.

Seriously

09-22-2009, 02:01 PM

The men who are out to rape (or the ones who didn't have intention but did later). Yes, that's my point. If you give a guy a reason to and he BELIEVES HIMSELF to be in the right, how are you going to stop him from trying? Just as when one guy assaults another guy, it's against the law, but he believes he had reason to do so. People are emotional beings, the more 'emotional triggers' you give them, the more chance they will act on it.

Here is your problem. You say "If you give a guy a reason to and he BELIEVES HIMSELF to be in the right, how are you going to stop him from trying? " when what you should be saying is "If a guy BELIEVES HIMSELF to be in the right, how are you going to stop him from trying? " See the difference? I believe in self defense but I also believe that nothing I do gives anyone a reason to rape me. If someone believes they have a reason to rape me it is THEIR reasoning not anything I have done to GIVE them a reason.

How hard is it to understand that?

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 02:01 PM

MartinH

09-22-2009, 02:01 PM

The men who are out to rape (or the ones who didn't have intention but did later). Yes, that's my point. If you give a guy a reason to and he BELIEVES HIMSELF to be in the right, how are you going to stop him from trying? Just as when one guy assaults another guy, it's against the law, but he believes he had reason to do so. People are emotional beings, the more 'emotional triggers' you give them, the more chance they will act on it.

Funny, when we're talking about the threat of terrorists, who believe they're right and want to attack us, the response isn't to change our behaviour so they aren't as tempted. When we're talking about the threat of women being raped, that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting?

As for how to stop him, I'd go with Firebee's suggestions, they seem sensible and broadly in line with the response you'd get to terrorists. Deterrence, harsh consequences, violent resistance including deadly force.

Seriously

09-22-2009, 02:03 PM

My point is that you're presuming that the law would've sorted out who was right and who was wrong for what could've been a misunderstanding; that rape isn't so black and white sometimes.

We are discussing date rape. Actual women who get raped and your allegation that she could do something to prevent it. You are throwing in this strawman argument for what reason?

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 02:03 PM

Here is your problem. You say "If you give a guy a reason to and he BELIEVES HIMSELF to be in the right, how are you going to stop him from trying? " when what you should be saying is "If a guy BELIEVES HIMSELF to be in the right, how are you going to stop him from trying? " See the difference? I believe in self defense but I also believe that nothing I do gives anyone a reason to rape me. If someone believes they have a reason to rape me it is THEIR reasoning not anything I have done to GIVE them a reason.

How hard is it to understand that?

I don't understand the second sentence. How are you going to stop him from trying? Are you suggesting to shoot the guy?

Seriously

09-22-2009, 02:07 PM

I don't understand the second sentence. How are you going to stop him from trying? Are you suggesting to shoot the guy?

lol george I know Krav Maga. I don't need a gun. ;)

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 02:07 PM

Funny, when we're talking about the threat of terrorists, who believe they're right and want to attack us, the response isn't to change our behaviour so they aren't as tempted. When we're talking about the threat of women being raped, that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting?

As for how to stop him, I'd go with Firebee's suggestions, they seem sensible and broadly in line with the response you'd get to terrorists. Deterrence, harsh consequences, violent resistance including deadly force.

Well you have little control over how the American government behaves, you do over yourself. I'm not suggesting women wear burquas, I'm suggesting preventive measures.

Oh great, another absolutist over date rape.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 02:07 PM

Oh wait, we aren't supposed to do that either. The way this dialogue is supposed to work is that the wise paternal fellow gives us some advice about how we might offer token physical resistance, cautions us about doing anything that might actually be effective -- has anyone ever said "He'll take it away and use it against you" to a man? -- and openly mocks the notion that we might profit more from learning to be assertive than learning to be timid. Our role is to serve as passive receivers of third-rate information and to submit the conduct of our personal lives to the judgement of random strangers on the Internet, and anyone who does not especially like that notion is unrealistic and, y'know, kinda butch.

I didn't say that you weren't supposed to do that. I just said that advocating lethal force in self-defense via guns, knives, etc carries the possibility of additional risks. One being that in the heat of the moment the victim becomes a criminal by killing their would be rapist while the rapist is running away. It's not that you can't use force; I just made a point that there are additional problems to consider.

I didn't say "he will take it away." I said "he could take it away." This is one of those additional problems for consideration. I proposed mace instead because it can't be used to kill you. Maybe I'm wrong but raped and alive are better than raped and dead or raped and in jail for executing your rapist (this would be really unfortunate) in an act of excessive force.

I do not like this game. How about we play another one? One in which we realize that if we say "I don't condone rape, but (if someone doesn't do what I say, they're kinda asking for it)," we are condoning rape and if we say "Sure, women have the right to self-defense but (gosh, it would be kinda overreacting to suggest that they actually use it)," we are treating women as second-class citizens, and we therefore do not say these things.

I kinda think that's a much more fun game to play. But it seems that your mileage may definitely vary.

Want to play a game. Okay. Here you go. A boy is being sexually assaulted (or molested or assaulted; interpret as you wish) by 8 girls at the same time during recess at school. The boy is a little out of place having just moved to the area about a year ago. He wears nice shorts (like the private school ones) and keeps his shirt tucked in (everybody else keeps theirs un-tucked). The girls ambush the boy multiple times at recess everyday and try to un-tuck his shirt; grabbing and tackling him in the process; a process that sometimes results in his pants being partially pulled down while they drag him across the grass or the pavement. The girls motivation for initiating this attack is unknown. The boy has had little to no contact with them previously.

After 1 week of this treatment he appeals to his female teacher through her anonymous in-class drop box that she reads through every day, asking for her to tell the girls to stop. She smiles and replies "now ladies, I think you need to calm down." All the girls start laughing and the teacher continues with her lesson plan. He places a note in the box every day thereafter for a week. The notes are thrown away and disregarded. Then the boy (still being hunted every recess) appeals to the principal (also a woman) about the situation. She replies, oh "It's just their way of saying that they like you. You should just ignore it."

The boy is humiliated and afraid to tell his parents. Should he educate himself and learn to evade? Should he bring a gun or a knife to school to keep the girls at bay? Should he try to use martial arts skills to fight off 8 girls? At least 3 of the girls are his size and he's not exactly Bruce Lee, but he might have a chance. What Should he do?

The boy knows that if their roles had been reversed he would have been expelled and/or placed in some sort of corrective/mental facility. He seemingly has no recourse and no rights? Gasp, might he be a second class citizen? What should he do?

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 02:08 PM

lol george I know Krav Maga. I don't need a gun. ;)

Don't you think that's sorta overconfident though? You're assuming the guy doesn't know how to fight. What are you Chuck Norris now? :P

I sincerely hope you can kick the guy's ass.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 02:10 PM

Don't you think that's sorta overconfident though? You're assuming the guy doesn't know how to fight. What are you Chuck Norris now? :P

I sincerely hope you can kick the guy's ass.
I was about to say the same thing....You do not completely decide who the rapist/sexual assaulter is going to be. Relying on your defense skills instead of prevention and defense skills seems a little over confident.

MartinH

09-22-2009, 02:11 PM

Stuff like actual stalking, verbal sexual harassment, and even minor sexual assault (minor primarily because they'd be cut off simply by his superior force) on her part, possibly in great plurality and for an extended period.

I don't know - none of those seem like they'd arouse lust, do they? I mean, to me they don't, so does it seem like they might?

I'm trying not to bite with the superior force thing, I just have this image involving a cage fight, firebee, nasty martial arts and something about repeating the superior force comment... :)

MartinH added to this post, 1 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Well you have little control over how the American government behaves, you do over yourself. I'm not suggesting women wear burquas, I'm suggesting preventive measures.

I'm not talking about the American government, I'm talking about normal western male attitudes to terrorists vs rapists.

Oh great, another absolutist over date rape.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

Synamon

09-22-2009, 02:14 PM

Yes I know a lot of you guys are trying to force this to be black and white but it's about as black and white as asking "Is homicide right or wrong?" Aren't there cases of self-defense? Mistaken identity etc.?
Did you really just say that rape can be justified as self-defense or "oops, I thought she was someone else"? Maybe you better stick with "she had it coming".
Do you always take things so literally? What I'm saying is that with anything listed as 'crimes' there are gray areas. Just as homicide has self defense and mistaken identity as gray areas.

Not particularly. My comment was an invitation for you to supply the justification for rape as you did for homicide. Which you have yet to do.

I guess I have to spell it out. What do you think excuses the act of rape? What is a valid defense to a charge of rape? Other than "she had it coming" or blaming the victim, which is no defense at all and the one you've been using most of the thread.

Seriously

09-22-2009, 02:18 PM

*sigh* My main point was this:

I believe in self defense but I also believe that nothing I do gives anyone a reason to rape me. If someone believes they have a reason to rape me it is THEIR reasoning not anything I have done to GIVE them a reason.

To reduce it even more for you: NOTHING I DO GIVES ANYONE A REASON TO RAPE ME.
Or any other woman.

Is that clear enough?

I don't need to go into how I intend to defend myself because frankly it's none of your business. ;)

That said I'm done with this thread. You can only beat your head against a brick wall for so long.

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 02:19 PM

Not particularly. My comment was an invitation for you to supply the justification for rape as you did for homicide. Which you have yet to do.

I guess I have to spell it out. What do you think excuses the act of rape? What is a valid defense to a charge of rape? Other than "she had it coming" or blaming the victim, which is no defense at all and the one you've been using most of the thread.

I don't think any woman has it coming nor do I think the blame should be placed on the victim. Like I said before this has little to do with blame or responsibility and more so to prevent rape. If you read the above (starting on page 10), I as well as others have stated the gray areas where rape may exist. Sorry I'm not really attuned to your sarcasm. I'm sure it's mutual ;).

curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 1 minutes and 51 seconds later...

*sigh* My main point was this:

To reduce it even more for you: NOTHING I DO GIVES ANYONE A REASON TO RAPE ME.
Or any other woman.

Is that clear enough?

I don't need to go into how I intend to defend myself because frankly it's none of your business. ;)

That said I'm done with this thread. You can only beat your head against a brick wall for so long.

You're not providing the reasoning, you're providing the trigger.

Autoptic

09-22-2009, 02:22 PM

I don't know - none of those seem like they'd arouse lust, do they? I mean, to me they don't, so does it seem like they might?

I'm trying not to bite with the superior force thing, I just have this image involving a cage fight, firebee, nasty martial arts and something about repeating the superior force comment... :)

His resistance doesn't necessarily mean lack of arousal in the first place. So no one else around here agrees B'Etor was the cute one or at least wouldn't find the initiatory bite that off putting? Think a bit more Klingon for a sec...without firebee being involved.

MartinH

09-22-2009, 02:23 PM

Maybe I'm wrong but raped and alive are better than raped and dead

As someone who speaks to suicidal or near-suicidal victims of rape fairly regularly via voluntary work, I can assure you there are some who would prefer to be dead, and some who subsequently kill themselves because they can't live with the ongoing trauma. Flashbacks that can come at any time of day, blocking out reality and involving all five senses along with constant lack of sleep due to perma-nightmares can make death the friendly option.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 02:33 PM

Not particularly. My comment was an invitation for you to supply the justification for rape as you did for homicide. Which you have yet to do.

I guess I have to spell it out. What do you think excuses the act of rape? What is a valid defense to a charge of rape? Other than "she had it coming" or blaming the victim, which is no defense at all and the one you've been using most of the thread.
I've heard of a number of cases that have resulted in reduced sentences or were thrown out due to reasonable evidence that the sexual encounter was in fact consensual or that the victim did not make her intent clear enough (don't mistake this for the guy on the corner forcing a woman into an alley stuff; more like we went to a party and knew eachother and got drunk stuff). What constitutes clear enough aside from "no" is debatable and subject to bias. But the reduced punishment/sentence is not unlike the reduced sentence given for manslaughter instead of the murder sentence. They just don't have a separate name for it in a case of rape.

Basically, in a legal sense rape is "excused" if the evidence is not clear enough or is contradictory. After all you need proof in any legal proceedings of that nature. Intent can also play a role in these proceedings...just saying it can...reality of the situation.

Synamon

09-22-2009, 02:39 PM

I don't think any woman has it coming nor do I think the blame should be placed on the victim. Like I said before this has little to do with blame or responsibility and more so to prevent rape. If you read the above (starting on page 10), I as well as others have stated the gray areas where rape may exist. Sorry I'm not really attuned to your sarcasm. I'm sure it's mutual ;).

There you go, dodging again. You said that rape, like any crime, included some situations where the crime was justified. Right? Now you are trying to call these "grey areas", but it's still the same premise. Using your homicide example, it's ok to kill someone in self defense if they are trying kill you. So, when is it ok to rape?

I've read the entire thread btw, much to my chagrin.

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 02:42 PM

Cygnus

09-22-2009, 02:57 PM

As someone who speaks to suicidal or near-suicidal victims of rape fairly regularly via voluntary work, I can assure you there are some who would prefer to be dead, and some who subsequently kill themselves because they can't live with the ongoing trauma. Flashbacks that can come at any time of day, blocking out reality and involving all five senses along with constant lack of sleep due to perma-nightmares can make death the friendly option.

I understand this and have had to deal with this as well. I can say the state of Arkansas notifies the victims of a convicted and incarsiated rapist when he/she is coming up in front of a parol board to give them the opportunity to submit a written statement or personal testimony to deny parol. The state will also notify victims upon release of the convict when sentence is served. Yes, fun times..the gift that keep giving.

Depite my personal experience I can still differentiate situations. A man and and woman going out to have a "good time" intentionally get so shit faced on alcohol and drugs that no one can recall anything of the evening..the only proof of sexual actvity is from lab tests..that has an entirely different context to someone breaking and entering a home, holding you down with a knife to your throat and threating you and your child if you make a sound..and then threaten to come back to kill you and your child if you tell anyone.

Synamon

09-22-2009, 03:10 PM

Didn't I already tell you the links were on page 10? And how am I dodging? Rapes were the raper thought it was consensual and rapes where the male penetrated and the female told him to stop in the middle were the ones listed before.
It only matters if the rapist thought it was consensual? Saying stop isn't removing consent? Since you said this earlier in the thread: The problem is that some men can't make the distinction between no meaning 'no' and no meaning 'yes' and if you leave it vague (behavior prior, during) they will fill in the blanks themselves. I have the impression that you don't ever think date rape is actually rape. It's just bad decision making on the woman's part to put themselves in that situation, you know, a date. And the poor guy can't be expected to control himself in the presence of said woman.

I've heard of a number of cases that have resulted in reduced sentences or were thrown out due to reasonable evidence that the sexual encounter was in fact consensual or that the victim did not make her intent clear enough (don't mistake this for the guy on the corner forcing a woman into an alley stuff; more like we went to a party and knew eachother and got drunk stuff). What constitutes clear enough aside from "no" is debatable and subject to bias. But the reduced punishment/sentence is not unlike the reduced sentence given for manslaughter instead of the murder sentence. They just don't have a separate name for it in a case of rape.

Basically, in a legal sense rape is "excused" if the evidence is not clear enough or is contradictory. After all you need proof in any legal proceedings of that nature. Intent can also play a role in these proceedings...just saying it can...reality of the situation.

Legally if the case isn't made and rape isn't proven, then the guy was probably convicted of something other than rape. There are different levels of sexual assault and some were listed earlier in the thread. That is not the same as justification for rape, which was my question.

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 03:17 PM

MartinH

09-22-2009, 03:18 PM

Depite my personal experience I can still differentiate situations. A man and and woman going out to have a "good time" intentionally get so shit faced on alcohol and drugs that no one can recall anything of the evening..the only proof of sexual actvity is from lab tests..that has an entirely different context to someone breaking and entering a home, holding you down with a knife to your throat and threating you and your child if you make a sound..and then threaten to come back to kill you and your child if you tell anyone.

OK - I'm not sure what you're responding to with this bit, and given your presentation of the first case if she can't remember saying no, I'm not sure where the accusation would come from, given the conviction rate for rape cases that actually get to court here is 6% it seems likely it wouldn't go anywhere.

Objectively, a rape either happened or it didn't. It's where someone is forced to have sex when they've said they don't want to. It's not when they decide later they shouldn't have, it's the act of forcing someone.

The grey areas that have come up seem to be about when it's hard to tell from the evidence about whether a rape occurred, well with poor evidence things can be confused, but at least two people will know the truth.

If the raper thinks it's consensual - I'm not sure how this can happen, if you're not forcing her and she was willing and hasn't asked you to stop, well, that isn't rape. If it means the raper thought she wanted it really and didn't mean no, so forced her - well, that is rape.

If she asks to stop in the middle, and you force her to continue, you raped her. As for the five seconds, depends what happens in those five seconds, if they're the five seconds it takes you to realise she's said no and you promptly stop when you realise, not rape - if they're the five seconds it takes you hold her down and cum in her when she's realised she doesn't want you to and is struggling - that's rape.

*sigh* I'm such an absolutist sometimes...

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 03:22 PM

Ok that makese sense. But what if you're the person in the heat of the moment? Can you really distinguish those cases that well? A court of law will have to decide that for you.

Frankly my personal opinion is that I think men are morons for getting involved like that. But that's not really for me to decide.

Nemesis

09-22-2009, 03:34 PM

*sigh* I'm such an absolutist sometimes...

You and me both. I'm really not sure why some on this thread see this as a gray area situation. Yes, there are gray area issues leading up to a rape, but the act of rape itself either happens or it does not. To say that there is some sort of "degree of rape" is akin to saying there are degrees of pregnancy. Either, a woman wants sex, or she does not. The factors leading up to the choice are arbitrary once the choice has been made.

The Maelstrom

09-22-2009, 03:35 PM

It only matters if the rapist thought it was consensual? Saying stop isn't removing consent? Since you said this earlier in the thread: I have the impression that you don't ever think date rape is actually rape.

The issues on this one are basically:

1. The sex is consensual, then at some point the woman decides she doesn't want to continue. a) If the man is already in the act and stops immediately vs. b) doesn't stop immediately thinking they're already doing it maybe she's just uncertain vs. c) doesn't care and continues regardless. 3 different outcomes. Whereby option 2, I find understandable in the heat of the moment, as I said before its not up to one party to decide for the other based on assumptions. Communication during and after sex/no/stop, etc... would really avoid most problems in that scenario.

2. The sex is initiated without consent, and it is only assumed. Although it might not sound casual or "normal" to ask "Do you want to have sex?" its the only way to be certain and after you've done it explicitly a few times it feels normal to say it. Heck I always ask "Are you drug and disease free" before doing more than just petting.

Number 2 and 1b I think is what most guys posting in this thread are worried that will happen. Where they have no intent to cause harm, and may not think they did at the time, and after the act are confronted with the reality of their actions. The reaction is similar to doing something you think someone else will enjoy and it turns out you're being resented for it. There's no analogy that comes close enough to the level of hurt on both sides. Guys find that resentment (and stigma) hurtful, but it doesn't change what happened. Someone was wronged; its very real and there's no undoing it.

As I said before, the simple solution is ask the questions that need to be asked, get used to asking them and listen to what's being said.

Cygnus

09-22-2009, 03:39 PM

OK - I'm not sure what you're responding to with this bit, and given your presentation of the first case if she can't remember saying no, I'm not sure where the accusation would come from, given the conviction rate for rape cases that actually get to court here is 6% it seems likely it wouldn't go anywhere.

Objectively, a rape either happened or it didn't. It's where someone is forced to have sex when they've said they don't want to. It's not when they decide later they shouldn't have, it's the act of forcing someone.

The grey areas that have come up seem to be about when it's hard to tell from the evidence about whether a rape occurred, well with poor evidence things can be confused, but at least two people will know the truth.

If the raper thinks it's consensual - I'm not sure how this can happen, if you're not forcing her and she was willing and hasn't asked you to stop, well, that isn't rape. If it means the raper thought she wanted it really and didn't mean no, so forced her - well, that is rape.

If she asks to stop in the middle, and you force her to continue, you raped her. As for the five seconds, depends what happens in those five seconds, if they're the five seconds it takes you to realise she's said no and you promptly stop when you realise, not rape - if they're the five seconds it takes you hold her down and cum in her when she's realised she doesn't want you to and is struggling - that's rape.

*sigh* I'm such an absolutist sometimes...

It was not directed at you exculsively, using your point to suppliment my own. You pointed out you have some personal experience in dealing with these issues via helping others, I felt it was a good time to mention I have had a few decades to wrestle with this stuff as well.

I find you ideas sound and reasoning rational.

Synamon

09-22-2009, 03:39 PM

What I'm saying is that there are multiple level of ambiguity: both are intoxicated and one thinks its consensual and impressions left during the date and/or during intercourse.

Where'd you get that impression from? I always like to give my personal opinion as well as a more objective opinion as food for thought. I don't understand what exactly are you arguing. Lawfully we have already agreed that rape is wrong, what else matters? I'm not condoning a rapists' actions, I'm just explaining the thought process. Why are you arguing the thought process? Like I said earlier, it's like you telling someone they can't think a certain way; they can think anyway they like.

The impression comes in part from you repeatedly insisting that you are referring to date rape only, implying that it isn't the same as any other rape. Given that the majority (at least 2/3*) of rapes are perpetrated by someone you know, there isn't much point in separating rape into categories. The fact that you want to implies that you don't think date rape is as serious as stranger rape.

You do like to generalize. Have you seen the reaction of some of the other guys in this thread to your posts? I don't really think they want you as the spokesman for their thoughts.

*number quoted earlier in the thread

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 03:42 PM

The issues on this one are basically:

1. The sex is consensual, then at some point the woman decides she doesn't want to continue. a) If the man is already in the act and stops immediately vs. b) doesn't stop immediately thinking they're already doing it maybe she's just uncertain vs. c) doesn't care and continues regardless. 3 different outcomes. Whereby option 2, I find understandable in the heat of the moment, as I said before its not up to one party to decide for the other based on assumptions. Communication during and after sex/no/stop, etc... would really avoid most problems in that scenario.

2. The sex is initiated without consent, and it is only assumed. Although it might not sound casual or "normal" to ask "Do you want to have sex?" its the only way to be certain and after you've done it explicitly a few times it feels normal to say it. Heck I always ask "Are you drug and disease free" before doing more than just petting.

Number 2 and 1b I think is what most guys posting in this thread are worried that will happen. Where they have no intent to cause harm, and may not think they did at the time, and after the act are confronted with the reality of their actions. The reaction is similar to doing something you think someone else will enjoy and it turns out you're being resented for it. There's no analogy that comes close enough to the level of hurt on both sides. Guys find that resentment (and stigma) hurtful, but it doesn't change what happened. Someone was wronged; its very real and there's no undoing it.

As I said before, the simple solution is ask the questions that need to be asked, get used to asking them and listen to what's being said.

Yes I agree with this.

It's not like I've ever been in or ever will be in a situation where a woman accuses me of rape. It's just that sometimes I hear these stories in the news and I think to myself "if I were in that position, what would I think?" And frankly I can see the confusion in some cases. To say that it's as clear as night and day automatically presumes the person is guilty.

curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 2 minutes and 48 seconds later...

The impression comes in part from you repeatedly insisting that you are referring to date rape only, implying that it isn't the same as any other rape. Given that the majority (at least 2/3*) of rapes are perpetrated by someone you know, there isn't much point in separating rape into categories. The fact that you want to implies that you don't think date rape is as serious as stranger rape.

You do like to generalize. Have you seen the reaction of some of the other guys in this thread to your posts? I don't really think they want you as the spokesman for their thoughts.

*number quoted earlier in the thread

I'm referring to date rape only because it's where the raper and rapee actually have some sort of intimate verbal/physical interaction; cases of where someone is kidnapped, or blatantly forced are much more clear and there is no question of responsibility. I never said or implied date rape is not a serious as other types of rape, it's just more ambiguous.

I don't care for being a spokesperson, every one is entitled to their own opinion. I personally think some of the posters here made things ambiguous because they couldn't come up with a logical argument and just felt to disagree. Like I've said before, feelings can be disguised as logic.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 03:49 PM

You and me both. I'm really not sure why some on this thread see this as a gray area situation. Yes, there are gray area issues leading up to a rape, but the act of rape itself either happens or it does not. To say that there is some sort of "degree of rape" is akin to saying there are degrees of pregnancy. Either, a woman wants sex, or she does not. The factors leading up to the choice are arbitrary once the choice has been made.

Well, I think some of the confusion is that there are multiple gray areas being referenced.

1)Gray area between rapists. This considers the rapists intent and circumstances (i.e. did they get drunk etc.)

2)The gray area between victims. This considers the circumstances of the victim (i.e. did they get drunk etc.). I leave out intent since I'm assuming that if someone intended to get raped that it wouldn't actually be rape. Although, assuming that a victim intends to avoid rape their actions may place them at greater risk to be raped (through ignorance, or because they got lost in the moment)

3)The gray area between the rapist and the victim.

Thus, I think you are correct there is not really an actual gray area between the victim and the rapist (3).

I think the law accounts for the gray area in 1.

I think we ignore (wrongly) the gray area in 2.

Edit 1:
That's what that whole individualism bit was trying to establish. Some people were arguing that the #2 gray area did not exist. The argument was meant to establish that there are differences between all rapists and all victims that need to be accounted for. Two individuals actions must lead them to an intersection in order for rape to take place. Since we assume that an intersection took place (past tense) there is not gray area at #3.

Edit 2:
The point of talking about decision making after the fact or before or w/e is meant to prevent the intersection between rapist and victim from ever taking place by trying to influence the decision making of 2. The law is in place to influence the decision making of 1 and education could also influence 1. Thus, if 2 has more situational control then there is more power to avoid the intersection.

I know this is kind of abstract.....

Cygnus

09-22-2009, 03:53 PM

daydreamer

09-22-2009, 03:55 PM

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 03:57 PM

daydreamer

09-22-2009, 04:01 PM

I don't know, it's quite possible that you are a capable women who goes out with capable men. What happens if it's the case where one of them isn't or both aren't? I've heard some stories out there that have got me thinking before and I can envision it happening.

there are always extreme exceptions to any rule. this is why such cases are argued in a court of law and evidence is presented before a judgement is made. but there has to be a pattern to be relied on, and that is, not exclusively but for example: what is acceptable, expectable, and most likely. i'm presenting information on what is most likely.

are you concerned that you are incapable?

Nemesis

09-22-2009, 04:04 PM

2)The gray area between victims. This considers the circumstances of the victim (i.e. did they get drunk etc.). I leave out intent since I'm assuming that if someone intended to get raped that it wouldn't actually be rape. Although, assuming that a victim intends to avoid rape their actions may place them at greater risk to be raped (through ignorance, or because they got lost in the moment)

This makes someone stupid, not culpable or liable for the crime committed against them. There is a difference. I've addressed this earlier (feel free to read back). Again,, these factors are arbitrary once a woman says "no... I would rather not have your dick in me". Once this happens, whatever circumstances happened before don't matter... regardless of who the victim is or what they have done prior.

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 04:09 PM

there are always extreme exceptions to any rule. this is why such cases are argued in a court of law and evidence is presented before a judgement is made. but there has to be a pattern to be relied on, and that is, not exclusively but for example: what is acceptable, expectable, and most likely. i'm presenting information on what is most likely.

are you concerned that you are incapable?

Me? Incapable? Noooo...LOL.

Yes there are exception to any rule and I agree for the most part date rape is clear, she said "no", you should obey. I just don't ever like to say 100%, I don't think anything is ever 100%.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 04:12 PM

i think a lot of the feeling that it is necessary to argue for the poor sot who might get confused over a woman's "signals" in such a fashion as it leads to trouble - comes from inexperience. most all men i have been with have found my signals confusing. but they have all been self-aware enough and considerate enough to question what was happening. they are so concerned that things are going well - accidental rape is an absolute absurdity. based on my experiences, if i hear an argument that a man had sex in good faith only to find out he was indeed raping a woman - lol well i just can't take that stand seriously. men just aren't that out of touch -- and neither are women.
The drunk brain is not a rational brain. A man may be like "I want to have sex with that woman, but I am not going to force the issue." Alcohol can result in a situation where the brain cannot comprehend the situation anymore. I've been a DD enough times to know that there are some drunks who cannot lie down so that they don't hurt themselves even after being told to repeatedly lie down even after having been laid down on a couch or something so they don't hurt themselves. There's a short circuit. They just can't register what they're being told. This doesn't excuse the rape; but it does show that it is possible to intend to have consensual sex and accidentally rape instead.

Asinine

09-22-2009, 04:25 PM

Generally, the blame rests with the perpetrator, and it is neither eclipsed, nor mitigated by any fault of the victim. That said, that fault does not go away simply because someone else holds the overall guilt for such an incident.

I do find it rather entertaining, albeit sad, that while women in general prefer aggressive, predatory men for sexual relationships (Oh, I'm sorry, "confident" and "productive.") that people repeatedly get the crap kicked out of them for following the rules of that game.

daydreamer

09-22-2009, 04:26 PM

The drunk brain is not a rational brain. A man may be like "I want to have sex with that woman, but I am not going to force the issue." Alcohol can result in a situation where the brain cannot comprehend the situation anymore. I've been a DD enough times to know that there are some drunks who cannot lie down so that they don't hurt themselves even after being told to repeatedly lie down even after having been laid down on a couch or something so they don't hurt themselves. There's a short circuit. They just can't register what they're being told. This doesn't excuse the rape; but it does show that it is possible to intend to have consensual sex and accidentally rape instead.

just as it is possible to be stinking drunk and tell a bartender that you can drive home while you're in a blackout; and then possibly go out and cause an accident and kill people. the drunkard is still 100% responsible, for getting that drunk and for driving and for killing people. on accident? possibly. still guilty? yes. ridiculous to argue over at which point did he lose control over his thinking and his ability to make sound choices? yes.

if he is that drunk that he isn't registering anything being said to him - does his dick still work? no...

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 04:36 PM

This makes someone stupid, not culpable or liable for the crime committed against them. There is a difference. I've addressed this earlier (feel free to read back). Again,, these factors are arbitrary once a woman says "no... I would rather not have your dick in me". Once this happens, whatever circumstances happened before don't matter... regardless of who the victim is or what they have done prior.

Where have I said they are liable. Isn't education a cure for stupidity? The design is meant to prevent sexual assaults from happening. You can call it blame or stupidity or responsibility or w/e. I have addressed this earlier as well. Feel free to read...

I think everyone is looking at this as rape rape rape. I'm looking at this as how did these people come together at this point in time. How can we implement a real world solution to prevent a similar intersection from happening again. In this instance I guess the rape would only be relevant for establishing that a crime has been committed. This model can be applied to other crimes. After the fact implementation would be pointless for murder, but the preventative angle would work for murder.

Some people are arguing for self-defense training etc. While this may prevent the rape, it does not prevent the intersection itself. Self-defense occurs at the intersection. I think whoever "wins" at the intersection will be the person with the most situational control. Obviously, a gun or a knife changes situational control to favor whoever has the gun/knife. However, a rapist who fully intends to rape will have the most situational control (element of surprise) most of the time, I think and possibly an inherent advantage (most rapists are men and most victims are women and the average man is bigger than the average woman; do the math). That's why I hesitate on the full blown self-defense front. It is beneficial in the shit, but ultimately my focus is on avoiding the shit.

Personally, I didn't get to choose the wording when this thread was split. I don't like calling it blame. But in all honesty the best wording I've come up with is "situational control." I feel that a lot of people's anger has been directed as to whether or not the setup addresses men and women even after I have said that it could be set up to address men and women etc etc etc.

I am just looking at this from a removed sense. Does this make sense?

Cygnus

09-22-2009, 04:38 PM

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 04:41 PM

Also I've been in situations where women have led me on to the point of where I got frustrated/angry and behaved in ways where I normally wouldn't (in my youth). One of my friends followed his ex-gf and new bf and called her a "bitch" for like a good 5 blocks. When I asked him what happened his reaction was "I snapped, man, I didn't know what overcame me." To say that they can't happen to any guy is unrealistic. Will those men likely rape? Probably not, but it's one step closer to doing something nuts.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 04:43 PM

just as it is possible to be stinking drunk and tell a bartender that you can drive home while you're in a blackout; and then possibly go out and cause an accident and kill people. the drunkard is still 100% responsible, for getting that drunk and for driving and for killing people. on accident? possibly. still guilty? yes. ridiculous to argue over at which point did he lose control over his thinking and his ability to make sound choices? yes.

if he is that drunk that he isn't registering anything being said to him - does his dick still work? no...
We're talking about intent not responsibility. You said that....

accidental rape is an absolute absurdity. based on my experiences, if i hear an argument that a man had sex in good faith only to find out he was indeed raping a woman

I am saying that it is possible to accidentally rape someone. Accidental just means that you didn't realize that you were raping the woman. A drunk in impaired and may not realize what they are doing. Now it is assumed that an uninhibited mind will be able to comprehend that a woman is saying no (as you stated earlier).

Accidental rape may not be common but it does happen; thus it is not an absolute absurdity. If you shoot and kill someone while under the influence of alcohol it can be manslaughter. If you rape someone while drunk it can be accidental rape.

Nemesis

09-22-2009, 04:59 PM

SultanOfSuede

09-22-2009, 05:07 PM

I think the accidental rape being argued for here would include a man with an erection falling on top of a naked/semi-naked woman, having an epileptic seizure after penetration, leading to several minutes of jerky spasms.

From the woman's point of view, she would see this as rape if she wasn't aware that the accused had fallen on her accidentally and had a neurological disorder (seizures).

This is probably the worst thread ever and the above was written as sarcasm.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 05:22 PM

"Accidental rape"!? :laugh:

Well, I think this thread has reached a new point of absurdity. "Oh, sorry! Didn't realize I was violently fucking you without your consent there... it was an accident!". Have fun with this one, guys.
Drunks in my experience do not have very good control of themselves. The amount of control varies with how drunk they are, but you cannot ignore that they are impaired. Impairment raises the question of intent. You may want to kill someone when sober but refrain from doing so because you know that you would go to jail or that it just isn't worth it. The drunk brain does not always have that little check in place called self control.

Have fun with this.....:p ahhh I love being a bio major......
When Jan Luedecke of Toronto was arrested and tried for sexual assault, he had an unusual defense—he did it in his sleep. Really. It may sound farfetched, but Luedecke, who was 33 at his 2005 trial, had a history of sleepwalking. On the night in question, he'd been drinking at a party and found himself sacked out on the couch with a woman he'd met there. Hours later, she jolted him awake and demanded to know what he was doing. Luedecke claimed he was unaware he was having sex with her. "Under the law, if there's no intent to commit a crime, you haven't committed a crime," says Dr. Colin Shapiro, director of the Youthdale Child and Adolescent Sleep Center in Toronto, who testified for the defense. Luedecke was acquitted (to the outrage of women's organizations in Canada), and the case is now on appeal.
Accused of Sexual Assault (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Sexsomnia
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) So, yes some people may not realize that they are violently fucking you.
Critical sentence here:
It's not uncommon, Schenck explains, for male sexsomniacs to display much rougher behavior during sleepsex than waking sex.

It may be rare but it proves that accidental rape can happen regardless of what you think about alcohols effects. Although I still believe that you can accidentally rape someone under the influence....

The lawyers are going to go bonkers over this one.....

Cygnus

09-22-2009, 05:28 PM

I will add even law enforcement sees the value of understanding factors involved and minimizing riskes..and addresses both sides of the issue. Perhaps it is prudent if most did the same...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Date Rape: A Power Trip

Nothing — not even previous consensual sex — entitles anyone to force others to perform sexual acts. Without consent, forcing sexual contact is a crime. Date rape is a betrayal of trust and causes long-lasting emotional injuries. Date rape or acquaintance rape is about power, control, and anger — not romance.

Why Does it Happen?

Let's look at sexual stereotyping and how males and females talk to each other.

Although things are changing, society still frequently encourages men to be competitive and aggressive and teaches women to be passive and avoid confrontation.
Men say they misunderstand a woman's words and actions — the excuse "she said no, but meant yes."
Some people — men and women alike — still believe that it's okay for a man to demand sex if he takes a woman out or buys her gifts, and that it's not rape if he forces sex on a woman who previously had sex with him or other men.
Women also feel that if they've previously had sex with their boyfriend and he later forces her to have sex against her will, it may not be considered rape.
Date rape can happen in homosexual relationships as well as heterosexual ones. Although it is less frequent, men can also be the victim of rape. It is still a crime and the victim still needs to get medical attention and counseling as soon as possible.

Preventing Date Rape

As a Woman, You Can...

Be clear with men in your life about what, if any, sexual behavior you are comfortable with and keep talking as you get deeper into a relationship.
Don't use alcohol or other drugs — they decrease your ability to take care of yourself and make sensible decisions.
Trust your gut feelings. If a place or the way your date acts makes you nervous or uneasy, leave. Always take enough money for a phone call for help.
Check out a first date or blind date with friends. Meet in and go to public places. Take pubic transportation or drive your own car.
Leave social events with friends not with someone you just met or don't know well.
Always watch your drink and never leave it unattended. Don't accept beverages from someone you don't know and trust.

As a Man, You Can...

Realize that forcing a woman to have sex against her will is rape, a violent crime with serious consequences.
Accept a woman's decision when she says "no." Don't see it as a challenge.
Ask yourself how sexual stereotypes affect your attitudes and actions toward women.
Don't use alcohol and other drugs — it clouds your judgment and understanding of what another person wants.
Get help if you see men involved in a gang rape.
Understand that if a woman is drunk and you have sex with her against her will, it's still rape.
Seek counseling or a support group to help you if you feel violent or aggressive toward women.

The Maelstrom

09-22-2009, 05:35 PM

Drunks in my experience do not have very good control of themselves. The amount of control varies with how drunk they are, but you cannot ignore that they are impaired. Impairment raises the question of intent. You may want to kill someone when sober but refrain from doing so because you know that you would go to jail or that it just isn't worth it. The drunk brain does not always have that little check in place called self control.

Have fun with this.....:p ahhh I love being a bio major......

Accused of Sexual Assault (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Sexsomnia
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) So, yes some people may not realize that they are violently fucking you.
Critical sentence here:

It may be rare but it proves that accidental rape can happen regardless of what you think about alcohols effects. Although I still believe that you can accidentally rape someone under the influence....

The lawyers are going to go bonkers over this one.....

First of all the guy wasn't even conscious. That's far off from being impaired.

Second, impairment doesn't change what happens. You kill someone driving drunk, you still kill someone. Are there mitigating (what's another word for a cause but not an excuse?) circumstances? Sure. Should that make a difference? That's where standards that we call law come in.

Personally I think cases of my earlier referenced #1b or 2 examples

1. The sex is consensual, then at some point the woman decides she doesn't want to continue. a) If the man is already in the act and stops immediately vs. b) doesn't stop immediately thinking they're already doing it maybe she's just uncertain vs. c) doesn't care and continues regardless. 3 different outcomes. Whereby option 2, I find understandable in the heat of the moment, as I said before its not up to one party to decide for the other based on assumptions. Communication during and after sex/no/stop, etc... would really avoid most problems in that scenario.

2. The sex is initiated without consent, and it is only assumed. Although it might not sound casual or "normal" to ask "Do you want to have sex?" its the only way to be certain and after you've done it explicitly a few times it feels normal to say it. Heck I always ask "Are you drug and disease free" before doing more than just petting.

Number 2 and 1b I think is what most guys posting in this thread are worried that will happen. Where they have no intent to cause harm, and may not think they did at the time, and after the act are confronted with the reality of their actions. The reaction is similar to doing something you think someone else will enjoy and it turns out you're being resented for it. There's no analogy that comes close enough to the level of hurt on both sides. Guys find that resentment (and stigma) hurtful, but it doesn't change what happened. Someone was wronged; its very real and there's no undoing it.

As I said before, the simple solution is ask the questions that need to be asked, get used to asking them and listen to what's being said.

Should be something decided between the two parties. Of course its very personal and there needs to be some kind of standard for extremes. That's where the law comes in. The only problem with courtrooms IMO is that it can all too easily become a popularity contest between the two parties and for lawyers, judges etc... and external pressures by organizations or groups who really have nothing to do with the personal circumstances of the cases.

MartinH

09-22-2009, 05:48 PM

It was not directed at you exculsively, using your point to suppliment my own. You pointed out you have some personal experience in dealing with these issues via helping others, I felt it was a good time to mention I have had a few decades to wrestle with this stuff as well.

Ah, OK.

I find you ideas sound and reasoning rational.

This is the highest compliment from an INTJ isn't it? :) Thank you.

And... likewise.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 05:51 PM

Second, impairment doesn't change what happens. You kill someone driving drunk, you still kill someone. Are there mitigating (what's another word for a cause but not an excuse?) circumstances? Sure. Should that make a difference? That's where standards that we call law come in.

Ahh yes. Your earlier post was good one. I was just responding to the fact that they seemed to be implying that it was not possible to accidentally rape. It does not change the fact that a rape has taken place, you are correct.

Rape: The act of forcing someone to submit to sexual intercourse.
And yes the law does dictate the consequences based upon the circumstances.

gestalt

09-22-2009, 06:02 PM

Autoptic

09-22-2009, 06:10 PM

Hmm...what if the women was personally illegally responsible for her exposure to a sufficiently doped male as in broke and entered his property? He's guilty of rape when he actually took the precaution of doing it alone on his own property, doesn't know what's going on, and won't find out until he wakes up tomorrow?

Worse, what if she purposely drugged him? This works quite nicely with the female repeated sexual assaulter I was describing earlier. She literally sets the whole thing up, but it doesn't go quite as she intended? Should her victim be charged with rape then, of his attempted rapist no less?

No grey can get very stupid.

Nemesis

09-22-2009, 06:14 PM

Have fun with this.....:p ahhh I love being a bio major......

Accused of Sexual Assault (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Sexsomnia
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) So, yes some people may not realize that they are violently fucking you.
Critical sentence here:

It may be rare but it proves that accidental rape can happen regardless of what you think about alcohols effects. Although I still believe that you can accidentally rape someone under the influence....

Take a peek at these,

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This condition is a parasomnia that has nothing to do with being drunk. You still haven't provided any good reason to think that drunk people can accidentally rape someone. Of course, a condition like this presents obvious legal implications. This is undeniable. But having a rare parasomnia is a far cry from being drunk.

Squirelznflight

09-22-2009, 06:33 PM

But what percentage of rapes are realistically made up of these strange cases? (Sexsomnia, women breaking into drugged men's houses, etc.) We're better off trying to work at the general issue than the strange outliers, or so I'd think.

Though I will take the bait.

Sexsomnia, if occurring with the person committing the rape unaware of the act throughout it the entire time, is deeply unfortunate but not a crime if it could not be prevented. However, if the person is aware of the problem and had reason to believe it will occur and sleeps in the same bed as someone else anyway without their knowing the risk and being okay with it, it is indeed a crime of rape. It's like an alchoholic knowingly putting himself into a party situation where drinks will be present, then going from sober to a drunken rampage.

In the case of a woman breaking into a guy's house while he's drugged and getting raped by him, it's the woman's tough luck, same as if she hopped his fence, fell in his pool, and nearly drowned. It's her own fault for putting herself in a situation that obeying the law in the first place would have kept her out of, and therefore she can't feasibly expect the law to help her out of it. (Though admittedly, she didn't deserve to get raped for it.)

Note: I realize that homeowners with pools have been found to be in the wrong in courts of law for the same falling-in-the-pool scenario, with rulings in favor of the burglars. However, I am discussing what I believe to be logically sensical, not necessarily according to what certain judges decided.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 06:39 PM

Let's get deeper into this issue, no pun intended.
To me, Maelstrom has summed up nicely - similar-minded.
Everything so far has been about initiating sexual acts. So?
i. If a man and a woman are engaging in consensual sex. And the man says he's going to ejaculate, the woman says NO, STOP, and 1) he already has or 2) does or 3) attempts to withdraw, is that rape? Condom/No-condom, either way?

1)Already has stopped or already has ejaculated? Either way, as long as he stops upon her request I don't think it's rape.
2)Does ejaculate. If he continues to ejaculation after the "no, stop" then I think that would be rape since the woman asked him to stop. If it happens in that split second where he's like "What?!" (snaps out of the moment) or something. If everything was going fine and then she suddenly says stop there's inevitably going to be a moment of confusion. I would think that that wouldn't be rape.
3)Attempting to withdraw would be compliance with the request so no, not rape.
ii. Or back up 5 minutes. Man and woman have been having sex for 5 minutes so far. Woman says NO STOP. Man stops. Man and woman cuddle and man fondles woman's breasts. Is that rape?
Hmm...Well it wouldn't be rape since rape is classified as forced intercourse. This is ambiguous because we don't know if the woman's request is to stop intercourse or to stop everything. I would think that if she did not object to the cuddling and fondling of her breasts then I don't think there is a rape or sexual assault for that matter, but that's not absolute. I think it would get thrown out of court if she tried to get the guy for sexual assault and did not continue to object after intercourse was stopped. But that scenario is open to interpretation. If the guy is smart he'll just call it a night period.

The man would seem to be forcing a woman to engage in sexual acts against her will in both situations? Is the time the NO is heard a factor? How about during immediate carnal relations?
I think there is wiggle room in the law. If he continues after repeated objections then it's much more clear cut. I mean the "no, stop" itself might surprise the guy enough that he loses his erection and does not ejaculate at all. I don't think he is forcing unless he continues after the objection.
Shouldn't men and women have clear ideas in their own heads about the WHEN of sex, not playing it off the cuff every time going out? Is it unreasonable to expect clear, well-signaled interest and attraction?
We talked about this quite a bit before the thread was split. Apparently, it is not very reasonable since men and women seem to have different interpretations of what is "clear signaling." Albeit I think "no, stop" is pretty clear to both genders.

For example: Firebee's avatar. A well-feminized subliminal message that blatantly says, "WARNING, STOP, SHIT-HEADS!"
Is that what that means? I just thought it was a pun on street signs; like those "watch out for falling boulders" signs. I thought it meant "watch out for toilet projectiles."

rickster

09-22-2009, 06:39 PM

You still haven't provided any good reason to think that drunk people can accidentally rape someone.

When INTJ males start dodging and weaving around subjects like rape, they often blab more about themselves than they'd probably want known publicly. This would especially appear to be the case with guys who can come up with a thousand scenarios that mitigate actual rape. "Accidental rape", "drunk rape", "orgasmic rape", "no but i mean yes rape", "Partial rape" etc etc.

Since so many seem to have a kind of umm errr "open mind" about reasons to be be raped, I'm wondering if your opinions are driven by your own personal desires rather than clearly thought through debate points.

Since there's a remarkable attachment to the overall ideas of impaired responsibility on the part of the rapist, and suspect motives of the "rapee", I've one simple question:

"How would you like to be raped, and would it feel kinda not so bad?

EDIT: General question - not directed at Nemesis' quote re excuses

Nemesis

09-22-2009, 06:55 PM

Since so many seem to have a kind of umm errr "open mind" about reasons to be be raped, I'm wondering if your opinions are driven by your own personal desires rather than clearly thought through debate points.

Are you addressing me in particular here, or is this question being posed to the thread in general?

If this was directed to me specifically, my response is as follows;

As I have defined earlier in the thread, rape is rape no matter which way you cut it. If a woman doesn't want a dick in her, than I can't think of a reason it's okay for one to be there...regardless of any set of circumstances leading up to it. Even cases of Sexomnia (outlined by IrishGuy) should have consequences. The condition, as mentioned in the sources I provided, is treatable via SSRIs. Plus, they seem to appear as a component of larger parasomnias that are well known to the patient. These people (regardless of sex) should be aware of what risks their conditions pose to themselves and others and act accordingly to prevent bad things from happening. I find it very difficult to find reasons to excuse a rapists actions, let alone find any reason to hold the victim responsible. The victim may have taken inane risks, but this does not make them culpable for some idiot not being able to keep his dick under control. I base these conclusions in careful thought, not in personal desires.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 06:57 PM

Take a peek at these,

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This condition is a parasomnia that has nothing to do with being drunk. You still haven't provided any good reason to think that drunk people can accidentally rape someone. Of course, a condition like this presents obvious legal implications. This is undeniable. But having a rare parasomnia is a far cry from being drunk.

I provided an example of a drunk person who cannot follow instructions to keep from hurting themselves. Most people when they are not drunk are capable of being able to lie down and remain lying down. Being inhibited raised the question of intent. If your self-control is inhibited then your actions may not match your intent. It's reasonable doubt. It does not eliminate the rape, it just changes the circumstances. The person is not in complete control of their actions; nor are they able to comprehend theirs or others actions as fully as when they are sober. If they're drunk and they cannot comprehend that the woman is resisting then it's not intentional.

I understand that you do not have to be drunk for Sexsomnia. I was providing an additional example that shows that accidental rape is possible and not purely "absurd" as you were saying earlier. Obviously the person is technically asleep when they are having the sex; so they are not conscious of their actions.

Sexsomnia is considered a particular form of parasomnia characterized...
I think I'm okay in calling it Sexsomnia. In fact it is probably better as saying parasomnia is like saying you have a sleep movement condition. What condition exactly?

Cygnus

09-22-2009, 06:57 PM

When INTJ males start dodging and weaving around subjects like rape, they often blab more about themselves than they'd probably want known publicly. This would especially appear to be the case with guys who can come up with a thousand scenarios that mitigate actual rape. "Accidental rape", "drunk rape", "orgasmic rape", "no but i mean yes rape", "Partial rape" etc etc.

Since so many seem to have a kind of umm errr "open mind" about reasons to be be raped, I'm wondering if your opinions are driven by your own personal desires rather than clearly thought through debate points.

Since there's a remarkable attachment to the overall ideas of impaired responsibility on the part of the rapist, and suspect motives of the "rapee", I've one simple question:

"How would you like to be raped, and would it feel kinda not so bad?

Understanding the varied reasons and factors involved leads to possible solutions and prevention. If you want to continue the status quo and simply hope society will magically outgrow the problem, you are free to.

Squirelznflight

09-22-2009, 07:07 PM

As I have defined earlier in the thread, rape is rape no matter which way you cut it. If a woman doesn't want a dick in her, than I can't think of a reason it's okay for one to be there...regardless of any set of circumstances leading up to it. Even cases of Sexomnia (outlined by IrishGuy) should have consequences. The condition, as mentioned in the sources I provided, is treatable via SSRIs. Plus, they seem to appear as a component of larger parasomnias that are well known to the patient. These people (regardless of sex) should be aware of what risks their conditions pose to themselves and others and act accordingly to prevent bad things from happening. I find it very difficult to find reasons to excuse a rapists actions, let alone find any reason to hold the victim responsible. The victim may have taken inane risks, but this does not make them culpable for some idiot not being able to keep his dick under control. I base these conclusions in careful thought, not in personal desires.

I agree that rape is rape. If the person is aware the risk of them committing it for whatever reason is there, they should take precautions against it when in their right mind. The problem arises when an unsuspecting person violates the precautions (back to the drugged-person and burglar scenario). Neither is really willfully responsible for the crime of rape itself since the rapist would not have committed it in their right mind. I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't be punished, just that the cirumstances should be taken into consideration when deciding the punishment.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 07:11 PM

But what percentage of rapes are realistically made up of these strange cases? (Sexsomnia, women breaking into drugged men's houses, etc.) We're better off trying to work at the general issue than the strange outliers, or so I'd think.

He was implying that an accidental rape could not happen.

Note: I am using a dictionary definition of rape. "The crime of forcing someone to submit to sexual intercourse." In a case of Sexsomnia the person would still be forcing someone to have sex against their will. The only difference here between the rapists is the level of conscious control. The less control one over their actions the weaker the "intent" to rape becomes (because they have less control over their autonomy)

Also, there are cases of sexual assault in the literature. And the article implied that there are spouses who put up with it but do not like it. The condition is under-reported and the one article had the man who was acquitted for sexual assault based off of his Sexsomnia.

Though I will take the bait.

Sexsomnia, if occurring with the person committing the rape unaware of the act throughout it the entire time, is deeply unfortunate but not a crime if it could not be prevented. However, if the person is aware of the problem and had reason to believe it will occur and sleeps in the same bed as someone else anyway without their knowing the risk and being okay with it, it is indeed a crime of rape. It's like an alchoholic knowingly putting himself into a party situation where drinks will be present, then going from sober to a drunken rampage.

I'm right there with ja until the alcoholic part. If he is driven by his addiction....

In the case of a woman breaking into a guy's house while he's drugged and getting raped by him, it's the woman's tough luck, same as if she hopped his fence, fell in his pool, and nearly drowned. It's her own fault for putting herself in a situation that obeying the law in the first place would have kept her out of, and therefore she can't feasibly expect the law to help her out of it. (Though admittedly, she didn't deserve to get raped for it.)

Note: I realize that homeowners with pools have been found to be in the wrong in courts of law for the same falling-in-the-pool scenario, with rulings in favor of the burglars. However, I am discussing what I believe to be logically sensical, not necessarily according to what certain judges decided.

I think this one is decided by the woman's crimes before the rape. And the man's reasonable expectation that he was going to remain alone in his house that night. He could argue that he knew his medication/drugs (I don't remember) were going to make him unpredictable, which is why he locked himself in his own house. The only sticking point is how impaired he was and whether or not he knew what he was doing.....

Nemesis

09-22-2009, 07:22 PM

I provided an example of a drunk person who cannot follow instructions to keep from hurting themselves. Most people when they are not drunk are capable of being able to lie down and remain lying down. Being inhibited raised the question of intent. If your self-control is inhibited then your actions may not match your intent. It's reasonable doubt. It does not eliminate the rape, it just changes the circumstances. The person is not in complete control of their actions; nor are they able to comprehend theirs or others actions as fully as when they are sober. If they're drunk and they cannot comprehend that the woman is resisting then it's not intentional.

You are still dancing around here. Drunk people being energetic and stupid is one thing... rape is a whole other ballpark. A woman screaming "NO, STOP...HELP", crying, and trying to get away from you is a pretty obvious sign that you should stop screwing her. I, as well as most people here, have been dangerously screwed up on the sauce before and would probably be able to pick up on that. Alcohol impairs judgment, but it doesn't destroy it.

I understand that you do not have to be drunk for Sexsomnia. I was providing an additional example that shows that accidental rape is possible and not purely "absurd" as you were saying earlier. Obviously the person is technically asleep when they are having the sex; so they are not conscious of their actions.

What I was calling absurd was the notion of drunk people "accidentally" raping people.

I think I'm okay in calling it Sexsomnia. In fact it is probably better as saying parasomnia is like saying you have a sleep movement condition. What condition exactly?

Sexomnia is a form of parasomnia.

Night Runner

09-22-2009, 07:28 PM

We are individuals. We have rights. With those rights comes responsibility - the responsibility to follow the established social contract and to control your emotions and your body. "You don't know what kind of day the guy had" is about as low - and dishonorable - an argument as I can think of. You may claim that you're just being the devil's advocate (albeit a strangely persistent one), but the very fact that you and numerous others may actually believe that makes me ashamed of my half of the species...

Frankly I don't know how WE are SHAMING YOU. Nobody here, none of the men who have contributed arguments in anyway believe that women should be raped.

Pop quiz, George. Could you tell me the difference between these two statements?
1. "You may claim that you're just being the devil's advocate (albeit a strangely persistent one), but the very fact that you and numerous others may actually believe that makes me ashamed of my half of the species..." (My original statement.)
2. "You may claim that you're just being the devil's advocate (albeit a strangely persistent one), and I'm ashamed of my half of the species because you and every other guy that posted here is most definitely an up-to-no-good rapist that deserves to die a horrible painful death." (What you perceived my statement to be.)

So when a women is being assaulted, what are you going to tell him? "You shouldn't be doing that, my male friends said so?"
When and if I see a woman being assaulted, the first thing I'll do is incapacitate the attacker, not indulge him in a philosophical debate - and especially not ask him "what kind of day the guy had or his history up to that point." I shall do so not because "my male friends said so" but because it's a prerequisite for being a human. You're either *very* bad at playing devil's advocate, or are unable to understand what I wrote, despite my effort to keep my argument concise, clear, and free of grammatical errors.

I keep telling you, it's not about blame, it's about preventing rape.
You have a very funny way of telling us (me?)...

Besides the law blames the male fully anyway so there's nothing to argue on that end.
And yet you do.

Squirelznflight

09-22-2009, 07:37 PM

He was implying that an accidental rape could not happen.

Note: I am using a dictionary definition of rape. "The crime of forcing someone to submit to sexual intercourse." In a case of Sexsomnia the person would still be forcing someone to have sex against their will. The only difference here between the rapists is the level of conscious control. The less control one over their actions the weaker the "intent" to rape becomes (because they have less control over their autonomy)

Also, there are cases of sexual assault in the literature. And the article implied that there are spouses who put up with it but do not like it. The condition is under-reported and the one article had the man who was acquitted for sexual assault based off of his Sexsomnia.

In cases like that man's, I'd hold him responsible if he knew about the condition--as he most certainly would have, assuming the victim raised the issue--and it continued without him taking precautions. He can't feasibly have been unaware of her injuries over a long period of time as examined in daylight hours even if they didn't. As an excuse for sexual assault, then, it just doesn't hold up.

I'm right there with ja until the alcoholic part. If he is driven by his addiction....

Sorry. I knew there was something bothering me about that analogy. I was trying to give an example of someone who knows they will be at risk of committing the action and makes the decision to take that risk while in their right mind. It would probably make more sense as "recovered alcoholic".

I think this one is decided by the woman's crimes before the rape. And the man's reasonable expectation that he was going to remain alone in his house that night. He could argue that he knew his medication/drugs (I don't remember) were going to make him unpredictable, which is why he locked himself in his own house. The only sticking point is how impaired he was and whether or not he knew what he was doing....

It's definitely dependent on the circumstances. I assumed he was marginally aware to the degree of "Oh, it's a person of my sexual preference. I am feeling desire, therefore I will try to have sex" and being unaware of the person's resistance. If the person is not significantly impaired, there is more fault on him.

On the woman's side, all kinds of things would need to be considered. What's her history in crime? Does she make a habit of breaking into the houses of drugged people? Is she, in fact, a serial rapist in that regard? Probably not. I can't see how even a history as a mob boss would impact judging the drugged person, though, because the issue is with his awareness and not his knowledge of her (presumably none), so that wouldn't have impacted his decision. Her trial for breaking and entering would have to be weighed along with anything else she commmitted separately from the issue of the rape.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 08:22 PM

You are still dancing around here. Drunk people being energetic and stupid is one thing... rape is a whole other ballpark. A woman screaming "NO, STOP...HELP", crying, and trying to get away from you is a pretty obvious sign that you should stop screwing her. I, as well as most people here, have been dangerously screwed up on the sauce before and would probably be able to pick up on that. Alcohol impairs judgment, but it doesn't destroy it.

Obvious to a...a...SOBER person. This is what I'm talking about. Drunk people do not comprehend commands the same way as sober people. They do not absorb them. I have personally witnessed this. How is a drunk's inability to obey simple commands and to control their actions put them outside of the ballpark for accidental rape. Can you prove that rape is in a whole other ball park?

Sit does not mean sit to a drunk. Stop drinking does not mean stop drinking to a drunk. No does not mean no to a drunk. Their ability to follow instructions like "No, stop" is compromised. This is just knowledge from personal experience.

You can ask me to prove that it is possible, but then I'll just ask you to prove that it is impossible....

On a side note I went looking for research; there are feminist groups who claim that accidental rape is not possible because science says so, but I cannot find the abundant research that supposedly exists to assess it's validity and conditions....

Causa Mortis

09-22-2009, 08:34 PM

Obvious to a...a...SOBER person. This is what I'm talking about. Drunk people do not comprehend commands the same way as sober people. They do not absorb them. I have personally witnessed this. How is a drunk's inability to obey simple commands and to control their actions put them outside of the ballpark for accidental rape. Can you prove that rape is in a whole other ball park?

Sit does not mean sit to a drunk. Stop drinking does not mean stop drinking to a drunk. No does not mean no to a drunk. Their ability to follow instructions like "No, stop" is compromised. This is just knowledge from personal experience.

Drunk driving is not considered a mitigating factor in the case of a vehicular death. Its an aggravating one. Don't put yourself in situations that you know you cannot handle when you're drunk.

For fuck's sake, let's take a bold moral stand here and all claim:

If a woman decides she does not want a penis inside her at any time, she has the right to make that call regardless of her identity or past actions. She has an ongoing right to consent to who she does and does not want to have sex with.

Think of the situation as if it were your sister or your cousin in regards to consent. Are you really going to say "Oh well its no big deal that that dude raped my sister cause she wore a low cut shirt out to their date and was teasing him and he was drunk"? No, you're not, you're going to go get a baseball bat, a garbage bag, and a meat cleaver, and the cops aren't going to investigate too much because rapists are scumbags anyways.

gestalt

09-22-2009, 08:37 PM

ii. Or back up 5 minutes. Man and woman have been having sex for 5 minutes so far. Woman says NO STOP. Man stops. Man and woman cuddle and man fondles woman's breasts. Is that rape?Hmm...Well it wouldn't be rape since rape is classified as forced intercourse. I did not realize that rape could be defined so many ways. In fact, after skimming the thread I was just going on the understanding that it was a forced sexual act. The physical penetration part has been questioned in many other countries. And our law here in the US has at times distinguished between rape and sexual assault.

When it comes to rape apparently the only thing that matters is if informed consent is given. If a man or woman does not consent or cannot consent because of *whatever* and is ravished then it is extremely wrong and aka rape.

I find it fascinating that marriage was considered a form of implied consent under common law for the longest time. Including even if a couple was legally separated!

Sort of interesting that a woman can be convicted of rape if she has coerced a man without his consent or acted as an accomplice to the rapist. But that is less than 1% of the time - Fact!

And I know I'm late to this...Has everyone read this link from Wikipedia about Victim Blaming?
Victim blaming (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is a typical fascist trait, infamously expressed in arguments like "a raped woman in a short skirt was asking for it" Hmf.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 08:38 PM

In cases like that man's, I'd hold him responsible if he knew about the condition--as he most certainly would have, assuming the victim raised the issue--and it continued without him taking precautions. He can't feasibly have been unaware of her injuries over a long period of time as examined in daylight hours even if they didn't. As an excuse for sexual assault, then, it just doesn't hold up.

I agree, at the very minimum he would be guilty of some sort of negligence.

IrishGuy added to this post, 10 minutes and 33 seconds later...

Drunk driving is not considered a mitigating factor in the case of a vehicular death. Its an aggravating one. Don't put yourself in situations that you know you cannot handle when you're drunk.

In spite of that. DUI deaths are often charged as manslaughter. That's a lesser charge than murder.

EL Gato

09-22-2009, 09:19 PM

I am amazed how this thread has grown in just a couple of days. I am shocked how some people are not being able to distinguish their theoretical speculative fantasies from actions with real consequences. I expect any moment now a thread about shades of the gray and compassionate understanding for people who commit violent sexual crimes on children.

Causa Mortis

09-22-2009, 09:21 PM

In spite of that. DUI deaths are often charged as manslaughter. That's a lesser charge than murder.

Your argument doesn't follow.

Non DUI accidental vehicle deaths are almost never charged unless there's some form of criminal intent. DUI accidental vehicle deaths are vigorously prosecuted. Courts clearly view the use of alcohol in situations where you know you can't handle yourself and will negatively influence other people in a negative light, and I tend to agree.

EL Gato

09-22-2009, 09:22 PM

daydreamer

09-22-2009, 09:28 PM

On a side note I went looking for research; there are feminist groups who claim that accidental rape is not possible because science says so, but I cannot find the abundant research that supposedly exists to assess it's validity and conditions....

i am curious as to what feminist groups you're talking about?

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 09:29 PM

And I know I'm late to this...Has everyone read this link from Wikipedia about Victim Blaming?
Hmf.

The below was also on the site, read the latter portion:

In the United States, rape is unique in that it is the only crime in which there are statutory protections designed in favor of the victim (known as "rape shield laws"). These were enacted in response to the common defense tactic of "putting the victim on trial". Typical rape shield laws prohibit cross-examination of the victim with respect to certain issues, such as his or her prior sexual history, or the manner in which he or she was dressed at the time of the rape. Most states and the federal rules, however, provide exceptions to the rape shield law where evidence of prior sexual history is used to provide an alternative explanation for physical evidence, where the defendant and the victim had a prior consensual sexual relationship, and where exclusion of evidence would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

It acknowledges that rape shield laws DO NOT apply in certain cases, meaning when there is ambiguity involved.

daydreamer

09-22-2009, 09:34 PM

The below was also on the site, read the latter portion:

In the United States, rape is unique in that it is the only crime in which there are statutory protections designed in favor of the victim (known as "rape shield laws"). These were enacted in response to the common defense tactic of "putting the victim on trial". Typical rape shield laws prohibit cross-examination of the victim with respect to certain issues, such as his or her prior sexual history, or the manner in which he or she was dressed at the time of the rape. Most states and the federal rules, however, provide exceptions to the rape shield law where evidence of prior sexual history is used to provide an alternative explanation for physical evidence, where the defendant and the victim had a prior consensual sexual relationship, and where exclusion of evidence would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

It acknowledges that rape shield laws DO NOT apply in certain cases, meaning when there is ambiguity involved.

it merely acknowledges that someone thinks there is ambiguity involved, and that somehow that is relevant, and allows for an examination. this is because you are innocent until proven guilty. that is the real ambiguity. it does not imply that there is any ambiguity in the definition of or commission of rape.

curiousgeorge01

09-22-2009, 09:40 PM

Yes I get that. But I guess what I'm saying is that the ambiguity is up for the courts to determine whether it was rape or not despite what the truth is; the truth is usually much harder to determine in cases where the evidence is muddied or hard to differentiate who did what and how.

gestalt

09-22-2009, 09:44 PM

Since there's a remarkable attachment to the overall ideas of impaired responsibility on the part of the rapist, and suspect motives of the "rapee", I've one simple question:

"How would you like to be raped, and would it feel kinda not so bad?

This is being posted for awhile without takers for the challenge. I am really curious, was it really that good then?
It's a leading question. Rather poorly done. Based on studies that have shown A) male rapists had less empathy toward women that had been sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant and more hostility toward women than other males. B) most rapists not having a preference for rape over consensual sex and C) no significant differences between the arousal patterns of male rapists and other males.

For those that think putting their hand over someone elses mouth at any time is wrong and bad here are a few more links that might help you understand this apparent schism between people who are "shocked" at others responses in this thread.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 10:15 PM

Your argument doesn't follow.

Non DUI accidental vehicle deaths are almost never charged unless there's some form of criminal intent. DUI accidental vehicle deaths are vigorously prosecuted. Courts clearly view the use of alcohol in situations where you know you can't handle yourself and will negatively influence other people in a negative light, and I tend to agree.

Ok, you make a valid point here. The problem is relating this to rape. I'm not sure drunk driving is a good comparison.

Rape: The crime of forcing someone to submit to sexual intercourse.

A conscious, sober and unimpaired individual forces intercourse or begins intercourse and continues after there is a demand to stop. All things equal, that would be rape. In both situations there is the intent to rape. The perpetrators are prosecuted for rape.

Two cars get into a car accident and a driver is killed. There is no criminal intent and the worst prosecution is for wrongful death?

Two cars get into a car accident where a driver intends to kill the other driver (or a pedestrian etc) and does. The driver is charged for murder.

Two cars are in an accident where one driver is drunk. The drunk driver survives and the other driver is killed. There is not a willful intent to kill; the drunk driver is charged with manslaughter.

A drunk individual engages in intercourse with individual. The individual resists but the drunk individual does not comprehend and keeps going. Accidental: lacks intent (couldn't comprehend that they were forcing them) + Rape: someone was forced to submit to intercourse. Drunk individual is charged with Accidental Rape or Rape without intent.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 10:43 PM

IG: I don't think there is such a legal term as Accidental Rape?

This article was good, especially the paraphrased mindset of a rapist.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Choice parts:

Sabrina Garcia - "Rape is NOT an accident." The mindset, justification and entitlement necessary for someone to perpetrate sexual assault needs to be fostered. Rapists know what they are doing, and they know how to use language, social constructs, and specifically Rape myths to minimize their action to anything other than Rape.

David Lisak: The "nice guy, didn't know what he was doing" is a myth which allows these men to minimize and continue their behavior.

I saw this. They've stated it but have not proven it. I am skeptical of this until I can analyze the experimental design and results.

The bolded portion requires a pretty hefty set of results to prove. They would also have to prove that this holds even when the person becomes intoxicated or impaired. They imply that a rapist who rapes while drunk would also have raped while sober. That's going to be tough to prove. Hence, the skepticism. It really just gives me the impression of propaganda.

Accidental rape is not really in the legal terminology unless you count this...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I just think that it is possible to accidentally rape someone and will probably continue to think so until it can be effectively proven otherwise.

Nemesis

09-22-2009, 10:47 PM

I just think that it is possible to accidentally rape someone and will probably continue to think so until it can be effectively proven otherwise.

You brought up the idea. The burden of proof is on you.

daydreamer

09-22-2009, 10:50 PM

A drunk individual engages in intercourse with individual. The individual resists but the drunk individual does not comprehend and keeps going. Accidental: lacks intent (couldn't comprehend that they were forcing them) + Rape: someone was forced to submit to intercourse. Drunk individual is charged with Accidental Rape or Rape without intent.

intent, or lack of intent, is examined in court.

lack of comprehension is not the same as lack of intent.

gestalt

09-22-2009, 10:50 PM

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 10:53 PM

You brought up the idea. The burden of proof is on you.

Where do you think I got the idea?

Nemesis

09-22-2009, 11:01 PM

Where do you think I got the idea?

I would probably be banned if I answered that question.

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 11:06 PM

intent, or lack of intent, is examined in court.

lack of comprehension is not the same as lack of intent.

You missed the point of that argument. There was a discrepancy in how a drunk driver who killed somebody would be charged in court relative to two drivers who got into an accident without criminal intent. I wrote that to show that the comparison was not valid and presented a more valid comparison that shows that when criminal intent is present in the uninhibited state a more severe punishment is granted than in the drunk driver case. That was a justification to argue for a lesser sentence (accidental rape) to a drunk rapist who does not intend to rape versus a sober rapist who intends to rape or ends up raping when presented with a choice.

IrishGuy added to this post, 1 minutes and 11 seconds later...

I would probably be banned if I answered that question.

I got it from the same article that gestalt posted. I just didn't put it on here. They were saying it's not possible, which got me thinking well could it be possible (they didn't provide any concrete evidence to the contrary).

Cygnus

09-22-2009, 11:25 PM

I'm going to have to fold form this discussion. It is a little too close to home and finding I am having conflicted feelings. Everyone enjoy. One last challenge. Putting all the disagreeing and jabs aside, can people actually come up with workable solutions to the problem?

IrishGuy

09-22-2009, 11:30 PM

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:02 AM

All I am doing is acknowleding that ambiguous situations occur. Let's say one is impaired or both are impaired and clearly there was sexual contact leading up to the "rape." If the court finds out ALL THE FACTS and determines it indeed was NOT rape, but the female clearly thinks so, does that mean it was in fact rape? I guess what I'm questioning is who gets to REALLY define what it is in those situations? The court? The female?

Tough Love

09-23-2009, 07:07 AM

One last challenge. Putting all the disagreeing and jabs aside, can people actually come up with workable solutions to the problem?

Cover every left over inch of the world in CCTV cameras? Kidding.

Possibly creating different levels of rape. I do not believe that a rape victim should be subject to high levels of doubt on what he/ she reports as long as there is basic evidence (such as she calls immediately after it happens, or has been hurt), but i do believe a lie detector (as standard) might help.

If there were different levels of rape (ie planned = x yrs, not in control [mental health/ drunk] = y yrs, 'mistake' = z yrs community service - obviously i have no idea of real rape charges but you get my drift... i hope) there may be less confusion on the topic, although i doubt this will stop rape occuring.

rickster

09-23-2009, 07:20 AM

. I do not believe that a rape victim should be subject to high levels of doubt on what he/ she reports as long as there is basic evidence (such as she calls immediately after it happens, or has been hurt), but i do believe a lie detector (as standard)

The problem here is that a rape victim for many reasons like trauma, shame etc may not report immediately, nor should be expected to. Knowledge that there is necessarily a level of intense questioning ahead is enough to inhibit reporting, for somebody who has been violated and humiliated already.

Synamon

09-23-2009, 07:29 AM

Ok, you make a valid point here. The problem is relating this to rape. I'm not sure drunk driving is a good comparison.

Rape: The crime of forcing someone to submit to sexual intercourse.

A conscious, sober and unimpaired individual forces intercourse or begins intercourse and continues after there is a demand to stop. All things equal, that would be rape. In both situations there is the intent to rape. The perpetrators are prosecuted for rape.

Two cars get into a car accident and a driver is killed. There is no criminal intent and the worst prosecution is for wrongful death?

Two cars get into a car accident where a driver intends to kill the other driver (or a pedestrian etc) and does. The driver is charged for murder.

Two cars are in an accident where one driver is drunk. The drunk driver survives and the other driver is killed. There is not a willful intent to kill; the drunk driver is charged with manslaughter.

A drunk individual engages in intercourse with individual. The individual resists but the drunk individual does not comprehend and keeps going. Accidental: lacks intent (couldn't comprehend that they were forcing them) + Rape: someone was forced to submit to intercourse. Drunk individual is charged with Accidental Rape or Rape without intent.

That's a pretty strawman.

Earlier in the thread someone (JTG I think) said their buddies used to get girls drunk to have sex with them. Since you are equating being drunk with being unable to comprehend something as simple as "NO" or "stop", then the girls cannot give consent in any way shape or form if they are drunk, right? There is intent to have sex with the girls and getting them drunk is intended to bypass their ability to consent. How is that not rape by your definition? What you have done is widen the scope of rape exponentially, I doubt that was your intention.

Unless of course we recognize that being under the influence of alcohol (presuming you are conscious) means you are impaired, but doesn't mean you lack the ability to give consent or have intent. If someone is drunk and still has the motor skills to drive, they are sober enough to make the choice to not drive. If someone is drunk and still has the motor skills to have sex, they are sober enough to make the choice to not rape.

Autoptic

09-23-2009, 08:20 AM

Since you are equating being drunk with being unable to comprehend something as simple as "NO" or "stop", then the girls cannot give consent in any way shape or form if they are drunk, right?

Unless of course we recognize that being under the influence of alcohol (presuming you are conscious) means you are impaired, but doesn't mean you lack the ability to give consent or have intent. If someone is drunk and still has the motor skills to drive, they are sober enough to make the choice to not drive. If someone is drunk and still has the motor skills to have sex, they are sober enough to make the choice to not rape.

That's contradictory. If she's not responsible for herself while drunk, why is he responsible for the both of them when also drunk?

Synamon

09-23-2009, 08:41 AM

That's contradictory. If she's not responsible for herself while drunk, why is he responsible for the both of them when also drunk? Male's are just so mentally superior to females?:thinking:

Where did I say that? I said that IrishGuy was claiming that males aren't responsible for themselves when drunk, which clearly would imply that females can't give consent when drunk. "He" isn't responsible for both of them, "he" is responsible for his own choices. I was stressing that both males and females can still make choices when they have been drinking, unless they are so impaired that they lack motor skills or are unconscious. Their judgment will be impaired, but a 2 year old understands and can say the word "NO" or "stop" and someone who is drunk can as well.

The Drifter

09-23-2009, 10:08 AM

Damn.

Shock horror, that I would believe that sexual teasing is harmless. Anyone ever got pregnant from sexual teasing? Anyone ever got AIDS from sexual teasing? Anyone ever had their genitals ripped up? Anyone ever died? You know of anyone who jumps whenever they see someone of the opposite gender, because of the irrational fear that that person might sexually tease them? You know anyone who has trouble being intimate with people of their preferred gender because of memories of past sexual teasing?

Yes, I think that sexual teasing is harmless. Certainly relative to rape, it is.

And as to this "I'm not saying it's right, just how it is" business, let's examine what it is that you've actually said:

"I feel like what you're arguing is that it's always a man's fault that he doesn't accept no..."
and
"Are you saying then that its ok for a woman to exert her power like that but a man can't?"

Please explain to me: On what planet are these not statements that men should not have to take no for an answer, and that women who exert their power by doing things that men consider manipulative should be considered equivalent to men who exert their power by raping women?

There's a thin line between teasing and bullying. I think a better term for what he means is sexual bullying. Victims of conventional bullying strike back violently, so a victim of sexual bullying might lash out with sexual violence.

JTG

09-23-2009, 10:22 AM

Funny, when we're talking about the threat of terrorists, who believe they're right and want to attack us, the response isn't to change our behaviour so they aren't as tempted.It should be. While terrorist actions are inexcusable, barbaric, and just plain morally wrong (even by explicit Koran standards) the terrorists themselves - ideologically - do have some valid complaints with american society and impact on the world.

Now we were both at fault, even though I was in a business situation and not behaving sexually
I disagree.

In the scenario about your attack, you weren't behaving in any sexual manner. You were brought into a house under false pretenses for the specific purpose of an attack happening. 100% not your fault

In the scenario about "twat"s attack, he (if i'm understanding correctly, you're saying a man was raped by another man?) was attacked by his companion after you left. While he could have chosen better company, and he probably should have left when you did, i doubt he encouraged his attacker or intimated that he was interested sexually. While not his fault, i have a hard time sympathizing with him because of his stance regarding your attack previously.

Be clear with men in your life about what, if any, sexual behavior you are comfortable with
I think THIS is the crux of the argument over grey area. When there are mixed signals or unclear (sometimes even contradictory) communication over any issue, it's never a good thing. Apply that to something so intimate and important as sex, and improprieties can cause a lot of hurt.

Shouldn't men and women have clear ideas in their own heads about the WHEN of sex, not playing it off the cuff every time going out? Is it unreasonable to expect clear, well-signaled interest and attraction?
Apparently yes, it is. I am a very clear communicator because i recognize in myself a limited ability to empathize and gather somebody's emotional intent. I'm terrible at taking hints and playing games, so i just come out and ask/say what needs to be communicated. This is a very INTJ thing to do or expect, but it is not a very commonly seen thing in the dating scene.

Since so many seem to have a kind of umm errr "open mind" about reasons to be be raped, I'm wondering if your opinions are driven by your own personal desires rather than clearly thought through debate points.

Absolutely not. In fact, it's a huge turnoff for me when a girl is sexually ambiguous. I've heard "we can do that if you want" more times than i care to admit, and (at least where i'm from) it appears to be a common sexual behavior among late teen through mid 20s women. The way i'm wired sexually, it's just a lot more arousing to me when a woman wants to do something as opposed to if she's willing to do something*

I'm always seeing, hearing, and thinking about things, and this is something i've encountered before. I assure you that my interest in the grey areas of sexual assault are purely academic, because i have considered the implications of many arguments presented here before this thread was ever made.

*In the interest of staying on topic though:

If a girl is eager to have sex, then sex is not rape.
If a girl isn't eager to have sex but is willing, then sex is not rape.
If a girl isn't willing to have sex but allows it, then sex is not rape.
If a woman says no or takes steps to stop sex, then sex is rape.

Everyone agrees (i hope) that #1 is a-ok.
The second is a common scene, but it turns me off. I wouldn't have sex in that situation, but i know plenty of guys who would and do.
The third kinda turns my stomach to think about, because it actually happens quite a bit. Maybe the girl really likes the guy and wants to make him happy even if she doesn't want sex. Maybe she's scared of saying no even though he hasn't made threat or intimation of violence. Either way, it's not legally rape, although the girl would most certainly feel victimized by the event.
The fourth is rape, black and white. It's wrong.

There are other realistic situations that are in-between states compared to what i've listed, and there are probably others that i've never imagined. Anything outside of what is covered by law can be open to interpretation, because individual morals and standards are used to judge.

gestalt

09-23-2009, 10:33 AM

Autoptic

09-23-2009, 11:01 AM

I said that IrishGuy was claiming that males aren't responsible for themselves when drunk, which clearly would imply that females can't give consent when drunk.

Both could be properly insane. She couldn't give consent for the same reason he couldn't comprehend what was going on or his own actions. If he's still fully responsible for himself, why isn't she still fully responsible for herself?

I was stressing that both males and females can still make choices when they have been drinking, unless they are so impaired that they lack motor skills or are unconscious. Their judgment will be impaired, but a 2 year old understands and can say the word "NO" or "stop" and someone who is drunk can as well.

Making choices and comprehension aren't the same thing. Neither is the mentality of a two year old and someone who's stoned. Senses, comprehension, memory, and mood can become quite temporally variable from alterations to deletions. By your claims, they'd magically lose both mental and physical capacities in a subjectively defined "equal" manner thus necessarily be rendered harmless when senseless. For a realistic example, fight or flight only require a very simple mental state though the actions can be quite effective and affecting. Why do you think even normally harmless people can be dangerous when stoned?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 11:04 AM

Pop quiz, George. Could you tell me the difference between these two statements?
1. "You may claim that you're just being the devil's advocate (albeit a strangely persistent one), but the very fact that you and numerous others may actually believe that makes me ashamed of my half of the species..." (My original statement.)
2. "You may claim that you're just being the devil's advocate (albeit a strangely persistent one), and I'm ashamed of my half of the species because you and every other guy that posted here is most definitely an up-to-no-good rapist that deserves to die a horrible painful death." (What you perceived my statement to be.)

When and if I see a woman being assaulted, the first thing I'll do is incapacitate the attacker, not indulge him in a philosophical debate - and especially not ask him "what kind of day the guy had or his history up to that point." I shall do so not because "my male friends said so" but because it's a prerequisite for being a human. You're either *very* bad at playing devil's advocate, or are unable to understand what I wrote, despite my effort to keep my argument concise, clear, and free of grammatical errors.

The only reason we have been speaking thus far is because people refuse to acknowledge there is ambiguity in certain cases of rape; it's not always clear who is right or wrong. Like I said, I mean this for specifically when one or both are impaired and there was clearly sexual liasons prior to the claim of rape. The fact that you read into this argument as us being rapists is beyond me. And frankly I think you're so brainwashed by liberal media, that you presume there is NO ambiguity. There is ambiguity with assault, and murder, but somehow rape is off limits?

That's fine and good if you take him out if he tries to rape you. When I said the guy had "a bad day" or "know his history" what I'm saying is you don't know who the hell you are getting involved with and to tell him he can't feel a certain way is sort of out of the question. Here, you're arguing with me, can I tell you to feel wrong? Had I not said anything in the first place, this argument would not have taken place correct? You want me to spell that out for you? If a lady didn't go home with a stranger, the apparent rape would not have even occurred. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that is beyond me also. Apparently in some twisted minds, if you acknowledge that, that means rape is ok. You realize they do not have to be one in the same correct?

Either I'm bad at playing devil's advocate or YOU don't understand what I'm talking about. It's pretty damn clear.

The Drifter

09-23-2009, 11:10 AM

Well if he allowed himself to get into that situation georgie then clearly he has it coming to him if he gets thrown in jail and ass raped by the other inmates. tisk tisk he should have known better. I mean how well did he know her? Who gives strange women rides in their car?

Yes?

It's funny because when I tell men this, someone (typically a woman) says that I'm being immature. You see she wants attention from as many males as possible so that she has a large number to select from. Me advising men not to mess with women who are flaky or poor communicators threatens this.

JTG

09-23-2009, 11:15 AM

In RE: #3, a girl not willing to have sex but allows it, then sex is not rape.
I submit a counter-example from the thisisrape Blog.

Two people meet in class, they see each other at parties, start to talk, hang out. They end up studying one night, order pizza, drink some, start fooling around. She starts kissing him, they're wrestling around, tickling. "Stop" is said several times in the context of tickling. The male says that almost every time she said "stop" in a sexual context he did, and she resumed the kissing/tickling/wrestling. He said at the point when they are on his bed, and she takes off his shirt, he assumes this is an affirmative to sexual intercourse. She whispers "stop" once while he's inside of her, then says nothing and he continues, they fall asleep, he calls her a few days later. Then finds out she's accusing him of Rape. It could happen to anyone right? It happens every weekend...

This situation is Rape. She says "stop" to sexual intercourse and he chose not to stop.

Sort of combines #4, but imho #3 gets at the "must fight for her chastity" presupposed rape-case clause in many countries, legally speaking. The 'eagerness' you're talking about has no place here.

Final word for me: It's like a Deny All at the top of an Access Control List. You are a rapist, unless you have explicit *informed consent* during all times of sexual intercourse.

I more or less agree with everything except the bolded part. While i would be turned off enough to desist, i don't believe choosing not to stop would make somebody a rapist. That is a matter of communication, or rather the lack thereof. There are people who would argue both sides though, and i think we've started zeroing in on realistic examples of grey areas that do happen.

(edit: the spoiler section i would consider rape. legally speaking, she said no and he should have stopped. i can definitely see where the miscommunication lies though. the guy had no intent to hurt her, and i'm sure he felt terrible to find out what had happened. still, unless they explicitly agreed beforehand that "no means yes," he should have stopped)

The Drifter

09-23-2009, 11:28 AM

1)We can talk about what women can do to lessen the likelihood that someone will rape them until the cows come home, but only rapists can prevent rape. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

2) Rape prevention begins and ends with education for males, young and old and in-between.

3) Women do not "get raped." Rape isn't something that just happens, like weather. Rape is when one person assaults another in one of the most traumatizing ways possible. There is no excuse, and there is no "shared blame." Rape is either a violent crime, or it's not. If it is, the rapist is 100% responsible, no matter what.

1)Tell that to the rapists

2)Negates the first quote. Plus you've implicated all men potential rapists. Tell that to the parents of that little girl that was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by a woman.

3)You "get _____ed" when ______ happens to you regardless of your level of control.

IrishGuy

09-23-2009, 11:29 AM

That's a pretty strawman.

Earlier in the thread someone (JTG I think) said their buddies used to get girls drunk to have sex with them. Since you are equating being drunk with being unable to comprehend something as simple as "NO" or "stop", then the girls cannot give consent in any way shape or form if they are drunk, right? There is intent to have sex with the girls and getting them drunk is intended to bypass their ability to consent. How is that not rape by your definition? What you have done is widen the scope of rape exponentially, I doubt that was your intention.

Unless of course we recognize that being under the influence of alcohol (presuming you are conscious) means you are impaired, but doesn't mean you lack the ability to give consent or have intent. If someone is drunk and still has the motor skills to drive, they are sober enough to make the choice to not drive. If someone is drunk and still has the motor skills to have sex, they are sober enough to make the choice to not rape.

The first paragraph:
It can be argued that the man is taking advantage of the female (assuming the male is sober). Consensual sex requires that all parties consent to having sex. If the female incapable of consenting then the sex is not consensual. Thus, if a sober male has sex with a drunk female who cannot give consent we can assume that the male is not looking for consent. This implies rape even though it does not fit within the textbook definition of "forcing someone to submit to sexual intercourse." We assume since she can't define her will that he is forcing himself on her. Effectively the girl is in consent purgatory. One end is required for consensual sex the other for textbook rape. Anything in between is subject to the circumstances.

Speaking of strawmen:
How drunk is drunk? If you're over the 0.08 limit you are too drunk to drive. That's just the point at which the law says you're too uncoordinated or numbed from the alcohol to operate a motor vehicle safely. Also, note that drunk drivers are not charged with murder (if they kill someone while driving) they're charged with manslaughter because there is, all things equal, no intent to kill. If a man is drunk how do we prove whether or not he has the intent to rape. I don't think anyone has studied at what point you're too drunk to understand consent. So I think we will be running around the circles of opinion on this one.

As an aside: I know we're talking exclusively about alcohol but there are also other drugs out there too which may be less ambiguous or more genuinely impair an individuals ability to understand whether or not consent is given.

Anyways, this will have to do for now. I just don't have time to respond to everyone right now....

daydreamer

09-23-2009, 11:33 AM

You missed the point of that argument. There was a discrepancy in how a drunk driver who killed somebody would be charged in court relative to two drivers who got into an accident without criminal intent. I wrote that to show that the comparison was not valid and presented a more valid comparison that shows that when criminal intent is present in the uninhibited state a more severe punishment is granted than in the drunk driver case. That was a justification to argue for a lesser sentence (accidental rape) to a drunk rapist who does not intend to rape versus a sober rapist who intends to rape or ends up raping when presented with a choice.

i totally got your point. my point is that just because you can imagine something or reason something, doesn't make it true... just because you can imagine someone so impaired as to not know whether they are raping someone - doesn't make it a reality. you'd be a good criminal defense lawyer. the ambiguity you keep trying to point out - that doesnt exist - is the same one defense lawyers use when their client is guilty and has no other argument.

IrishGuy

09-23-2009, 11:35 AM

Where did I say that? I said that IrishGuy was claiming that males aren't responsible for themselves when drunk, which clearly would imply that females can't give consent when drunk. "He" isn't responsible for both of them, "he" is responsible for his own choices. I was stressing that both males and females can still make choices when they have been drinking, unless they are so impaired that they lack motor skills or are unconscious. Their judgment will be impaired, but a 2 year old understands and can say the word "NO" or "stop" and someone who is drunk can as well.

I'm not saying that they're not responsible. I'm just saying they may not be able to fully comprehend their actions and the will of the other person. Drunk drivers are still responsible when they kill someone and are charged with manslaughter. However, they are not charged with murder. A distinction is made. Why isn't one made with rape?

Bolded portion: Are they conscious choices that reflect those people's personal will or are they the choices of an impaired mind that cannot fully rationalize the situation?

IrishGuy added to this post, 1 minutes and 20 seconds later...

i totally got your point. my point is that just because you can imagine something or reason something, doesn't make it true... just because you can imagine someone so impaired as to not know whether they are raping someone - doesn't make it a reality. you'd be a good criminal defense lawyer. the ambiguity you keep trying to point out - that doesnt exist - is the same one defense lawyers use when their client is guilty and has no other argument.

You say it doesn't exist: prove it. I think we've made a case for ambiguity. Everybody is ignoring the ambiguity and just saying that it does not exist. Prove that it is black and white; prove that there is not ambiguity.

The Drifter

09-23-2009, 11:41 AM

Wow. I'm shocked and embarrassed.

1. It is never - NEVER - acceptable to force yourself on a woman sexually. You can persuade, you can run games, you incentivize, but you cannot, for any reason whatsoever, force yourself on a woman after its clear she doesn't want to.

2. Being totally drunk isn't an excuse for raping someone. You're responsible for your actions regardless of what you put in your body.

3. There's nothing a woman can do to justify being raped. It doesn't matter what she's done, individuals have a right to stop a sexual interaction at any time. That even means that they may stop sex once its started.

4. Moderately drunk-consensual sex is still consensual sex. She's passed out and you're a little tipsy is rape. There's some grey here, but if she's not conscious its kinda obvious.

Running game is usually what creates the delayed rape charge. She slept with him based on a certain set of facts. She finds out that everything is not what he said it was, feels cheated, and claims rape.

The Drifter added to this post, 1 minutes and 9 seconds later...

Yes it is serious and is this case she is the one who will rightly be prosecuted. So are the men partially to blame for what happened to them?

And no this is not a gray area because she wasn't raped. You have extremely convoluted thinking.

Yes, they are partially at fault.

MartinH

09-23-2009, 11:43 AM

There's a thin line between teasing and bullying. I think a better term for what he means is sexual bullying. Victims of conventional bullying strike back violently, so a victim of sexual bullying might lash out with sexual violence.

I asked Autoptic a similar thing, which he did answer - but what sort of behaviour would constitute sexual bullying from a woman that would encourage her rape?

Being arousing and not wanting sex - is that bullying?

Storm

09-23-2009, 11:51 AM

daydreamer

09-23-2009, 12:07 PM

I'm not saying that they're not responsible. I'm just saying they may not be able to fully comprehend their actions and the will of the other person. Drunk drivers are still responsible when they kill someone and are charged with manslaughter. However, they are not charged with murder. A distinction is made. Why isn't one made with rape?

Bolded portion: Are they conscious choices that reflect those people's personal will or are they the choices of an impaired mind that cannot fully rationalize the situation?

the drunk driving thing isn't a complete correlation.

rape is rape. many times additional charges are in order. date rapists may get a lesser sentence than a boogeyman rapist already simply because they did not commit additional crimes. but the crime that they did commit is still rape, it is still the same crime. comprehension does not come into play. regularly functioning adults old enough to drink and have sex and drive cars and date people are responsible for all those actions.

it sounds to me that you are trying to make a case that there is rape and then there is rape with irresistible impulse. there are probably infinite variety of personal 'reasons' a criminal thinks and feels for rape. you are trying to account for the complexity of each and every human and judge which thoughts and feelings they have. cannot be done. it is the responsibility of each and every human to know the laws - if they are incapable of agreeing with them, or following them, it does not excuse them from being accountable. whether or not it is out of apathy, or defiance of authority, or some other of the infinite varieties.

rape is a serious crime. the perpetrators of such a crime must take the responsibility not only for their actions (you seem to be arguing that they shouldnt always have to) but also for the criminal process against them. many violent criminals try to misconstrue the "innocent until proven guilty" into more than it is - a presentation of the evidence against them and for them, and they act very offended that they were ever accused in the first place. some well-meaning sympathizers and some open-minded thinkers can get sucked in. stick around criminals long enough and you won't. even prisoners who have been through the judicial system themselves do not sympathize with other criminals in prison...

i find it bizarre that there are people who would argue day and night over something very black and white - such as rape - because of a misunderstanding of our judicial system.. and yet many of those same people will not consider arguing out of a speeding or parking ticket which, by nature of enforcement is much more likely arbitrary, but to them, seems black and white (ie., 67 in a 65 zone) and the laws/enforcement beyond question.

i'm guessing it is because of the stakes involved, ie, a prison sentence vs. a monetary fine... but it makes me question those types of people's judgments and i become very watchful of their behavior. are they arguing for themselves? -- i know when i'm considering the justness of the law and its practiced interpretation, i'm arguing for myself. i'm hoping that if such a serious crime ever happened to me, or to my family or friends, that the judicial system is there to provide some measure of protection after the fact and possibly sort out any additional issues. i pay my taxes and i participate in the system to the extent i can, because it is there for me. maybe i can chalk what i see here up to the weird counter culture that rears its head on the internet.

daydreamer added to this post, 4 minutes and 48 seconds later...

You say it doesn't exist: prove it. I think we've made a case for ambiguity. Everybody is ignoring the ambiguity and just saying that it does not exist. Prove that it is black and white; prove that there is not ambiguity.

this is an example of "innocent until proven guilty" being misconstrued. it is not up to the prosecution to prove ambiguity. it is up to the defense to show that the evidence against them is false or in some other way defective. if they want to go down the path of trying to mess with the jury's heads about some ambiguity in the mind of the criminal, that is their choice.

who is we? in we have made a case for ambiguity. and yet everybody is ignoring it... these two sentences conflict. we are not ignoring it, we are not buying your case, because, it isn't strong enough, and you have proven nothing.

daydreamer added to this post, 7 minutes and 15 seconds later...

Obviously, education about rape has failed absolutely. Rape is not about sex, it's about power.

thanks for that Storm.

JTG

09-23-2009, 12:18 PM

I'd say that any instance of forced, predatory, or violent behavior is black and white rape, and not what the thread is about. Clearly, in such a situation, the girl has done nothing (or close to nothing) to put herself at risk for the attack. Although in the scenario you gave, it was highly unwise of her to accept drinks from guys she doesn't know.

Maybe it's just the introvert in me, but i don't drink with people i don't know. The closest i come is to drink with people i do know, while people i don't know are present.

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 12:47 PM

Obviously, education about rape has failed absolutely. Rape is not about sex, it's about power. It doesn't matter if she's wearing a short skirt or a pair of overalls. Rape happens to young people in their teens and old people confined to nursing homes. It is not about sex, it is about power. Which is why castration does not work as deterrent against known rapist.

That's, of course, the "alley-way" rapist. The person with a psychological problem. There's also the "College-Boy" rape.

As for the focus on "education." Let's take this back to the real world: The classic girl drugged and raped at a frat party.

Girl is away from her parents for the first time, they told her not to get drunk, but we all know you can't stop all 18 year olds from drinking. She goes to a party with friends. The boys there go to the same college as her, they are nice, they offer her a drink. She's never drinked before, she has a shot. Turns out it had a date-rape drug in it. She ends up being assaulted by many men.

What would be your advice? Never ever go to a party? LOL. Never ever accept a drink of any kind? LOL.

Let's tell it from the boy's perspective. They know that young, naive girls are coming over. They decide it would be a whole lot of "fun" to give one a date rape drug and assault her. Afterall, she won't remember. It'll be fun, all the other guys think it'll be fun. Don't want to look like a pussy, respecting people and shit. So, they give the girl the drug, and then consciously strip off her clothes and assault her. Not a single man calls the police.

What advice could they have been given? Don't give drugs to people? Don't assault people? Call the police if you witness an assault?

Which set of advice is more realistic? Which is easier for a person to implement? :thinking:

Wow in what kind of society do you live in where there are no predators? There are predators everywhere, in sales, politicians, doctors, lawyers, businessmen all looking to make a buck/get spheres of influence. Are you saying that we need to educate all predators not to go after prey? Or should we educate the prey not to get preyed on? Even playing the stock market is predatory behavior, you're hoping some sucker buys it from you at a higher price. Isn't that what American society is based on? Eat or be eaten? Yes you're absolutely right it's about power and I do hate all douches who think like that but that doesn't change what it is. And obviously all those frat boys got together because they have similar thinking, you don't see any Good Samaritans joining that bunch.

I'm not trying to make fun of you, I sincerely hope we one day will live in that kind of world. It just doesn't seem like it'll happen given human nature at all levels of society.

MartinH

09-23-2009, 01:35 PM

Are you saying that we need to educate all predators not to go after prey?

That's a crappy model of how people work. Educating boys about rape and boundaries isn't the same as asking business not to make a profit.

FWIW I don't know anyone I'd describe as a predator in my personal or business life.

JTG

09-23-2009, 01:49 PM

I do agree that educating males is a very key factor. More men should be taught to respect women as people and equals.

I also think it's rather ignorant to deny the fact that it's a good idea to educate girls about the risks they face. It's not enough to say "there are bad men out there who will rape you" when you could sit and have a legitimate discussion about date rape, self-expression, and respect. A girl who knows how to communicate and has been taught that it's okay to disagree with people, respect herself, and take charge in a situation is much more likely to get out of a situation... or better, stop things before a situation arises.

It's a sociological thing though, for centuries women have been taught to be passive, appeasing, and subservient. Breaking that mindset for both genders would mitigate a lot of problems women have, including but not limited to (date)rape.

Storm

09-23-2009, 02:00 PM

Wow in what kind of society do you live in where there are no predators? There are predators everywhere, in sales, politicians, doctors, lawyers, businessmen all looking to make a buck/get spheres of influence. Are you saying that we need to educate all predators not to go after prey? Or should we educate the prey not to get preyed on? Even playing the stock market is predatory behavior, you're hoping some sucker buys it from you at a higher price. Isn't that what American society is based on? Eat or be eaten? Yes you're absolutely right it's about power and I do hate all douches who think like that but that doesn't change what it is. And obviously all those frat boys got together because they have similar thinking, you don't see any Good Samaritans joining that bunch.

I'm not trying to make fun of you, I sincerely hope we one day will live in that kind of world. It just doesn't seem like it'll happen given human nature at all levels of society.

I'm sorry, did you just compare a violent crime to a stockbroker?

What kind of world do you live in where it's perfectly reasonable to stop 18 year old girls from going to parties, but not reasonable to expect people to report crimes? You seem to be acting like men are utterly unable to stop themselves from making a conscious decision to rape a person. Yes, I realize there are some people, the "alley-way" rapist, who will probably always exist. And I do think there are some precautions some people should take. Just as it's prudent to be aware of where your wallet is on a subway, one should always avoid, if possible, abandoned areas. However, avoid parities? Avoid ever taking a drink from someone you don't know? There goes eating out. There goes attending a party for the first time with new people (such as at a college).

I have met many good and wholesome fraternity boys, actually. I know many people who married fraternity boys. Actually, most fraternities have service project programs (a la Good Samaritans). I think most men who join fraternities don't participate in gang bangs of unconscious women.

Whoever said they don't drink with those they don't know. The girl in my scenario went with friends (turns out they weren't good friends, as they believed the boys when they told her they'd let her stay to sleep it off). She had a single drink, which turned out to be drugged. Don't be so unrealistic. The world is not.

I know it makes it easier if it's the girl's fault. Because then, we don't have to admit that there are horrible people out there who will take advantage no matter what. We can blame the victim. We can be safe thinking that the horrible thing will never happen to us or our daughters or sisters or wives, because we're careful, we follow all the rules. Those bad things only happen to those foolish women who are unrealistic about the world. Don't be so unrealistic. Just like, even the tourist who is aware of where is wallet is still falls prey to the clever and experienced pickpocket, there is the girl who went to the party with friends and had just one drink (or maybe it was even a coke? Who knows.), and got assaulted.

daydreamer

09-23-2009, 02:13 PM

to further illustrate the point, i would add that rape by a known assailant isn't always done on a date or at a party. and it doesn't always happen to women. i know someone who lived in a respectable suburb, of yuppies no less... he went to his neighbors, after having seen the wife and the husband outside a few times and engaging in talk. he went for more talk and accepted one drink from them... woke up after having passed out and having memory issues... had been raped. sick things happen. it is not the fault of the victim.

Storm

09-23-2009, 02:21 PM

I also think it's rather ignorant to deny the fact that it's a good idea to educate girls about the risks they face. It's not enough to say "there are bad men out there who will rape you" when you could sit and have a legitimate discussion about date rape, self-expression, and respect. A girl who knows how to communicate and has been taught that it's okay to disagree with people, respect herself, and take charge in a situation is much more likely to get out of a situation... or better, stop things before a situation arises.

The complaint in this thread isn't that women aren't being taught about the dangers of rape. It's that women are over taught. I'm sorry, I don't like to use this line. But you obviously a man. Women are told, repeatedly, that being outside alone at any time - Rapist are lurking! Women are told not to go out after dark - Rapists are lurking! Women are told to get someone to walk them out to their car if it's after dark, even if they are only a few feet from a well-lite building - rapists are lurking! There's an e-mail going around, I've gotten it several times, it's full of crap advice like:

1. Don't wear overalls, rapists carry and scissors and will cut them off! (Obviously, all other clothing is permanently affixed to the body)
2. Don't wear a ponytail, rapists will use it grab you by the hair! (Should I shave my head?)
3. Never take the stairs! Rapists are lurking. (Maybe good advice in seedy downtown buildings. But, you can exit a staircase on any floor, you can't exit an elevator so easily.)
4. A crippled person asking for help to open a door or pick up something they dropped is really a rapists.
5. Check under your car and in it for rapists. (Yeah, so that someone can come up behind you. How about, just be generally aware of your surroundings?)
6. If you see a man near your car when you about to get in it, go back in the store and ask fro the security guard. (......I'll let this one speak for itself).

Only good advice: Lock your car as soon as you get in it. As you can tell, there is so much effort to "educate" women, that most of it is crap. All it does is perpetuate the myth that rape is a preventable crime and women should constantly live in fear of being raped. The truth is, rape by strangers is extremely rare. Car accidents are much more common, yet few people bother to take defensive driving.

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 03:25 PM

I'm sorry, did you just compare a violent crime to a stockbroker?

What kind of world do you live in where it's perfectly reasonable to stop 18 year old girls from going to parties, but not reasonable to expect people to report crimes? You seem to be acting like men are utterly unable to stop themselves from making a conscious decision to rape a person. Yes, I realize there are some people, the "alley-way" rapist, who will probably always exist. And I do think there are some precautions some people should take. Just as it's prudent to be aware of where your wallet is on a subway, one should always avoid, if possible, abandoned areas. However, avoid parities? Avoid ever taking a drink from someone you don't know? There goes eating out. There goes attending a party for the first time with new people (such as at a college).

I have met many good and wholesome fraternity boys, actually. I know many people who married fraternity boys. Actually, most fraternities have service project programs (a la Good Samaritans). I think most men who join fraternities don't participate in gang bangs of unconscious women.

Whoever said they don't drink with those they don't know. The girl in my scenario went with friends (turns out they weren't good friends, as they believed the boys when they told her they'd let her stay to sleep it off). She had a single drink, which turned out to be drugged. Don't be so unrealistic. The world is not.

I know it makes it easier if it's the girl's fault. Because then, we don't have to admit that there are horrible people out there who will take advantage no matter what. We can blame the victim. We can be safe thinking that the horrible thing will never happen to us or our daughters or sisters or wives, because we're careful, we follow all the rules. Those bad things only happen to those foolish women who are unrealistic about the world. Don't be so unrealistic. Just like, even the tourist who is aware of where is wallet is still falls prey to the clever and experienced pickpocket, there is the girl who went to the party with friends and had just one drink (or maybe it was even a coke? Who knows.), and got assaulted.

No, what I'm saying is that predator's exist at all levels of society. You want a case of a stockbroker gone awry? Look at Bernie Madoff, you don't think that has serious economic consequences/crush lives? He was a predator, plain and simple and it doesn't matter whether it's rape, murder or theft, it has the ability to crush lives and any "prey" needs to educate themselves to prevent it. I actually knew a couple who invested with Madoff and they raved about him prior to the whole thing collapsing. They didn't think that the guaranteed 8% a year was suspicious at all. Does that make them deserving to be victims? No, but it makes it easier to prey on them.

Where are you getting this idea that we're/I are ok with that happening to women? Any kind of predatory behavior is abhorrable, I'm just saying it exists and to behave as if it doesn't and continuing to behave that way, hoping it'll get better isn't going to change anything. What I'm saying is that if you acknowledge that a lack of knowledge can get you into trouble, then a prey is one step closer to being safer. That does not make predatory behavior ok, it just acknowledges that it happens when you lack knowledge/don't taking certain precautions.

The frat boys I was specifically mentioning were the ones that you mentioned in your scenario. I am aware that good frats exist, we were talking about the dumb ones.

I am sorry about your friend, that is terrible.

Storm

09-23-2009, 04:12 PM

Where are you getting this idea that we're/I are ok with that happening to women? Any kind of predatory behavior is abhorrable, I'm just saying it exists and to behave as if it doesn't and continuing to behave that way, hoping it'll get better isn't going to change anything. What I'm saying is that if you acknowledge that a lack of knowledge can get you into trouble, then a prey is one step closer to being safer. That does not make predatory behavior ok, it just acknowledges that it happens when you lack knowledge/don't taking certain precautions.

I think we're arguing a level of degree, not absolutes. Never going to parties, never drinking, never trusting anyone ever, these are all unrealistic.

We're also holding men to different standards. You have repeatedly implied that wearing a short skirt and flirting too much will turn a large majority of men into rapists and that this is unavoidable. This a) Ignores the reality of rape (it's not about sex) b) is extremely sexist toward both men and women (men are uncontrollable, women can prevent rape by dressing/acting right). I don't think this is true, I think any person who assaults another has something wrong with them, and there is nothing understandable about it.

firebee

09-23-2009, 04:32 PM

Here's a tale that I've told on the forums before, I think, which is somewhat relevant to this thread:

One of my friends back in undergrad dated a fellow who was a "nice guy". You could tell that he was a "nice guy" because he would tell you this at every possible opportunity. He practically introduced himself to me with a statement akin to the following: "Hi, I'm Joe-Bob, I'm a nice guy, and I would never hit a woman."

Fair enough, I figured. Hitting people is one of the many things that decent human beings endeavor to avoid doing, and I can certainly support this guy's firm commitment to maintaining civil behavior. In any case, he continues to date my friend and hang out with the role-playing martial arts crowd that she and I were affiliated with, and he continues to regale us all with stories about how well he treats women, and how he holds himself to the ideals of chivalry, and how he would never hit a woman... even if she deserved it...

At one point, after it became quite clear that "not hitting women" was pretty much on his mind 24/7 (How's the weather today, Joe-Bob? -- I would never hit a woman, et cetera.), I asked him a question along the lines of "That's admirable, Joe-Bob, but what if me or (his now-ex) were to be possessed with a righteous fury and desire to see you removed from this planet? Either of us could potentially hurt you quite badly if we were so inclined -- would you really rather die than protect yourself from us, just because we happen to be women?" He responded (of course) that "I would never hit a woman, and if a woman got hysterical then I would just restrain her until she calmed down." To which I replied "I'm not talking about hysteria, Joe-Bob, I'm talking about genuine malice -- and you do realize that you're not capable of 'restraining' either myself or your ex, right?" (this was not an omg ninja thing so much as it was that he was spindly, weak, and awkward).

He looked at me with a look of total incomprehension, as if my statement was some sort of secret incantation that he could not comprehend without it fracturing his mind, and repeated again "I would never hit a woman." This... kinda creeped me out, and I didn't know why -- obviously, one couldn't exactly argue with the words that were coming out of his mouth, yes? But the way he acted, the incidents he described... something seemed thoroughly "off" about him.

It turns out that one day, he somehow got into a conversation with our group's resident gadfly, a young woman who at the time took on a social role as being the person who delivered a mallet to the head of stupid wherever she found it. She said something that he did not like, something that fell into that category of "You have just gone off the script that I have written for myself and everyone around me," and he pulled out a knife and threatened her with it.

Now, the thing about Joe-Bob is this: He was just zis guy, you know? He didn't have horns on his head, he didn't make a practice of hanging out in the girl's bathroom with a butcher knife and a hard-on, and he didn't brag about fucking drunk girls (in fact, quite the opposite). He just happened to have this little script that was running in his head. And it wasn't even a bad script; as long as men kept to their roles of competing with him on his terms and women stayed the heck up on their pedestals for him to worship them, everything was fine. If people did not keep to the script, then he was dangerous to know, but aside from that minor detail he was a gentle parfait knight...

To me, what I hear when I see someone who examines the conduct of someone who has been raped to determine whether they are a "pure victim" or not, or talks about how it could be a "gray area" if an attractive yet unavailable woman triggered resentful rage, or refers to women as "prey", is, well... "I would never hit a woman." They're carriers of a poisonous meme that comes from the bad old days when the concept that rape is beyond the pale wasn't a universally-held idea -- that women have the primary responsibility for policing their virtues, and that it's somehow "avoiding responsibility" to suggest that a person who did not commit a crime should not be blamed for being the victim of one.

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 05:28 PM

I think we're arguing a level of degree, not absolutes. Never going to parties, never drinking, never trusting anyone ever, these are all unrealistic.

We're also holding men to different standards. You have repeatedly implied that wearing a short skirt and flirting too much will turn a large majority of men into rapists and that this is unavoidable. This a) Ignores the reality of rape (it's not about sex) b) is extremely sexist toward both men and women (men are uncontrollable, women can prevent rape by dressing/acting right). I don't think this is true, I think any person who assaults another has something wrong with them, and there is nothing understandable about it.

I don't think you're getting what I mean by saying the part about short skirts and flirting; I'm not condoing the person's behavior, I'm talking about increased levels of risk. Talking to a guy is riskier than not talking to him, which in turns is riskier if you go home with him, which in turns is increased if you're drunk, which in turns is risker if you say something stupid to him, which in turns is riskier if you let him in and then say no. I'm saying that certain combination of behaviors makes it riskier than let's say doing nothing. This does not imply in anyway that a rapist is not responsible, it just makes it harder for courts to determine truth from fiction and for the victim not to be raped/assaulted.

curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 4 minutes and 22 seconds later...

Here's a tale that I've told on the forums before, I think, which is somewhat relevant to this thread:

One of my friends back in undergrad dated a fellow who was a "nice guy". You could tell that he was a "nice guy" because he would tell you this at every possible opportunity. He practically introduced himself to me with a statement akin to the following: "Hi, I'm Joe-Bob, I'm a nice guy, and I would never hit a woman."

Fair enough, I figured. Hitting people is one of the many things that decent human beings endeavor to avoid doing, and I can certainly support this guy's firm commitment to maintaining civil behavior. In any case, he continues to date my friend and hang out with the role-playing martial arts crowd that she and I were affiliated with, and he continues to regale us all with stories about how well he treats women, and how he holds himself to the ideals of chivalry, and how he would never hit a woman... even if she deserved it...

At one point, after it became quite clear that "not hitting women" was pretty much on his mind 24/7 (How's the weather today, Joe-Bob? -- I would never hit a woman, et cetera.), I asked him a question along the lines of "That's admirable, Joe-Bob, but what if me or (his now-ex) were to be possessed with a righteous fury and desire to see you removed from this planet? Either of us could potentially hurt you quite badly if we were so inclined -- would you really rather die than protect yourself from us, just because we happen to be women?" He responded (of course) that "I would never hit a woman, and if a woman got hysterical then I would just restrain her until she calmed down." To which I replied "I'm not talking about hysteria, Joe-Bob, I'm talking about genuine malice -- and you do realize that you're not capable of 'restraining' either myself or your ex, right?" (this was not an omg ninja thing so much as it was that he was spindly, weak, and awkward).

He looked at me with a look of total incomprehension, as if my statement was some sort of secret incantation that he could not comprehend without it fracturing his mind, and repeated again "I would never hit a woman." This... kinda creeped me out, and I didn't know why -- obviously, one couldn't exactly argue with the words that were coming out of his mouth, yes? But the way he acted, the incidents he described... something seemed thoroughly "off" about him.

It turns out that one day, he somehow got into a conversation with our group's resident gadfly, a young woman who at the time took on a social role as being the person who delivered a mallet to the head of stupid wherever she found it. She said something that he did not like, something that fell into that category of "You have just gone off the script that I have written for myself and everyone around me," and he pulled out a knife and threatened her with it.

Now, the thing about Joe-Bob is this: He was just zis guy, you know? He didn't have horns on his head, he didn't make a practice of hanging out in the girl's bathroom with a butcher knife and a hard-on, and he didn't brag about fucking drunk girls (in fact, quite the opposite). He just happened to have this little script that was running in his head. And it wasn't even a bad script; as long as men kept to their roles of competing with him on his terms and women stayed the heck up on their pedestals for him to worship them, everything was fine. If people did not keep to the script, then he was dangerous to know, but aside from that minor detail he was a gentle parfait knight...

To me, what I hear when I see someone who examines the conduct of someone who has been raped to determine whether they are a "pure victim" or not, or talks about how it could be a "gray area" if an attractive yet unavailable woman triggered resentful rage, or refers to women as "prey", is, well... "I would never hit a woman." They're carriers of a poisonous meme that comes from the bad old days when the concept that rape is beyond the pale wasn't a universally-held idea -- that women have the primary responsibility for policing their virtues, and that it's somehow "avoiding responsibility" to suggest that a person who did not commit a crime should not be blamed for being the victim of one.

Ok the fact that he said that he would never hit a woman I find pretty damn strange. No one is EVER 100% sure. I would never make that statement, seems like something you'd say while you're in denial.

Look above for what I mean. I'm not blaming the victim, I'm just saying it's more difficult for you to prove your case the more risk you take, and to NOT be a victim.

daydreamer

09-23-2009, 05:37 PM

I'm not blaming the victim, I'm just saying it's more difficult for you to prove your case the more risk you take, and to NOT be a victim.

why did you word the title of the thread like you did ?

Nemesis

09-23-2009, 05:38 PM

why did you word the title of the thread like you did ?

He didn't. This thread was split from another.

Rudy

09-23-2009, 05:46 PM

CG, I changed the title. Would you say that's a more accurate representation of your position?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 06:05 PM

CG, I changed the title. Would you say that's a more accurate representation of your position?

Haha I don't know, it depends on how much yelled at I get ;). My position is that you just increase your risk the more "entwined you become." I'm not entirely sure how you would phrase that.

daydreamer

09-23-2009, 06:10 PM

Haha I don't know, it depends on how much yelled at I get ;). My position is that you just increase your risk the more "entwined you become." I'm not entirely sure how you would phrase that.

i've got no issue with this generic statement. as Storm pointed out, women would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to either realize this, or to ignore everyone else pointing it out to them all the time. nonetheless, men who care about women very much can get very protective sometimes, and meaning well, wish to point these things out again.

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 06:20 PM

Rudy

09-23-2009, 06:37 PM

Yes that's all I was trying to say. I was like "why the hell is everyone disagreeing with this?" Seems simple enough. I mean all that talk about "gray" just meant that at a certain point, one is so entwined that people have a hard time figuring out if one was indeed raped despite his/her claims.

CG, if that was really all you were trying to say, then I have to believe that you sat down and asked yourself "Now, how can I make my position as unclear as possible?"

In the future, I recommend avoiding talk of women having it coming to them, defense of rapists on the basis of them having a bad day at work, or advancing the acceptability of physical violence as a means of venting frustration.

I'm sure you didn't really mean any of those things, though.

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 06:40 PM

Honestly I was just answering people's questions, it didn't occur to me WHAT THEY WERE THINKING.

I'm saying that the rapists bad day of work and venting is one of possible reaction of any guy, that he doesn't necessarily intend to do harm; the guy basically cracks. Of course the more entwined with the guy, the closer you are to being the thing that cracked him.

And that talk about women having it coming to them, all that meant was that it's not my place to judge what happens to people. Just as if there are people you hate in life, and something bad happens to him, you say "thank god" or "I can see that happening." But I'm sure that person is someone's brother, uncle, friend whatever who doesn't agree. All I am saying is that my POV is as valid as someone else's. I just believe there's a greater purpose in life and it's not for me to question it even though my personal belief is that no one should be harmed. But what's the reality of "no one being harmed" to be true?

firebee

09-23-2009, 06:41 PM

My position is that you just increase your risk the more "entwined you become." I'm not entirely sure how you would phrase that.

That "entwined" is a very interesting word, since one of the things that I am the club-wielding Fairy Of Enlightenment Now Dammit about is the matter of interpersonal boundaries. Essentially, you have to be willing to determine what stuff is "yours" and what stuff is "other people's" and to on no account allow people to intrude on that which is "yours" without deciding to let them do it.

You read a lot of the accounts in books like The Gift of Fear, and the crucial turning point is often a time where a person feels like they don't want to do something but they perceive that speaking up about it would be rude. Then, say they do speak up, and they find that the guy they saw in the parking lot killed and ate the next person who came out the door because that person prioritized "nice" over some sense of unease.

Women are socialized to be "agreeable". Particularly with men that might be valid dating targets. In addition to presenting a number of mundane problems, it's also a contributor to the sort of Bad Sexual Interaction that could be date rape and to getting women into situations where they could be unequivocably raped.

as Storm pointed out, women would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to either realize this, or to ignore everyone else pointing it out to them all the time. nonetheless, men who care about women very much can get very protective sometimes, and meaning well, wish to point these things out again.

This is another interesting thing: There's been all this talk about how sure, rape is bad but surely it's going to happen anyway despite all the telling, yes? Well, the top ten list of "common sense precautions", as daydreamer points out, is pounded into anyone with a twat since before they are allowed to go out on their own. Possibly some goat-herding women in distant provinces of China have not heard that one must check the back seat of one's car before getting into it (they might also wonder what is this 'car' thing). But I'm fairly sure that every other woman has.

And yet we still drink, and still date, and still do other "unreasonable" things. Possibly it's time to accept that women also will do what women do, regardless of what they're told, and that we're going to need to find us a new tactic in order to progress further?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:01 PM

CG, if that was really all you were trying to say, then I have to believe that you sat down and asked yourself "Now, how can I make my position as unclear as possible?"

In the future, I recommend avoiding talk of women having it coming to them, defense of rapists on the basis of them having a bad day at work, or advancing the acceptability of physical violence as a means of venting frustration.

I'm sure you didn't really mean any of those things, though.

Also I thought it would occur to some of you because I said like 8000 times "where do you get the idea that I condone rape?" I think the other men/women arguing my position understood what I meant.

Rudy

09-23-2009, 07:10 PM

I think the other men/women arguing my position understood what I meant.
Well, I still don't, so let's make this very clear:

If a man rapes a woman because he has reached his emotional breaking point, and she pushes him over with a cruel remark, does this excuse, in part or in whole, his action? Yes, or no?

rickster

09-23-2009, 07:13 PM

Here's a tale that I've told on the forums before, I think, which is somewhat relevant to this thread:

One of my friends back in undergrad dated a fellow who was a "nice guy". You could tell that he was a "nice guy" because he would tell you this at every possible opportunity. He practically introduced himself to me with a statement akin to the following: "Hi, I'm Joe-Bob, I'm a nice guy, and I would never hit a woman."

Fair enough, I figured. Hitting people is one of the many things that decent human beings endeavor to avoid doing, and I can certainly support this guy's firm commitment to maintaining civil behavior. In any case, he continues to date my friend and hang out with the role-playing martial arts crowd that she and I were affiliated with, and he continues to regale us all with stories about how well he treats women, and how he holds himself to the ideals of chivalry, and how he would never hit a woman... even if she deserved it...

At one point, after it became quite clear that "not hitting women" was pretty much on his mind 24/7 (How's the weather today, Joe-Bob? -- I would never hit a woman, et cetera.), I asked him a question along the lines of "That's admirable, Joe-Bob, but what if me or (his now-ex) were to be possessed with a righteous fury and desire to see you removed from this planet? Either of us could potentially hurt you quite badly if we were so inclined -- would you really rather die than protect yourself from us, just because we happen to be women?" He responded (of course) that "I would never hit a woman, and if a woman got hysterical then I would just restrain her until she calmed down." To which I replied "I'm not talking about hysteria, Joe-Bob, I'm talking about genuine malice -- and you do realize that you're not capable of 'restraining' either myself or your ex, right?" (this was not an omg ninja thing so much as it was that he was spindly, weak, and awkward).

You bet it's somewhat relevant to this thread - you just asked him the wrong question. "I would never hit a woman" - although apparently benign - is sexist to the bone. It's at the core of more overt sexism i.e. putting women on a pedestal, which is further erosion of a woman's agency. Hard core sexists flying under the radar dodge and weave around this bullshit and support each other with it - especially in the face of accusations of hostile sexism.

The loaded statement "I would never hit a woman" needs to be addressed with "Why not?" rather than "What ifs". Best case scenario reply would be "Because I would never hit anybody" but that still doesn't address the real subtext. Although it's not a direct polar opposite, a woman's out-of-the-blue statement "I would never hit a man" serves to underscore exactly how women's need for protection and self-protection is toxic sexism. It presupposes (particularly) heterosexual male beliefs of superiority to be the social benchmark. You can't have an inferior class when no superior class exists.

Storm makes exactly the same points as I've made earlier about a fundamental will to power causing sexual assaults, as well there being no further need to "educate" women "for their own good", but these points seem to seem to be continually ignored while The Case for Rape Lite proceeds along the lines of suggested risk management - albeit accompanied by the stench of ill-disguised sexism.

Now cg if you can't - or won't - make your points from a reasonable non-sexist position, why don't you abandon the tainted and once-removed quasi-intellectual stance and get down to brass tacks:

How would you like to be raped?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:13 PM

Well, I still don't, so let's make this very clear:

If a man rapes a woman because he has reached his emotional breaking point, and she pushes him over with a cruel remark, does this excuse, in part or in whole, his action? Yes, or no?

It's in whole his action. All I am saying is that you don't want to be that woman who does that (I'm sure there are women who exist who live for insulting people). Again, the more risky behaviors the woman took getting involved with the guy the more likely rape/assault is going to happen. But I mean if you're going to beat the guy and taunt him sexually that's another story; that's like beating a rabid dog with a stick. That's why I kept going on about the date rape, it's a much more likely scenario during date rape as opposed to other rapes.

Rudy

09-23-2009, 07:19 PM

It's in whole his action.

Well, if you agree to this, that the rapist bears the full blame and moral responsibility in the situation, I'm satisfied.

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:21 PM

Now cg if you can't - or won't - make your points from a reasonable non-sexist position, why don't you abandon the tainted and once-removed quasi-intellectual stance and get down to brass tacks:

How would you like to be raped?

Well if you put it that way I would not like to be beat, raped or murdered. On the other end I would like a million bucks and live in the Playboy mansion. Not for me to determine sometimes.

Rudy

09-23-2009, 07:24 PM

It's in whole his action. All I am saying is that you don't want to be that woman who does that (I'm sure there are women who exist who live for insulting people). Again, the more risky behaviors the woman took getting involved with the guy the more likely rape/assault is going to happen. But I mean if you're going to beat the guy and taunt him sexually that's another story; that's like beating a rabid dog with a stick. That's why I kept going on about the date rape, it's a much more likely scenario during date rape as opposed to other rapes.

Well, since you choose to edit your post, I'll have to change my response a bit. The bolded part is your most recent addition. What, cg, is the other story you speak of? Are you changing your answer to my question? Does the taunting absolve him of some blame?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:26 PM

Well, since you choose to edit your post, I'll have to change my response a bit. The bolded part is your most recent addition. What, cg, is the other story you speak of? Are you changing your answer to my question? Does the taunting absolve him of some blame?

See that's where I see it as grayish, you can't expect someone not to bite back as people are animals too.

Rudy

09-23-2009, 07:28 PM

See that's where I see it as grayish, you can't expect someone not to bite back as people are animals too.

People may be animals, true. Civilization, however, is predicated on the proposition that human beings are capable of restraining their base instincts. Morality is based on the idea that they can reasonably be expected to do so.

Synamon

09-23-2009, 07:28 PM

See that's where I see it as grayish, you can't expect someone not to bite back as people are animals too.

And we've come full circle, back to the "she had it coming" defense of sexual assault.

rickster

09-23-2009, 07:28 PM

Well if you put it that way I would not like to be beat, raped or murdered. On the other end I would like a million bucks and live in the Playboy mansion. Not for me to determine sometimes.

Bingo.

It's always nice to know that those who support victimization with blame regard a change in attitude as about as doable as a random lottery win. :rolleyes:

And we've come full circle, back to the "she had it coming" defense of sexual assault.

You often go full circle when one foot's nailed to the floor.

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:30 PM

And we've come full circle, back to the "she had it coming" defense of sexual assault.

Well like you say it's about power. If someone was beating you and you have a gun would you not shoot him? If courts can make that distinction I don't know why it's so hard for you.

Synamon

09-23-2009, 07:32 PM

Well like you say it's about power. If someone was beating you and you have a gun would you not shoot him?
I see, so gun equals penis and rape is self defense. Wonderful.

Rudy

09-23-2009, 07:33 PM

Well like you say it's about power. If someone was beating you and you have a gun would you not shoot him?
See, cg, just to be clear, this is why people are objecting so viscerally to what you are saying.

You claimed a few posts ago that all you were trying to say was:

My position is that you just increase your risk the more "entwined you become."

If that was true, then this wouldn't have gone so long.

The objectionable part of what you are actually saying is that physical violence is a valid and defensible response to emotional attacks. Such a position cannot serve as a basis for any decent or stable society.

daydreamer

09-23-2009, 07:35 PM

Women are socialized to be "agreeable". Particularly with men that might be valid dating targets. In addition to presenting a number of mundane problems, it's also a contributor to the sort of Bad Sexual Interaction that could be date rape and to getting women into situations where they could be unequivocably raped.

and other very bad things. ugh! my parents raised me to be agreeable... or tried to (didn't take !) in high school they liked the worst guys i ever took home... their main complaint with my husband when they met him was that he was "not aggressive enough." wtf? they still say that to this day. they are lucky he isnt aggressive since they say that to his face.

no amount of my parents telling me to avoid dangerous situations would have helped me if i continued to date the guys they'd approved (tried to be agreeable.) to my knowledge none of them have turned out to be rapists, but, of their three favorites, one is in jail, one assaulted me (not sexually) at a party, and the third has reportedly hit a few women. nice guys, smart guys... but dangerous guys. my parents still ask me about the guy who assaulted me, if i ever hear from him, what's he up to now, because he is a doctor and makes good money.. omgosh did i miss the boat on that one ! (not!)

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:40 PM

See, cg, just to be clear, this is why people are objecting so viscerally to what you are saying.

You claimed a few posts ago that all you were trying to say was:

If that was true, then this wouldn't have gone so long.

The objectionable part of what you are actually saying is that physical violence is a valid and defensible response to emotional attacks. Such a position cannot serve as a basis for any decent or stable society.

Hey I never said it was a valid and defensible response. I just mean given the animal nature of people it's understandable. Who gives a logical response when they're in that mentality? Have someone try to beat the crap out of you and if you have a weapon on hand let's see if you don't use it. I'm just acknowledging that it gets sticky at times, never said it was valid.

Rudy

09-23-2009, 07:42 PM

Hey I never said it was a valid and defensible response. I just mean given the animal nature of people it's understandable. Who gives a logical response when they're in that mentality? Have someone try to beat the crap out of you and if you have a weapon on hand let's see if you don't use it. I'm just acknowledging that it gets sticky at times, never said it valid.

You appear to enjoy avoiding being pinned down in any measure. Let me ask you another question, as a litmus test for your position:

If a rapist has been convicted, and his sentence is being decided, should the fact that his victim was taunting him be taken into account in deciding how long he should serve in prison?

Storm

09-23-2009, 07:43 PM

Hey I never said it was a valid and defensible response. I just mean given the animal nature of people it's understandable. Who gives a logical response when they're in that mentality? Have someone try to beat the crap out of you and if you have a weapon on hand let's see if you don't use it. I'm just acknowledging that it gets sticky at times, never said it was valid.

I support people fighting back in self-defense. I do not support people raping others because they perceive themselves as being "teased."

CG are you implying that such people, those who rape when teased,* are justified?

*Rape is not about sexual frustration, it's about power. So this is actually a fallacy on your behalf, but nonetheless, I want to hear your response.

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:44 PM

You appear to enjoy avoiding being pinned down in any measure. Let me ask you another question, as a litmus test for your position:

If a rapist has been convicted, and his sentence is being decided, should the fact that his victim was taunting him be taken into account in deciding how long he should serve in prison?

I don't enjoy not being pinned down, I just like there to be room for mistakes. I think that fact that some of you guys like everything so neat and orderly is disturbing.

Then the answer to that question would be yes. Again, it depends on the level of abuse suffered verbal/physical/emotional.

daydreamer

09-23-2009, 07:45 PM

But I mean if you're going to beat the guy and taunt him sexually that's another story; that's like beating a rabid dog with a stick. That's why I kept going on about the date rape, it's a much more likely scenario during date rape as opposed to other rapes.

sexual taunting - i'm curious what you mean by that - its not against the law. with good reason, it isnt a crime. beating someone does not justify them raping you. if you are trying to make a strict comparison you're being silly. say what you mean.

because what you're saying makes this scenario defendable from your position: a guy punches you, you punch him back in self-defense, he unzips his pants and rapes you? because he thought that he couldnt win the fist fight. hmmm.

Well if you put it that way I would not like to be beat, raped or murdered. On the other end I would like a million bucks and live in the Playboy mansion. Not for me to determine sometimes.

not for you to determine? with the lame qualifier sometimes? it is for you to determine... it is within your power to judge right and wrong and to choose. are you suggesting we shouldnt have a judicial system at all? or maybe just, sometimes?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:46 PM

I support people fighting back in self-defense. I do not support people raping others because they perceive themselves as being "teased."

CG are you implying that such people, those who rape when teased,* are justified?

*Rape is not about sexual frustration, it's about power. So this is actually a fallacy on your behalf, but nonetheless, I want to hear your response.

Storm we're not talking about being called names "teasing." I'm talking about assault in an extreme way whether it's like I said verbal/physical/emotional. I'm just acknowledging that that can drive people over the edge. Whether it's justified or not it's not for me to determine.

Don't things exist such as "temporary insanity?"

Storm

09-23-2009, 07:50 PM

Then the answer to that question would be yes. Again, it depends on the level of abuse suffered verbal/physical/emotional.

Uh. wow. I'm speechless. I feel like someone has just told me that bullies are justified in punching another for someone calling them a Fatty.

Please define for me what you mean by extreme abuse which would justify rape?

daydreamer

09-23-2009, 07:50 PM

Storm we're not talking about being called names "teasing." I'm talking about assault in an extreme way whether it's like I said verbal/physical/emotional. I'm just acknowledging that that can drive people over the edge. Whether it's justified or not it's not for me to determine.

what is an example of extreme verbal assault from a date that is not the same as mean-spirited teasing?

what is an example of physical/sexual assault from a female to a male? not just any example, but one that you have in mind in the context of which you are speaking (ie dating)? (don't send me on a goose chase)

what is an example of emotional assault in a dating situation from female to male?

do you feel assaulted by this thread?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:52 PM

what is an example of extreme verbal assault from a date that is not the same as mean-spirited teasing?

what is an example of physical/sexual assault from a female to a male? not just any example, but one that you have in mind in the context of which you are speaking (ie dating)? (don't send me on a goose chase)

what is an example of emotional assault in a dating situation from female to male?

Well in this case I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about having a relationship with the guy, let's say his cousin or something. Where she would tie him up and poke him with embers, spit on him, kick him, and taunt him verbally. Really? You can't see where that would drive someone crazy? Where he would want his power back?

Storm

09-23-2009, 07:55 PM

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 07:57 PM

You're talking about a woman physically abusing a man? He can act in self-defense or call the police. Self-defense is justified because you need to stop the person. I have no idea how rape got involved.

This is also a crazy situation. A person tying someone up and burning them? What? What? This is not by any stretch of the imagination an "everyday" occurrence. That's spousal abuse.

Yes he can, but you're talking about someone who is reasonable. Not everyone is reasonable. Rape gets involved when the guy explodes and wants to do something about it. It could be rape it could be murder or assault.

That is crazy! That's what the small percentage is about, cases where crazy things happen. That's why I never say 100% whatever. Seriously? You got to law school and don't read about cases like that? I read it in the NY newspaper all the time.

Krazy P

09-23-2009, 08:00 PM

I am surprised this thread has such "legs".

Humans are animals and at a specie level lots of behavior can occur that is not civilized.

Understanding this, my hope is that civilization has progressed enough that most of society can easily recognize that using the power of money, strength or mental manipulation for the purpose of securing sexual favors is NOT civilized behavior.

daydreamer

09-23-2009, 08:01 PM

Well in this case I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about having a relationship with the guy, let's say his cousin or something. Where she would tie him up and poke him with embers, spit on him, kick him, and taunt him verbally. Really? You can't see where that would drive someone crazy? Where he would want his power back?

the example you give is very sad. i was following you to be speaking of date rape. you're right, that's not date rape. and as your last question confirms, it is not sexual, never was in a sexual context.

but you started by saying taunts someone sexually. do you not have valid examples of that?

as for your example. you gave no ages and no other information about the situation. is this a real situation or are you taking me on the goose chase that i very politely and sincerely asked you not to?

you can see the frustration of having a conversation in this manner. it's silly. apparently in every case either you are withholding part of the story or simply changing your mind. i dunno the answer to my question do you feel taunted/assaulted by the thread, but i certainly feel taunted by your constant context changes - to what end?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 08:01 PM

I take it you mean men getting women Krazy P?

Storm

09-23-2009, 08:09 PM

That is crazy! That's what the small percentage is about, cases where crazy things happen.

You started off the thread talking about women giving men "blue balls" by flirting too much. Now you've changed it to some sort of situation which is extremely rare and completely and utterly different.

firebee

09-23-2009, 08:10 PM

Where she would tie him up and poke him with embers, spit on him, kick him, and taunt him verbally. Really? You can't see where that would drive someone crazy? Where he would want his power back?

Dude, you are really digging here. You say that "sexual teasing" might mitigate rape, and when asked for a definition of "sexual teasing" you reply "tying someone up and burning them."

...right.

I don't know how it is where you are, but on my planet that's not "teasing", it's several felonies. Even with the consent of the burned party, amusingly enough.

What is your motivation in pursuing these continual bait and switch tactics?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 08:13 PM

No motivation, like I keep saying I can just envision scenarios like that. I've heard about similar stuff in the past but I'd have to look it up.

curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 2 minutes and 56 seconds later...

You started off the thread talking about women giving men "blue balls" by flirting too much. Now you've changed it to some sort of situation which is extremely rare and completely and utterly different.

Well I meant that in the sense that you're involved with the guy. Like I said, more risky behaviors, the more triggers you pull.

Yes it is extremely rare and utterly different. All I am saying is that situations like that occur and people go "temporarily insane." I mean if you don't believe it then I don't know what else to tell you. I mean if you want we can go back to where these situation don't exist, and I can say "yes it's always the perpetrator's fault." The fact that little situations exist makes me not say "always."

curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 5 minutes and 43 seconds later...

Dude, you are really digging here. You say that "sexual teasing" might mitigate rape, and when asked for a definition of "sexual teasing" you reply "tying someone up and burning them."

...right.

I don't know how it is where you are, but on my planet that's not "teasing", it's several felonies. Even with the consent of the burned party, amusingly enough.

What is your motivation in pursuing these continual bait and switch tactics?

I meant a combination of factors which may include the sexual teasing. I'm just surprised I have to spell out everything (no offense).

firebee

09-23-2009, 08:24 PM

I meant a combination of factors which may include the sexual teasing. I'm just surprised I have to spell out everything (no offense).

You know, saying "no offense" after an insult does not make it not an insult. No offense.

Do you think that it is a reasonable and honest contribution to a discussion to sum up a hypothetical event of "tied up, burned, kicked, spat on, and sexually teased" as "sexually teased (and also other things)"?

Because if so, I think that I should be able to blow a guy's brains out for calling me a bitch (and also other things). You know, why should I have to spell out that I meant "calling me a bitch and also trying to douse me with gasoline and set me on fire"?

rickster

09-23-2009, 08:25 PM

No motivation, like I keep saying I can just envision scenarios like that. I've heard about similar stuff in the past but I'd have to look it up.

Of course you can "envision" scenarios like that: it's called having a filthy mind, and I'm sure there's a dozen X-Raters you'll find when you "look it up".

If you stumble across anything along the lines of "Naughty Schoolboys Getting Punished" please PM me with the URL: I'll need it for evidence if the thread takes a turn from the greyish to the gayish.

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 08:27 PM

You know, saying "no offense" after an insult does not make it not an insult. No offense.

Do you think that it is a reasonable and honest contribution to a discussion to sum up a hypothetical event of "tied up, burned, kicked, spat on, and sexually teased" as "sexually teased (and also other things)"?

Because if so, I think that I should be able to blow a guy's brains out for calling me a bitch (and also other things). You know, why should I have to spell out that I meant "calling me a bitch and also trying to douse me with gasoline and set me on fire"?

Well I really didn't mean it to be offensive, I'm just surprised you guys need like every detail to imagine it.

Well sorry the majority of stuff online is about a woman killing her abuser.

Rudy

09-23-2009, 08:31 PM

Well sorry the majority of stuff online is about a woman killing her abuser.

Believe it or not, cg, there is a big difference between killing one's abuser and raping them.

I would be much more sympathetic towards a man who, after being tied up and burnt, and whatever other torments you wish to imagine, killed his abuser, rather than one who raped them.

The reason for this is simple: an abused person kills an abuser to protect themselves. It can be a matter of self defense.

Rape, on the other hand, can never be justified as self defense. There is never a situation where rape is necessary to defend oneself from harm.

Aronnax

09-23-2009, 08:46 PM

Well like you say it's about power. If someone was beating you and you have a gun would you not shoot him? If courts can make that distinction I don't know why it's so hard for you.

Did you just equate sexual tension to a physical beating?

rickster

09-23-2009, 08:48 PM

Believe it or not, cg, there is a big difference between killing one's abuser and raping them.

A bigger difference than you would think, if you take into account sentences handed out to women who kill men, as opposed to the reverse. Sexism factors into sentencing, but of course the mostly gender-specific crime of rape can't support related statistics.

"Justifiable rape" however can only exist in the distortions of a mind which prioritizes subjugation by intimidation ahead of all other co-factors.

Aronnax

09-23-2009, 08:50 PM

I don't enjoy not being pinned down, I just like there to be room for mistakes. I think that fact that some of you guys like everything so neat and orderly is disturbing.

Mentally cataloging and determining value is a common INTJ characteristic.

Out of curiosity, why does that disturb you?

curiousgeorge01

09-23-2009, 09:13 PM

rickster

09-23-2009, 09:23 PM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anyway that's the most recent thing I've found about using sexual assault as revenge. Like I said, I'm not saying rape or sexual assault is ok as revenge, I suppose I just can understand it more.

Sooner or later you were going to trip yourself up on this: you have used a minor sexual assault charge (molestation) in order to make a point for justifiable rape.

Before you try to make sexual assaults and rape interchangeable crimes, I'd suggest you get your facts straight on the matter.

Storm

09-23-2009, 09:28 PM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anyway that's the most recent thing I've found about using sexual assault as revenge. Like I said, I'm not saying rape or sexual assault is ok as revenge, I suppose I just can understand it more.

^^ What I find disturbing about it is that it leave no room for 'if.' The law is surely designed to take 'if' into consideration, why not your mental constructs?

Wow, that's horrible that those women did that. I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The man was a douche for sleeping around, but I don't think the women were at all justified in their assault.

You going to start showing us rape reports to support the contention that rape is justified next?

The Maelstrom

09-23-2009, 10:07 PM

I don't enjoy not being pinned down, I just like there to be room for mistakes. I think that fact that some of you guys like everything so neat and orderly is disturbing.

I believe what he, and most people mean, is how this topic has gone on for *looks at watch 17 pages and you continuously come up with variations and tangents (many of which are HIGHLY unlikely exceptions) which detract from your original topic: whether a woman should be held accountable in some manner for becoming victims of rape.

I've offered a couple of posts with regards to the internal thought process of a guy who could be worried of becoming labeled and sentenced as a rapist in a very likely scenario. That you (and others) continue to argue beyond those common situations where there is a reasonable ambiguity for the male to understand the situation through miscommunication or social assumptions and start going into virtually every possible scenario in order to find some rare instance where there might be a wider breadth of mitigation than what's already been discussed. Those are still positions from the male view however, and don't address "culpability" in the woman's role of rape. Its gone off to addressing mitigating factors for men and not addressing much of anything making it a woman's "fault" until recently such as pushing men with triggers.

The basic arguments for female blame were:

- Acts or dresses in a sexually inviting manner
- Is somewhere
- Consents to sexual act or intercourse and decides against it partway
- Incites violent and/or sexual behaviour by deliberate remarks and or gestures

firebee

09-23-2009, 10:33 PM

I think it's safe to say that this thread has quite thoroughly jumped the shark. Here would be my attempt to sum up my opinion on the aspects of sexual assault that are vaguely related to reality:

Having sex with a person who has expressed lack of consent is a "can not happen" event. If you're tempted to do it when you're drunk, you cannot get that drunk. If you're tempted to do it when you're angry, you cannot get that angry. Even if you are tied up and burned with embers by someone, raping them is still wrong and is still to be avoided.

Beyond that, I would say that we have a responsibility to our sex partners to "leave them better than we found them", and part of that includes making some effort to ensure that the people we have sex with have not just passively acquiesced to our wants. If this means that people who are equivocal about their desire to have sex do not get laid, this is all to the good; people should not have sex if they are not sure they want to. Which brings us to...

One of the biggest things that I think a person can do to improve the quality of their interpersonal relations, is to learn to determine, own, and express what we want for our own lives and how we want other people to treat us. This means, among other things, not being wheedled into doing things with other people that we resent, or that make us feel unsafe. In the case of situations which may require us to defend our life and limb through violent means, it is imperative that we give our assailant every opportunity to avoid the need for messy cleanup -- for our own peace of mind, if nothing else.

And on that note, I am inclined to think that while we are not likely to be confronted with a situation that must be resolved violently, it is useful to consider what we are willing and capable of doing should that situation come to pass. Among other things, the thought of "This action (on my part or on theirs) would justify the use of deadly force," has a way of informing us what we should or should not do. Also, in the unlikely event that we end up in some sort of extreme situation, we will fare better if we have even just made the decision in advance that we will do whatever is necessary to continue to live (or that we will not do some things, whichever).

I don't necessarily think that training in a martial art (of whatever sort) is a useful activity for people who are not already inclined to do it -- although I certainly do recommend giving it due consideration as a source of entertainment. It takes time and money to achieve sufficient proficiency (and, if applicable, equipment) to be useful -- and given that the odds are quite slim that your skills will actually be called into service, you had better be studying because you like it. That said, I do not think that people who do have an interest should be dissuaded from studying the martial arts (unless, of course, they are bugfuck nuts), nor should they be given shitty advice to favor less effective techniques over more effective ones -- regardless of their gender.

And speaking of shitty advice: A fair bit of the "tips and tricks" that are handed out to supposedly prevent rape are not really worth the trouble of printing them on toilet paper. First of all, they usually mostly pertain to the stranger-in-a-dark-alley rape, which is the least common form -- "Be afraid of rapists in a deserted parking lot," it says, but not "Be afraid of rapists if your poor interpersonal boundaries lead you to date a string of entitled and resentful men." Also, being as they are a list of rules rather than a description of a process, they can err by being alternately too general -- "Be cautious when out at night" -- and too specific -- "Do not wear overalls lest you run afoul of a rapist who cuts the overall straps with scissors". A list of restrictions that substantially hems in one's life to no distinct benefit is apt to be disregarded.

Which brings us to the final point: Part of the point of "reasonable precautions" is to produce a standard by which people can be blamed for being victims of crimes -- whether you want to state this directly, provide some calculus for determining the "purity" of a victim (gee, whatever might that mean?), or simply express "concern" for their safety. This will not do. A person's decision about what they consider to be "reasonable" or "not reasonable" is their own decision. Even if they make decisions that we think are incorrect or frivolous, they are no less a victim than someone who was "properly cautious" and still had someone else decide to assault them.

Like I said earlier (though it has surely been lost in a sea of ridiculousness), it is no virtue to even-handedly declare that "the problem must be handled from both sides" when one "side" is raping the other "side".

rickster

09-23-2009, 11:20 PM

I believe what he, and most people mean, is how this topic has gone on for *looks at watch 17 pages and you continuously come up with variations and tangents (many of which are HIGHLY unlikely exceptions) which detract from your original topic: whether a woman should be held accountable in some manner for becoming victims of rape.

Those are still positions from the male view however, and don't address "culpability" in the woman's role of rape. Its gone off to addressing mitigating factors for men and not addressing much of anything making it a woman's "fault" until recently such as pushing men with triggers.

The basic arguments for female blame were:

- Acts or dresses in a sexually inviting manner
- Is somewhere
- Consents to sexual act or intercourse and decides against it partway
- Incites violent and/or sexual behaviour by deliberate remarks and or gestures

I've clearly addressed female culpability as being a given due to the circumstances of her birth. That - and only that - is what defines sexual assults and especially rape as sexual crimes. All women are born into a life of potential rape - that is a fact. Law consistently recognizes this, but culture does not.

It is that devious denial of disparity which seeks out further duplicitous justifications to "balance out" what society recognizes to be true i.e. to destroy the spirit of law which attempts to ethically address a problem for what it is.

It's the nature of intellectual deviousness to promote extreme and/or off-topic "examples" to subvert general truths.

I think it's safe to say that this thread has quite thoroughly jumped the shark...Like I said earlier (though it has surely been lost in a sea of ridiculousness), it is no virtue to even-handedly declare that "the problem must be handled from both sides" when one "side" is raping the other "side".

Exactly. The extent of the ridiculousness is best demonstrated by the supporters of assailants who happily poison the waters with notions geared towards the position that "rapists are victims too!"

IrishGuy

09-23-2009, 11:52 PM

the drunk driving thing isn't a complete correlation.

rape is rape. many times additional charges are in order. date rapists may get a lesser sentence than a boogeyman rapist already simply because they did not commit additional crimes. but the crime that they did commit is still rape, it is still the same crime. comprehension does not come into play. regularly functioning adults old enough to drink and have sex and drive cars and date people are responsible for all those actions.

Yes, and when a drunk driver kills someone else the crime is still murder, but, all things equal, it is tried as manslaughter (essentially, accidental murder or negligent murder). Manslaughter is an acknowledgment that the murder was not intentional.

What is it about rape that makes you think that there cannot be this kind of distinction (why can’t there be rape and accidental/negligent rape?). I know you like to say “rape is rape” but that’s about as convincing as saying cookies are cookies.

it sounds to me that you are trying to make a case that there is rape and then there is rape with irresistible impulse. there are probably infinite variety of personal 'reasons' a criminal thinks and feels for rape. you are trying to account for the complexity of each and every human and 1)judge which thoughts and feelings they have. cannot be done. 2)it is the responsibility of each and every human to know the laws - if they are incapable of agreeing with them, or following them, it does not excuse them from being accountable. whether or not it is out of 3)apathy, or defiance of authority, or some other of the infinite varieties.

1)Is intent not the product of thoughts and feelings? We consider this in many other crimes, but for rape there is an assumption that the rapist always intended to rape. What is the reason for this?

2)Does personal accountability only apply to the law?
I fail to see how an accidental rape charge would be freeing someone from responsibility. They’re still being charged with rape, just not intentional; like manslaughter.

3)Is someone who is apathetic or defiant of the authority figure who tells them to use caution and provides tips as to how to reduce their risk of becoming a sexual assault victim responsible if they ignore those warnings?

rape is a serious crime. the perpetrators of such a crime must take the responsibility not only for their actions 1)(you seem to be arguing that they shouldnt always have to) but also for the criminal process against them. many violent criminals try to misconstrue the2) "innocent until proven guilty" into more than it is - a presentation of the evidence against them and for them, and they act very offended that they were ever accused in the first place. some well-meaning sympathizers and some open-minded thinkers can get sucked in. stick around criminals long enough and you won't. even prisoners who have been through the judicial system themselves do not sympathize with other criminals in prison...

1)If this is what you think I am arguing then you are mistaken. That’s like saying that a drunk driver who has been convicted of manslaughter has not been forced to take responsibility for their actions.

2)Innocent until proven guilty is not just a presentation of evidence against someone. It is the presentation of evidence against a defendant that proves that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (whether or not this point has been reached by the prosecution is determined by judge/jury).

In anticipation of a counter argument on the “reasonable doubt” clause: I doubt being drunk could constitute reasonable doubt of a defendants presence or actions in many cases of DUI/manslaughter or drunken rape. However, it does raise reasonable doubt of the intent of the defendant’s actions. The reason being that an intoxicated individual is cognitively impaired.

i find it bizarre that there are people who would argue 1)day and night over something very black and white - such as rape - because of a misunderstanding of our judicial system.. and yet many of those same people will not consider arguing out of a speeding or parking ticket which, by nature of enforcement is much more likely arbitrary, but to them, seems black and white (ie., 67 in a 65 zone) and the laws/enforcement beyond question.

1)I used to think this as well until I started to read about more and more cases of rape. The more I see of it the less black and white it becomes.

Is there a specific misunderstanding I have made with regard to our judicial system? Please be specific. Nobody has brought up the issue of speeding tickets (if they have I probably missed it since I have to spend most of my time responding to direct counter-arguments or I saw it as tangent to the discussion). I don’t see speeding tickets as absolute black and white either. A lot of tickets (where I am) are based upon what you are doing relative to others (If you’re going 67 in a 65 zone but everyone else is going 70 you’re probably ok). The laws seem to be relatively enforced as opposed to strictly.

are they arguing for themselves? -- i know when i'm considering the justness of the law and its practiced interpretation, i'm arguing for myself.1) i'm hoping that if such a serious crime ever happened to me, or to my family or friends, that the judicial system is there to provide some measure of protection after the fact and possibly sort out any additional issues. i pay my taxes and i participate in the system to the extent i can, because it is there for me. 2)maybe i can chalk what i see here up to the weird counter culture that rears its head on the internet.

1)What if you committed a crime or were wrongfully accused of one? A black and white judicial system would not consider the circumstances of your crime. You seem to assume that you can only be a victim; that it is impossible that you will ever commit a crime. What if you space out and miss that red light; killing a pedestrian? Would you want to be accused of murder or manslaughter or gross negligence?

2)I do not know about that and I don’t know about you but I do know that the system is there to prosecute me before it will protect me.

this is an example of "innocent until proven guilty" being misconstrued. it is not up to the prosecution to prove ambiguity. it is up to the defense to show that the evidence against them is false or in some other way defective. if they want to go down the path of trying to mess with the jury's heads about some ambiguity in the mind of the criminal, that is their choice.

You’re right, about the prosecution not having to prove ambiguity. You have to prove that there is no ambiguity. You have to prove that the rapist intended to rape his victim in order to say that there is no such thing as Accidental rape. Accident=unintentional. You have to prove that the accused rapist willfully forced someone into having intercourse.

who is we? in we have made a case for ambiguity. and yet everybody is ignoring it... these two sentences conflict. we are not ignoring it, we are not buying your case, because, it isn't strong enough, and you have proven nothing.

We, is anyone who is taking a position similar to mine. “Everybody” should be “everybody else,” meaning those who are opposing the “we.” Frankly, you have not presented much in the line of logical counter arguments. Obviously, practical evidence is lacking on both sides in many cases. For instance, “rape is rape” and “there is no such thing at accidental rape” have been common statements by individuals in this thread, but I have not seen any definitive proof for those positions either. You say my proof isn’t good enough, but neither is yours. Where does that leave us?

You bet it's somewhat relevant to this thread - you just asked him the wrong question. "I would never hit a woman" - although apparently benign - is sexist to the bone. It's at the core of more overt sexism i.e. putting women on a pedestal, which is further erosion of a woman's agency. Hard core sexists flying under the radar dodge and weave around this bullshit and support each other with it – especially in the face of accusations of hostile sexism.

This guy proclaiming himself to be a man “who would never hit a woman” raises a major red flag when he says that.

On a side note; accusations of hostile sexism (rightful or wrongful) directly challenge an individual’s integrity. I think most people would be inclined to defend themselves first and foremost.
Although it's not a direct polar opposite, a woman's out-of-the-blue statement "I would never hit a man" serves to underscore exactly how women's need for protection and self-protection is toxic sexism. It presupposes (particularly) heterosexual male beliefs of superiority to be the social benchmark. You can't have an inferior class when no superior class exists.
I’m not following you on this; could you please explain in a rational, logical, argument without the loaded language.

Storm makes exactly the same points as I've made earlier about a fundamental will to power causing sexual assaults, as well there being no further need to "educate" women "for their own good", but these points seem to seem to be continually ignored while The Case for Rape Lite proceeds along the lines of suggested risk management - albeit accompanied by the stench of ill-disguised sexism.

Maybe my memory is going, but aren’t some of the most oppressed women in the world some of the least educated?

Well like you say it's about power. If someone was beating you and you have a gun would you not shoot him? If courts can make that distinction I don't know why it's so hard for you.

*Rape is not about sexual frustration, it's about power. So this is actually a fallacy on your behalf, but nonetheless, I want to hear your response.

Time to stir the embers (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)……

Society has accepted that sex offenders act not for sexual gratification, but rather out of a disturbed need for power, dominance, control or revenge, or a perverted expression of anger. More recently, however, an awareness of brain changes and brain reward associated with sexual behavior has led us to understand that there are also powerful sexual drives that motivate sex offenses.

The National Council on Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity has defined sexual addiction as “engaging in persistent and escalating patterns of sexual behavior acted out despite increasing negative consequences to self and others.” In other words, a sex addict will continue to engage in certain sexual behaviors despite facing potential health risks, financial problems, shattered relationships or even arrest.

IrishGuy added to this post, 5 minutes and 44 seconds later...

You're talking about a woman physically abusing a man? He can act in self-defense or call the police. Self-defense is justified because you need to stop the person. I have no idea how rape got involved.

Until the police assume that the man who acted in self defense was the perpetrator.

Nobody believed him; except the kids. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Autoptic

09-24-2009, 12:07 AM

Well, since this thing's still kicking... If the male and female are both stoned, how is the male assumed to rape the female on the basis of inability to consent when the female's involved here too, and he's just as unable to consent?

Assuming she doesn't remember, how is it that just proof of sexual activity is automatically taken to mean she wasn't complicit, even quite actively so? Such proof would mean she was sexually involved with him too thus no less a rapist by some of the definitions here.

rickster

09-24-2009, 12:34 AM

On a side note; accusations of hostile sexism (rightful or wrongful) directly challenge an individual’s integrity. I think most people would be inclined to defend themselves first and foremost.
Accusations of hostile sexism do challenge a individual's integrity - that's the whole point of making them! :laugh:

I’m not following you on this; could you please explain in a rational, logical, argument without the loaded language.

I'm not making an argument: I'm making a statement. Ingrained sexism determines (a man saying) "I would never hit a woman" as having more actual import than a woman saying "I would never hit a man" because we all know that's just silly because men are physically superior to women. And as we laugh, we would ask WTF???

What could be more clear than the fact that males enjoy superiority at the expense of women? That social situation doesn't become assumed unless there's an inferior group to support the construct. Or do you think that males enjoy social superiority because they're not, or because they enjoy staus at the expense or marmots and gerbils?

Maybe my memory is going, but aren’t some of the most oppressed women in the world some of the least educated?

I don't know about you memory going or gone, but your point certainly is. What is it?

And what on earth does sex addiction as a disorder have to do with rape as a crime? That article clearly states that not all sex addicts commit sexual crimes, but I guess you're going in another direction with this...perhaps along the lines that rapist's "just need help" eh?

Embers indeed...more like the fire's just going out. :rolleyes:

daydreamer

09-24-2009, 01:33 AM

Yes, and when a drunk driver kills someone else the crime is still murder, but, all things equal, it is tried as manslaughter (essentially, accidental murder or negligent murder). Manslaughter is an acknowledgment that the murder was not intentional.

i heard you the first million times. the comparison is not valid.

What is it about rape that makes you think that there cannot be this kind of distinction (why can’t there be rape and accidental/negligent rape?). I know you like to say “rape is rape” but that’s about as convincing as saying cookies are cookies.

i have explained why. i'm sorry you don't get it.

1)Is intent not the product of thoughts and feelings? We consider this in many other crimes, but for rape there is an assumption that the rapist always intended to rape. What is the reason for this?

intent is considered. btw, arguably everything is the product of thoughts and feelings. intent in a legal sense means an attempt was made, actions were taken. it does not merely mean someone thought about it. it is very clear. shows intent. many criminal charges are merely about showing intent - that is, the criminal took actions to which the intent to commit a crime are ascribed. it does not examine, cannot examine, what the person was thinking without relying on their actions.

2)Does personal accountability only apply to the law?
I fail to see how an accidental rape charge would be freeing someone from responsibility. They’re still being charged with rape, just not intentional; like manslaughter.

then you're ignoring the wealth of good and bad posts here, or incapable of understanding them. the idea of accidental rape promotes the idea that the victim shares the blame and/or responsibility.

3)Is someone who is apathetic or defiant of the authority figure who tells them to use caution and provides tips as to how to reduce their risk of becoming a sexual assault victim responsible if they ignore those warnings?

responsible for what? being raped? NO

curious though, just who are you calling the authority figure of me? do all women have authority figures in their lives? those of us no longer living with our parents - omg - we could be raped at any time without someone telling us how to live our lives to avoid it !! thankfully, some of us married off? do you see the type of thinking your attitude promotes? - or, do you agree with it? this is an important question that would clarify a lot for me, i'd appreciate it if you answer directly.

Autoptic

09-24-2009, 01:47 AM

intent is considered. btw, arguably everything is the product of thoughts and feelings. intent in a legal sense means an attempt was made, actions were taken. it does not merely mean someone thought about it. it is very clear. shows intent.

You're talking about intent to have sex. I do believe the last question on this matter was about his awareness of her rejection. Intent to have sex isn't the identical to intent to rape. Rape isn't just sex but non consensual sex, thus specific intent to rape would necessarily require awareness of her rejection. You're conflating the two and missing the point, possibly on purpose. What was different between the accidental vehicular manslaughter and murder was intent to drive down the road versus the specific intent to hit someone.

daydreamer

09-24-2009, 02:12 AM

2)Innocent until proven guilty is not just a presentation of evidence against someone. It is the presentation of evidence against a defendant that proves that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (whether or not this point has been reached by the prosecution is determined by judge/jury).

yes.

In anticipation of a counter argument on the “reasonable doubt” clause: I doubt being drunk could constitute reasonable doubt of a defendants presence or actions in many cases of DUI/manslaughter or drunken rape. However, it does raise reasonable doubt of the intent of the defendant’s actions. The reason being that an intoxicated individual is cognitively impaired.

cognitively impaired is a cop out in attempt to deny responsibility. that's what i'm saying.

1)I used to think this as well until I started to read about more and more cases of rape. The more I see of it the less black and white it becomes.

why? what are you reading? trial history... or something else?

Is there a specific misunderstanding I have made with regard to our judicial system? Please be specific.

i'm maintaining that you misunderstand the use of reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty. why this is i do not know.

Nobody has brought up the issue of speeding tickets (if they have I probably missed it since I have to spend most of my time responding to direct counter-arguments or I saw it as tangent to the discussion).

i did. am i nobody?

I don’t see speeding tickets as absolute black and white either. A lot of tickets (where I am) are based upon what you are doing relative to others (If you’re going 67 in a 65 zone but everyone else is going 70 you’re probably ok). The laws seem to be relatively enforced as opposed to strictly.

depends where ya live. it is not always relatively enforced. particularly on a holiday weekend. regardless - i was thinking of a few people i know and going on what i know of their opinions. not saying that you share those opinions 100%, but you do have some similarity with them on the issue of rape. it scares me. do you realize that? they don't... i am more scared of the attitude you have than i am of the chances i will actually get raped. and it is more likely to make me stay home at nite.

1)What if you committed a crime or were wrongfully accused of one? A black and white judicial system would not consider the circumstances of your crime. You seem to assume that you can only be a victim; that it is impossible that you will ever commit a crime. What if you space out and miss that red light; killing a pedestrian? Would you want to be accused of murder or manslaughter or gross negligence?

i have been accused of a crime i didn't commit - a felony. i didn't like it. in my case, i realized i had committed a crime of negligence, however, doing myself quite a disservice as it turned out. i thought i was erring on the side of caution. i was wrong. i was young and misinformed. i've since revised my view. now i err even more on the side of caution. and yes, i do not think i will ever be accused of murder, rape, or assault. or armed robbery, and the list goes on. i do not know anyone close to me who has - and i make a point not to know people like that closely.

2)I do not know about that and I don’t know about you but I do know that the system is there to prosecute me before it will protect me.

emphasis mine
then you misunderstand the practice of law enforcement. and what you say smacks of entitlement. where i have i read that word recently?

You’re right, about the prosecution not having to prove ambiguity. You have to prove that there is no ambiguity. You have to prove that the rapist intended to rape his victim in order to say that there is no such thing as Accidental rape. Accident=unintentional. You have to prove that the accused rapist willfully forced someone into having intercourse.

Nope. nice try. when considering if a criminal is guilty of a crime what is considered is if he is guilty of a crime, not the definition of that crime. the role of deciding - and therefore assigning definition to - what crimes he/she is accused of belongs to the district attorney - based on the evidence and the law.

as you are so fond of me saying, rape is rape.

We, is anyone who is taking a position similar to mine.

i don't see anybody.

“Everybody” should be “everybody else,” meaning those who are opposing the “we.” Frankly, you have not presented much in the line of logical counter arguments. Obviously, practical evidence is lacking on both sides in many cases. For instance, “rape is rape” and “there is no such thing at accidental rape” have been common statements by individuals in this thread, but I have not seen any definitive proof for those positions either. You say my proof isn’t good enough, but neither is yours. Where does that leave us?

my only argument to what you seem to be saying, is that there is no ambiguity where you think there is one. i do not see this being resolved. for one thing, i'm relying on my own reason and understanding - not someone else's printed words or other as "proof." i cannot tell exactly what you are relying on.

it leaves me scared of you. your concern over being accused of rape - i can hardly fathom an innocent motive for that - but i'm trying. do you have a close friend who was accused?

daydreamer added to this post, 8 minutes and 5 seconds later...

You're talking about intent to have sex. I do believe the last question on this matter was about his awareness of her rejection. Intent to have sex isn't the identical to intent to rape. Rape isn't just sex but non consensual sex, thus specific intent to rape would necessarily require awareness of her rejection. You're conflating the two and missing the point, possibly on purpose. What was different between the accidental vehicular manslaughter and murder was intent to drive down the road versus the specific intent to hit someone.

wrong. in the case of date rape, i'm talking about the intent to have sex without consent. someone who does not take the effort required to make himself whatever amount of aware he needs to be to register what consent is and what it is not is still doing something - ignoring the importance of consent, with intent to have sex. it is the same. i am not conflating the two nor missing the point, i merely disagree - is it impossible to comprehend that i could? you imply a disparity where i see none exists.

Autoptic

09-24-2009, 02:46 AM

cognitively impaired is a cop out in attempt to deny responsibility. that's what i'm saying.

But it's not a cop out for the female to call it rape if she's cognitively impaired allowing her to deny responsibility?

someone who does not take the effort required to make himself whatever amount of aware he needs to be to register what consent is and what it is not is still doing something - ignoring the importance of consent, with intent to have sex. it is the same. i am not conflating the two nor missing the point, i merely disagree - is it impossible to comprehend that i could? you imply a disparity where i see none exists.

Considering your sexism in in the first quote, I see no reasonable way to discuss this with you as that was the point. You're either intentionally conflating or genuinely delusioned.

daydreamer

09-24-2009, 02:51 AM

But it's not a cop out for the female to call it rape if she's cognitively impaired allowing her to deny responsibility?

no... she did not have the intent to have sex, nor follow through with having sex, without bothering to get his consent.

do you always think people who disagree with you are delusional?

Autoptic

09-24-2009, 03:10 AM

no... she did not have the intent to have sex, nor follow through with having sex, without bothering to get his consent.

do you always think people who disagree with you are delusional?

She can actively pursue drunken sex and still claim she wasn't capable of consent. There's also the matter that, by your statement itself, any girl that doesn't state she's consenting could charge the male for rape, and vice versa unless you're even more sexist. How do you prove the person consented after the fact anyway?

Another statutory case does occurred to me where involuntary rape would be fitting if there wasn't granted a complete defense. Ever heard the phrase, "She said she was 18!" (16'd do here actually.) which is quite believable in enough cases for me to reflexively blow off a 24 yo that look 14.

It's particularly funny when you consider that the government and law enforcement aren't guilty in any way as a result of believing the same minor to be of age, but currently a random not-as-lucky-as-they-thought person's immediately up shit creek. Businesses too, considering things like the Traci Lords fiasco and the following witch hunt of those known to be ignorant.

Consider that in my case, while I would've accepted her proof of an id, if it were fake, that'd get the powers that be off the hook for anything they do, but wouldn't do shit for me. Now, this is definitely an obvious minefield, but, then I was thinking that earlier in this thread.

daydreamer

09-24-2009, 03:22 AM

She can actively pursue drunken sex and still claim she wasn't capable of consent. There's also the matter that, by your statement itself, any girl that doesn't state she's consenting could charge the male for rape, and vice versa unless you're even more sexist. How do you prove the person blatantly consented after the fact anyway?

you don't have to. if you got her consent, it's not rape.

Another statutory case does occurred to me where involuntary rape would be fitting if there wasn't granted a complete defense. Ever heard the phrase, "She said she was 18!" (16'd do here actually.) which is quite believable in enough cases for me to reflexively blow off a 24 yo that look 14.

how old are you? ... you are interested in women who look 14?

It's particularly funny when you consider that the government and law enforcement aren't guilty in any way as a result of believing the same minor to be of age, but currently a random not-as-lucky-as-they-thought person's immediately up shit creek. Businesses too, considering things like the Traci Lords fiasco and the following witch hunt of those known to be ignorant.

Consider that in my case, while I would've accepted her proof of an id, if it were fake, that'd get the powers that be off the hook for anything they do, but wouldn't do shit for me. Now, this is definitely an obvious minefield, but, then I was thinking that earlier in this thread.

i have no idea what you are talking about. you mention examples and ideas at the inception of examples as if i have the exact same field of reference and know what you mean - i don't.

Autoptic

09-24-2009, 03:44 AM

you don't have to. if you got her consent, it's not rape.

And if we're both sloshed, and she complies? Beyond that, what if we did this regularly; then, she suddenly cries rape sometime? Non verbal consent seems to be the norm though I haven't the slightest notion how often more implicit consent happens.

how old are you? ... you are interested in women who look 14?

28—so I'm a dirty old man for being attracted to a 24 yo? I'm not a good judge of age, and if you'd care to research or just ask other guys. We often can't bloody tell past puberty which itself variable. Technically, the girl I did approach here at college could've past for a minor too. The look is called petite. I think I figured the last one to be 19 or 20 based on her year of high school graduation. Wierd, dumb story...

i have no idea what you are talking about. you mention examples and ideas at the inception of examples as if i have the exact same field of reference and know what you mean - i don't.

Statutory rape laws regarding minors hold that they can't consent thus unquestionably rape, so it's not taken into account whether the accused had reason to believe the minor was even a minor. Deception by the minor is not considered an excuse. Those 2257 notices on websites nowadays came out of an underage Traci Lords being an adult performer with fake records. More humor—those records would've been the same that would clear the 2257 stuff anyway.

daydreamer

09-24-2009, 03:59 AM

And if we're both sloshed, and she complies? Beyond that, what if we did this regularly; then, she suddenly cries rape sometime? Non verbal consent is the norm, and I can't.

you can't what?

she complies? is complying the same as consent to you?

28—so I'm a dirty old man for being attracted to a 24 yo? I'm not a good judge of age, and if you'd care to research or just ask other guys here, we often can't bloody tell past puberty. Technically, the girl I did approach here at college could've past for a minor too. The look is called petite. The last one was 19 or 20, I think.

...but i was curious about what you said about her looking like a 14 year old... are you interested in 14 year olds? - or just women who look 14?

how to tell the age of a girl past puberty: listen to what she says. and not only for what you want to hear.

Statutory rape laws similar hold that a minor can't consent, so it's not taken into account whether the "rapist" had reason to believe the minor was even a minor. Deception by the minor is not considered an excuse. Those 2257 notices on websites nowadays came out of an underage Traci Lords being an adult performer with fake records. More humor—those records would've been the same that would clear the 2257.

i do not know what a 2257 notice is. since your last post i read the wikipedia account of who she is, because, i had never heard of her. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

a sad case of exploitation indeed. you're right, her fake id does not dismiss the guilt nor complete responsibility on the part of the adults. i don't find anything at all humorous about this.

i keep asking you questions that i notice, you do not answer. oh well, here is another: do you think Traci Lords should have been held responsible in some way for using a fake id to enter the porn industry while she was underage?

rickster

09-24-2009, 04:00 AM

28—so I'm a dirty old man for being attracted to a 24 yo? I'm not a good judge of age, and if you'd care to research or just ask other guys here, we often can't bloody tell past puberty. Technically, the girl I did approach here at college could've past for a minor too. The look is called petite. I think I figured the last one to be 19 or 20 based on her year of high school graduation. Wierd, dumb story...

Statutory rape laws similar hold that a minor can't consent, so it's not taken into account whether the "rapist" had reason to believe the minor was even a minor. Deception by the minor is not considered an excuse. Those 2257 notices on websites nowadays came out of an underage Traci Lords being an adult performer with fake records. More humor—those records would've been the same that would clear the 2257.

This rubbish oughta go right out the window, right now. You are talking about a subject which has nothing to do with sexual assault or rape. For starters the term "statutory rape' hasn't been around for about fifty years, and laws around the matter presume only coercion by virtue of age difference or intellectual disability. No violence or physical coercion is a factor in statutory rape: this sharply differentiates it from rape and it's sheer disingenuity to argue it as a point of discussion about rape or assault consent.

I'm calling bullshit due to irrelevance.

Autoptic

09-24-2009, 04:03 AM

For starters the term "statutory rape' hasn't been around for about fifty years, and laws around the matter presume only coercion by virtue of age difference or intellectual disability. No violence or physical coercion is a factor in statutory rape: this sharply differentiates it from rape and it's sheer disingenuity to argue it as a point of discussion about rape or assault consent.

I'm calling bullshit due to irrelevance.

You're describing cases that we have argued and were still arguing as of a couple post ago.:huh:

rickster

09-24-2009, 04:16 AM

You're describing cases that we have argued and were still arguing as of a couple post ago.:huh:

Bring me up to speed then - how do these cases apply to sexual assault and rape?

Autoptic

09-24-2009, 04:18 AM

Bring me up to speed then - how do these cases apply to sexual assault and rape?

Violence needn't be involved nor a blatant sign of lack of consent for a sexual assault conviction which was an explicit part of what we were arguing about.

Autoptic added to this post, 14 minutes and 40 seconds later...

you can't what?

she complies? is complying the same as consent to you?

It got cut off. As I edited in...Non verbal consent seems to be the norm though I haven't the slightest notion how often more implicit consent happens.

...but i was curious about what you said about her looking like a 14 year old... are you interested in 14 year olds? - or just women who look 14?

I was hit on by that one, and 14 was just a rough number. Around 5 ft, slim, around an a cup, youthful—what's that look like?

how to tell the age of a girl past puberty: listen to what she says. and not only for what you want to hear.

I don't recall them sounding any different from adults.

i do not know what a 2257 notice is. since your last post i read the wikipedia account of who she is, because, i had never heard of her. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

a sad case of exploitation indeed. you're right, her fake id does not dismiss the guilt nor complete responsibility on the part of the adults. i don't find anything at all humorous about this.

Uhm...actually I was for their absolution. They had all apparent legal evidence, and even law enforcement and government were fooled till contrary evidence, the industry people didn't have, was brought up.

i keep asking you questions that i notice, you do not answer. oh well, here is another: do you think Traci Lords should have been held responsible in some way for using a fake id to enter the porn industry while she was underage?

Why would I respond to all questions when they aren't necessary to prove or disprove a point? I'm not the only one who's been choosy. Would you hold a minor guilty for framing someone for a crime?

daydreamer

09-24-2009, 04:57 AM

I don't recall them sounding any different from non minors.

Uhm...actually I was for their absolution. They had all apparent legal evidence, and even law enforcement and government were fooled till contrary evidence, the industry people didn't have, was brought up.

Why would I respond to all questions when they aren't necessary to prove or disprove a point? I'm not the only one who's been choosy. Would you hold a minor guilty for framing someone for a crime?

if they do not sound different then you aren't really listening. this isn't a point of fact, it is my opinion. i think you're much smarter than that autoptic.

i realized you were for their absolution. i'm saying they're at fault and responsible, in other words, guilty.

would i hold a minor responsible for framing someone? possibly, i would have to know the details. the case of traci lords is one of exploitation. the porn industry, to be legal, has to be sensitive to those issues. i can only go by the wiki story, as i've no familiarity with the case outside of it... but i see no mention that law enforcement and the government were fooled. regardless, let's assume to entertain you that they were. law enforcement and government are sometimes fooled into thinking an instance of child abuse isn't happening, or they cannot substantiate it for some time. they are not at fault.

i have to say i've enjoyed some of your posts in the past autoptic, because sometimes you display an incredible ability to think outside the box. but this conversation has been enlightening. your attitude towards sex and women - and a few others here - spikes a bit of fear in me. i'm left wondering if that was the point.

curiousgeorge01

09-24-2009, 06:45 AM

Believe it or not, cg, there is a big difference between killing one's abuser and raping them.

I would be much more sympathetic towards a man who, after being tied up and burnt, and whatever other torments you wish to imagine, killed his abuser, rather than one who raped them.

The reason for this is simple: an abused person kills an abuser to protect themselves. It can be a matter of self defense.

Rape, on the other hand, can never be justified as self defense. There is never a situation where rape is necessary to defend oneself from harm.

I read a case one time of where a man's teenage daughter was raped and she came home crying to him. It turns out the one who raped her was his best friend. Feeling betrayed, confused, angered and feeling he had no control at the same time he claims a rage over took him and he no longer was thinking straight. He said everything in his body screamed for him to calmly pick up his shot gun, drive over and talk to his "friend," which he did. Once there, he calmly told his friend to get on his knees and beg for mercy before shooting him in the face. Are you telling me that if this guy sexual assaulted/abused/sodomized/raped this man instead of shooting him in the face to regain his control that it would've been a worse response? All I am saying is that the human mind is not all that simple. Although I don't condone what this man did, I can imagine what was going through his mind. He described it as seeing red and it wouldn't let go of him until the job was taken care of. And the man never had a previous history of crime. He claimed temporary insanity in his defense but the jurors didn't buy it feeling it was too pre-meditated. Do I think the victim contributed? I certainly think he shouldn't have raped his daughter and not expect a response from the father.

curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 2 minutes and 22 seconds later...

Wow, that's horrible that those women did that. I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The man was a douche for sleeping around, but I don't think the women were at all justified in their assault.

You going to start showing us rape reports to support the contention that rape is justified next?

Nope no rape reports. Like I keep saying, stop thinking that I think its "ok." I just can understand it better in the cases where rage is affiliated, someone feels horribly wronged, especially if its rightly so. I am sure the law takes that into account, especially if they feel like the person was wronged first which is why temporary insanity exists. I just added the report because daydreamer wanted a more concrete case of something like that occurring.

curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 10 minutes and 53 seconds later...

I believe what he, and most people mean, is how this topic has gone on for *looks at watch 17 pages and you continuously come up with variations and tangents (many of which are HIGHLY unlikely exceptions) which detract from your original topic: whether a woman should be held accountable in some manner for becoming victims of rape.

I've offered a couple of posts with regards to the internal thought process of a guy who could be worried of becoming labeled and sentenced as a rapist in a very likely scenario. That you (and others) continue to argue beyond those common situations where there is a reasonable ambiguity for the male to understand the situation through miscommunication or social assumptions and start going into virtually every possible scenario in order to find some rare instance where there might be a wider breadth of mitigation than what's already been discussed. Those are still positions from the male view however, and don't address "culpability" in the woman's role of rape. Its gone off to addressing mitigating factors for men and not addressing much of anything making it a woman's "fault" until recently such as pushing men with triggers.

The basic arguments for female blame were:

- Acts or dresses in a sexually inviting manner
- Is somewhere
- Consents to sexual act or intercourse and decides against it partway
- Incites violent and/or sexual behaviour by deliberate remarks and or gestures

TM the only thing we are arguing here is it 100% the rapists fault for rape. I am arguing no, it's not 100%. You could say the vast majority and even 99% but those unlikely scenarios, cases or rage, cases of where courts can't discern who was really at fault because of past history makes me say it can't be 100%. I just find that everyone keeps forcing 100% makes this continue. What is ever 100% accurate? If people can't agree to this then I'd be happy to agree to disagree on the topic.

Autoptic

09-24-2009, 07:10 AM

if they do not sound different then you aren't really listening. this isn't a point of fact, it is my opinion. i think you're much smarter than that autoptic.

I supposedly seemed more mature to the standards of most of the people I've ever known when I was 14 and younger than now, usually. I've rarely ever talked to people in person. There was and is little point. The few exchanges with the girls back then were as limited, obnoxious, and pretentious sounding to me than those in person now. Rejection just happens faster now. I've been expected to know what's normal by many people who occasionally bother to lecture me on the matter. There've been almost as many versions of what's "perfectly obvious" as there've been such people.

i'm saying they're at fault and responsible, in other words, guilty.

Guilty of an unavoidable (without completely abstaining from sex with anyone not displaying blatant decrepitude), undetectable (with no definitive medical testing), yet indefensible (on the basis of "because") crime?

would i hold a minor responsible for framing someone? possibly, i would have to know the details. the case of traci lords is one of exploitation. the porn industry, to be legal, has to be sensitive to those issues.

They thought they were. It didn't matter.

i can only go by the wiki story, as i've no familiarity with the case outside of it... but i see no mention that law enforcement and the government were fooled. regardless, let's assume to entertain you that they were. law enforcement and government are sometimes fooled into thinking an instance of child abuse isn't happening, or they cannot substantiate it for some time. they are not at fault.

The abuse, as I was saying, was unknowable and, by all accounts, unexpected to the perpetrators and associates.

i have to say i've enjoyed some of your posts in the past autoptic, because sometimes you display an incredible ability to think outside the box. but this conversation has been enlightening. your attitude towards sex and women - and a few others here - spikes a bit of fear in me. i'm left wondering if that was the point.

I grew and lived outside the box. It doesn't make one pleasant to most. Edge and gap conditions normally disturb. You get used to it. I'm quite used to others' perceptions of (im)probability, (un)ambiguity, and (ab)normality biting me on the ass while being punished or ignored by devout (un)believers and veiled or unwitting enemies, and I'm not looking forward to the inevitable greater socially and legally volatility.

firebee

09-24-2009, 07:10 AM

Is someone who is apathetic or defiant of the authority figure who tells them to use caution and provides tips as to how to reduce their risk of becoming a sexual assault victim responsible if they ignore those warnings?

No. People who do things that are not wrong and are not crimes, are not responsible for other people doing things that are wrong and are crimes.

You are not supposed to rape women. Even if they are not properly supervised by their "authority figures". I do not understand why this is so bloody hard to understand.

This guy proclaiming himself to be a man “who would never hit a woman” raises a major red flag when he says that.

This guy who brings up cases of women committing crimes against men as a counter to the notion that men committing crimes against women is in no case acceptable raises a series of minor red flags. This guy who suggests that a woman who does not listen to an "authority figure" (maybe him) who may be giving advice that is not all that useful, would be responsible if they were raped...? Well, I would not take a ride home from him, let's just say.

Part of my point is that men who have fucked-up attitudes toward women have a way of revealing them indirectly. Rather than stating outright "I think that I have the right to control you," or "I think that sometimes you deserve being raped," they use those "but" statements of previous mention to make it harder to argue with them because hey, they said that they condemn rape, right?

Guys who rape do not have horns. They have fucked-up attitudes which make them ticking time bombs to women who turn them down, or go to parties with them, or date them. Hence why I am so hard on the idea that rape is something that women bring on themselves, because the deader that idea is, the safer I am.

Tough Love

09-24-2009, 08:05 AM

This argument is so silly. CG wants everyone to admit that what he says is correct. Whether or not it is in fact correct is irrelevant, due to the sensitive nature of the topic. If someone were to confirm what he says as truth, it could damage the way a person (let alone people) view rape. It can also be misconstrued (the way the OP supposedly may have been). It is not safe to assume or profess that the victim may be at all liable as it would change the way people see rape crimes and inevitably the cases that come up. If you get me. I hope you do.

My opinion: First step is understanding, second step is accepting, third step is doing. Its a dangerous road to go down.

firebee

09-24-2009, 08:50 AM

My opinion: First step is understanding, second step is accepting, third step is doing. Its a dangerous road to go down.

Yep, and I'm not saying that anyone here is necessarily going to do all three steps, but I do wonder about their friends, and about people who may be reading along and seeing support for the idea that raping people because you're mad or drunk or they were in the wrong place might be somehow understandable. It's a risky idea.

curiousgeorge01

09-24-2009, 09:07 AM

Yep, and I'm not saying that anyone here is necessarily going to do all three steps, but I do wonder about their friends, and about people who may be reading along and seeing support for the idea that raping people because you're mad or drunk or they were in the wrong place might be somehow understandable. It's a risky idea.

due to the sensitive nature of the topic. If someone were to confirm what he says as truth, it could damage the way a person (let alone people) view rape. It can also be misconstrued (the way the OP supposedly may have been). It is not safe to assume or profess that the victim may be at all liable as it would change the way people see rape crimes and inevitably the cases that come up.

Well I do wish someone said this in the beginning, we could've just avoided the whole discussion. A "I don't want to talk about it it is sensitive" would've sufficed over all this non-sensical arguing, calling people sexist, rapist lovers etc. I hope you know all that name calling just makes people want to prove their point even more, not avoid the topic. I feel like a lot of people here were just out for a witch hunt where there were no witches. I just feel the opposite, if people are aware of these scenarios, they might avoid it altogether instead of going out there and thinking they can go assault/rape.

Synamon

09-24-2009, 10:00 AM

Well I do wish someone said this in the beginning, we could've just avoided the whole discussion. A "I don't want to talk about it it is sensitive" would've sufficed over all this non-sensical arguing, calling people sexist, rapist lovers etc. I hope you know all that name calling just makes people want to prove their point even more, not avoid the topic.
What are you talking about? The phrase "rapist lover(s)" never occurred once in this thread (until your post of course). The word "sexist" showed up in 12 posts in a thread with 450+ posts. For comparison the word "feminist" appeared 5 times. Those words were not used to name call anyone, they were in context in posts. There hasn't been any name calling in this thread.
I feel like a lot of people here were just out for a witch hunt where there were no witches. I just feel the opposite, if people are aware of these scenarios, they might avoid it altogether instead of going out there and thinking they can go assault/rape.
If men actually think that they can shift the blame to a woman when they rape, because she was not wearing a burka or safely locked away in her father's house, how exactly will that decrease the occurrence of a brutal assault? That makes no sense at all.

"She went on a date with me and teased me so that gives me an excuse to rape her" is the attitude a lot of people in this thread are arguing against. That is the witch that's being hunted, sexist attitudes. Look at that, the word used in context.

Rudy

09-24-2009, 10:12 AM

I read a case one time of where a man's teenage daughter was raped and she came home crying to him. It turns out the one who raped her was his best friend. Feeling betrayed, confused, angered and feeling he had no control at the same time he claims a rage over took him and he no longer was thinking straight. He said everything in his body screamed for him to calmly pick up his shot gun, drive over and talk to his "friend," which he did. Once there, he calmly told his friend to get on his knees and beg for mercy before shooting him in the face. Are you telling me that if this guy sexual assaulted/abused/sodomized/raped this man instead of shooting him in the face to regain his control that it would've been a worse response? All I am saying is that the human mind is not all that simple. Although I don't condone what this man did, I can imagine what was going through his mind. He described it as seeing red and it wouldn't let go of him until the job was taken care of. And the man never had a previous history of crime. He claimed temporary insanity in his defense but the jurors didn't buy it feeling it was too pre-meditated. Do I think the victim contributed? I certainly think he shouldn't have raped his daughter and not expect a response from the father.

I said that murder could be justified as self-defense, not that it was always justified as such. Obviously the case you're describing has absolutely nothing to do with self defense. I am talking about an abused person killing their abuser out of a need to protect themselves, not someone else acting on their behalf to exact vengeance.

The jurors shouldn't have bought the defense.

The actually correct analogy would have been if the girl grabbed a gun when this fellow was attempting to rape her, and shot him. That is self defense.

The point is that there is no situation you can imagine in which raping someone can be justified as self-defense.

On another point, autoptic actually raised an interesting question. How does the law determine consent after the fact? I mean, as far as I'm aware, when a situation is just one person's word against another, you cannot assume that one of them is lying, and one of them is not. Thus, you can't really rule on it.

Is there any truth to these claims that women claimed rape because they were drunk at the time, and the guy was convicted? That would be an absolute travesty if true...

Causa Mortis

09-24-2009, 10:55 AM

On another point, autoptic actually raised an interesting question. How does the law determine consent after the fact? I mean, as far as I'm aware, when a situation is just one person's word against another, you cannot assume that one of them is lying, and one of them is not. Thus, you can't really rule on it.

Is there any truth to these claims that women claimed rape because they were drunk at the time, and the guy was convicted? That would be an absolute travesty if true...

I had a few mutually moderately drunken romps with a lady of very low character in early college, and when I went to tell her I didn't want to see her anymore she threw that out there. I encouraged her to go to the police if she felt she was violated and she said she would but never did.

I don't know the legality of this particular issue, but there's nothing ethically wrong with a mutually moderately drunk romp, and I'm pretty sure 9/10 men would be guilty of rape if this were actually enforced.

We've held earlier in the thread that people are responsible for their actions, not what they put into their body. If there's consent it doesn't matter if alcohol lowered inhibitions which caused consent, just as it doesn't make a difference if a guy is drunk when he decides to rape a woman.

Obviously one partner passes out and the other party takes advantage of them is another issue entirely.

Rudy

09-24-2009, 10:59 AM

I don't know the legality of this particular issue, but there's nothing ethically wrong with a mutually moderately drunk romp, and I'm pretty sure 9/10 men would be guilty of rape if this were actually enforced.

Obviously one partner passes out and the other party takes advantage of them is another issue entirely.
Yeah, agreed on both points. I mean, if you say that someone is not capable of giving consent when inebriated, this raises two issues:

1) This means you are absolving them of responsibility when inebriated, which is obviously problematic.

2) It means that drunk adults cannot, by definition, have consensual sex. This is absolutely laughable, and would reclassify an enormous fraction of intercourse as rape.

JTG

09-24-2009, 11:26 AM

The point is that there is no situation you can imagine in which raping someone can be justified as self-defense.

Yes, absolutely agreed. I think there are several different conversations going on, and the focus seems to keep swapping back and forth between grey areas of consent, and full-on violent, forced sex.

Forced sex is never ever excusable. Maybe it can be said that in the heat of the moment, you could hit somebody out of a moment of stress and a loss of self control. You can never say that you raped somebody (using the violent/forced definition of rape) because you were provoked.

To hit somebody is a quick, instinctive defense mechanism. That could be self defense, or at the very least a momentary loss of self control. To rape somebody requires a different mindset and a desire to deeply hurt the person. Rapists shouldn't be able to argue that they were not in control of their actions, because the act takes a certain amount of decision making ability. It's not as quick as pulling a trigger or swinging a fist. Rape is a decision to victimize and demoralize somebody.

Arguments could be made that "well i was under a lot of stress, and this person was up in my face, so i threw a punch because i had a momentary loss of self control." It doesn't make it right, but it does mean that the person provoked the attack. It would be rather ludicrous to say "well i was under a lot of stress, and this person was up in my face, so i removed our clothes and forcibly inserted my penis because i had a momentary loss of self control." You just can't say that somebody instigated their own rape the same as you could with an ass-beating.

All of the above is in reference only to violent, forced rape.

Is there any truth to these claims that women claimed rape because they were drunk at the time, and the guy was convicted? That would be an absolute travesty if true...

Yes, it does happen. If a girl goes to a party, gets trashed, blacks out, and wakes up in bed next to a guy the next day, she can go to a clinic, get checked, and then prosecute for rape if there is evidence that sex happened. Even if she was willingly doing it the night before, sometimes the risk of being called a whore, dumped by a SO, or other social repercussions can drive a girl to make false accusations of rape.

I have a friend whose soon to be ex-wife accused a guy of rape because she cheated with him and didn't want to take responsibility. True story. The only thing that saved the guy is that she had taken a friend to hang out with the guy's friend, and her friend knew that no forced sex had happened. If it had just been the two of them hooking up, the guy could have been in deep trouble.

I'd say it's fairly rare, but it shouldn't happen at all. Not only does it disrespect people who have actually been through such an ordeal, it desensitizes others to the severity of the crime.

Below is mostly about a nonviolent or "date" rape type situation.

Only good advice: Lock your car as soon as you get in it. As you can tell, there is so much effort to "educate" women, that most of it is crap. All it does is perpetuate the myth that rape is a preventable crime and women should constantly live in fear of being raped. The truth is, rape by strangers is extremely rare. Car accidents are much more common, yet few people bother to take defensive driving.

I think you and i agree. I wasn't saying that telling women those things is "a good start but not enough education." I was saying that it's insufficient to say those things, when the discussion should really be about a broader sociological standard that women are held to. Having women who are more self-assured and assertive would do more to prevent rape than to tell them not to wear ponytails. I was speaking of "date" rape as well, not "random walking down the street attacked by a stranger" rape. I do agree that the latter is very very rare, and that no amount of education is likely to prevent it.

Rudy

09-24-2009, 11:32 AM

Yes, it does happen. If a girl goes to a party, gets trashed, blacks out, and wakes up in bed next to a guy the next day, she can go to a clinic, get checked, and then prosecute for rape if there is evidence that sex happened. Even if she was willingly doing it the night before, sometimes the risk of being called a whore, dumped by a SO, or other social repercussions can drive a girl to make false accusations of rape.

That's absolutely insane... assuming that a person knowingly imbibes alcohol or drugs, then they cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility for what they choose to do under the influence.

In terms of the woman and man alone scenario, that's why I don't understand. Let's say that there is no physical evidence of forced sex. A women claims rape. A man says she consented. What does the law say here? I'm getting the implication that it rules in favor of the woman, which is a very scary proposition, since it is a he said, she said scenario, in which case neither of their testimony should be considered weightier than the others.

Is my understanding here wrong?

JTG

09-24-2009, 11:37 AM

I'm not sure how the law views it. I know if there is evidence of ejaculation or at the very least penetration, that it makes life harder for the male. I know it comes down to one person's word against another, but without any signs of violence/force (which raises interesting issues with S&M) i think she'd have difficulty proving her case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Even so, the damage to a guy's reputation and social standing from such an accusation is pretty serious. I know guys who have been beaten senseless by a girl's friends just for an accusation that didn't go to court. It shouldn't ever happen. Such false accusations are inexcusable for reasons i listed above

curiousgeorge01

09-24-2009, 11:39 AM

What are you talking about? The phrase "rapist lover(s)" never occurred once in this thread (until your post of course). The word "sexist" showed up in 12 posts in a thread with 450+ posts. For comparison the word "feminist" appeared 5 times. Those words were not used to name call anyone, they were in context in posts. There hasn't been any name calling in this thread.

If men actually think that they can shift the blame to a woman when they rape, because she was not wearing a burka or safely locked away in her father's house, how exactly will that decrease the occurrence of a brutal assault? That makes no sense at all.

"She went on a date with me and teased me so that gives me an excuse to rape her" is the attitude a lot of people in this thread are arguing against. That is the witch that's being hunted, sexist attitudes. Look at that, the word used in context.

Again with the literalness. Yes I am aware that rapist lover/sympathizer never appeared, but some people implied something along those lines. Just because the name isn't spoken doesn't mean it can't be implied.

No one is suggesting women stay in their father's home or wear burkas, we have already established that the law is correct in punishment. What we are arguing is socially, how do women prevent it. Personally my advice to my daughter would not be meet men so haphazardly and to avoid any potential reasoning of where the law/society could be against her. I am not advocating that because she teased a guy she deserves rape, I'm advocating avoiding ambiguous signals. You can interpret that anyway you would like.

Anyway it doesn't seems like we disagree on rapists, it just seem we disagree on methodology of prevention.

Rudy

09-24-2009, 11:45 AM

Anyway it doesn't seems like we disagree on rapists, it just seem we disagree on methodology of prevention.

No, we do disagree on rapists. You think the punishment for some rapists should be mitigated by the fact that they were teased. You have stated so quite explicitly. Thus, we do not agree, so don't try to play the "well, we really all agree at the core of things," card. It's not true.

curiousgeorge01

09-24-2009, 11:58 AM

No, we do disagree on rapists. You think the punishment for some rapists should be mitigated by the fact that they were teased. You have stated so quite explicitly. Thus, we do not agree, so don't try to play the "well, we really all agree at the core of things," card. It's not true.

No I think it should be mitigated by what the court deems if any, that the victim may have played a role. I was just giving examples earlier because you guys so demanded it. The fact that you keep denying the victim plays no role does not mean the court would deem that is true. I find it hypocritical that you folks say the rapist is 100% wrong yet if the court says he might have contributed 75% and the victim 25% then the rapist is still 100% wrong? What kind of logic is that? It seems you folks just want to play God. If you just tell me it feels wrong then I can buy that, but if you're telling me that the above logic doesn't make sense I can't buy that.

daydreamer

09-24-2009, 12:15 PM

That's absolutely insane... assuming that a person knowingly imbibes alcohol or drugs, then they cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility for what they choose to do under the influence.

In terms of the woman and man alone scenario, that's why I don't understand. Let's say that there is no physical evidence of forced sex. A women claims rape. A man says she consented. What does the law say here? I'm getting the implication that it rules in favor of the woman, which is a very scary proposition, since it is a he said, she said scenario, in which case neither of their testimony should be considered weightier than the others.

Is my understanding here wrong?

there is quite a lot involved in proving rape beyond making the accusation. it's true anyone can make the accusation. it can be a hassle being accused of a crime you didn't commit, too. none of us are particularly safe from that. but the burden of proof is on the accuser.

larkin

09-24-2009, 02:52 PM

The fact that you keep denying the victim plays no role does not mean the court would deem that is true. I find it hypocritical that you folks say the rapist is 100% wrong yet if the court says he might have contributed 75% and the victim 25% then the rapist is still 100% wrong? What kind of logic is that? It seems you folks just want to play God. If you just tell me it feels wrong then I can buy that, but if you're telling me that the above logic doesn't make sense I can't buy that.

This isn't a matter of logic, it's a matter of factual accuracy. And once again, you couldn't be more wrong; there's no "feeling" about it, much less hypocrisy. Courts do not find someone "75% guilty." They find them guilty or not guilty. They are saying he's either 100% wrong or not wrong at all. Mitigating circumstances might affect sentencing but they do not affect guilt, a point that's been made several times before.

I'm sure you'll find some way to change your argument so it seems something less than completely wrong - something akin to "no one's saying the rapist isn't responsible!" when actually, that's exactly what you said, you just said he's "only 75% responsible" - but utter refusal to acknowledge this basic fact or have even a cursory understanding of the justice system is one of the things that makes this thread so ridiculous.

daydreamer

09-24-2009, 03:17 PM

I supposedly seemed more mature to the standards of most of the people I've ever known when I was 14 and younger than now, usually. I've rarely ever talked to people in person. There was and is little point. The few exchanges with the girls back then were as limited, obnoxious, and pretentious sounding to me than those in person now. Rejection just happens faster now. I've been expected to know what's normal by many people who occasionally bother to lecture me on the matter. There've been almost as many versions of what's "perfectly obvious" as there've been such people.

....

I grew and lived outside the box. It doesn't make one pleasant to most. Edge and gap conditions normally disturb. You get used to it. I'm quite used to others' perceptions of (im)probability, (un)ambiguity, and (ab)normality biting me on the ass while being punished or ignored by devout (un)believers and veiled or unwitting enemies, and I'm not looking forward to the inevitable greater socially and legally volatility.

i'm really very sorry to hear that you feel so excluded from society. i'm not judgmental about that; i have plenty of my own social issues, and there have been some unusual circumstances in my past as well. i don't look at it that society is singling me out for punishment - although there are a lot of things within my society (as opposed to my situation in the global situation) that definitely are unsympathetic to me and my lifestyle. i don't feel entitled to special treatment; quite the contrary, i realize i have to expend extra effort to 'mind the gap.' i do feel as legitimate as anyone else, though, in bringing up my concerns for consideration.

i've realized that whether i like it or not, i have to adjust, adapt. it behooved me to accept this sooner than later, and to learn to enjoy what i can about the process. there is an inevitability about needing to be able to communicate with people. avoiding it seems self-destructive (not that i don't often do it myself.) at best, i think we are all doing the best that we can.

Cygnus

09-24-2009, 03:36 PM

Just throwing some interesting reading material into the mix. This material not to condone or absolve behavior, merely to point additional information. I think it is important to understand the factors outside our cognitive wills that effect us to better enable us to keep control of ourselves or simply help avoid situations that will test the limits of our rational control.

prefaced with a quote within the links:

"Why are we so comfortable with assuming that other animals are controlled by their hormones whereas humans are not? The prevailing view is that human behavior is regulated by higher cognitive processes. Reason cools the blood, allowing us to take responsibility for our actions. This is an ancient philosophical formula that was most explicitly developed by French Philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Yet, even Descartes did not believe the rational soul was always in charge and accepted that there are times when humans are ruled by their passions."

The Human Beast

Sex, violence, and hormones
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sex hormones and womanly passions
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

as a personal note: Humanity has few natural enemies, I wonder if it was design that we are our own worst enemy?

IrishGuy

09-24-2009, 03:58 PM

Guys who rape do not have horns. They have fucked-up attitudes which make them ticking time bombs to women who turn them down, or go to parties with them, or date them. Hence why I am so hard on the idea that rape is something that women bring on themselves, because the deader that idea is, the safer I am.
The victim can contribute to the likelihood of the situation is all that we are saying. If women have no control over whether or not they end up being raped then this implies that they have no control over their actions at all...this is a problem that you have been ignoring.

My opinion: First step is understanding, second step is accepting, third step is doing. Its a dangerous road to go down.

So is a poorly lit street. Read below about the implications of 0% victim responsibility.

Yeah, agreed on both points. I mean, if you say that someone is not capable of giving consent when inebriated, this raises two issues:

1) This means you are absolving them of responsibility when inebriated, which is obviously problematic.

2) It means that drunk adults cannot, by definition, have consensual sex. This is absolutely laughable, and would reclassify an enormous fraction of intercourse as rape.

1)This gets back to what I was arguing earlier about the DUI/Manslaughter. How is DUI/Manslaughter not absolving an individual from responsibility while a drunken accidental rape would be?

2)Do you have to be aware of consenting in order to adequately give consent? That raises questions over if the victim is drunk and gave consent while drunk. I think this would most likely be viewed as one of the "after the fact" cases.

No I think it should be mitigated by what the court deems if any, that the victim may have played a role. I was just giving examples earlier because you guys so demanded it. The fact that you keep denying the victim plays no role does not mean the court would deem that is true. I find it hypocritical that you folks say the rapist is 100% wrong yet if the court says he might have contributed 75% and the victim 25% then the rapist is still 100% wrong? What kind of logic is that? It seems you folks just want to play God. If you just tell me it feels wrong then I can buy that, but if you're telling me that the above logic doesn't make sense I can't buy that.

This hearkens back to my argument about individuality. Both people are classified as individuals who are capable of making their own decisions. Their decisions must lead them to the intersection where the rape occurs. Both individuals create the situation whether they intend to or not. To say that the rapist has 100% responsibility for the rape happening is to say that the victim is incapable of making any independent decisions. This implies that they are incapable of giving/refusing consent (since that would be an independent decision).

This casts doubt over whether or not the rape can actually be considered rape since rape is defined as "the crime of forcing an individual to submit to sexual intercourse." The bolded section assumes that the victim has decision power. Thus, if the perpetrator is 100% responsible for the rape happening and the victim 0%; the victim cannot actually be a victim since they have no will.

0% victim responsibility essentially says that the victim is not a person. This is highly problematic; especially considering the often personal nature of rape.

Well now if the victim has any responsibility for the situation; how can she still be a victim? She can be a victim through the net effect of her actions and intentions. A rapist with the will and the intent to rape will, all things equal, make more decisions that increase the likelihood that a rape will take place. The victim, all things equal, does not want to be raped and has no intent to be raped. She mostly makes decisions that reduce the likelihood of her being raped. Thus, when a rape takes place, all things equal, the burden of responsibility lies mostly with the rapist, because they made more decisions that led them towards rape. However, some of the burden for the situation lies with the victim due to imperfect decision making (some decisions put her at greater risk).

I'm arguing here that the victim must have some responsibility for the situation in order to preserve individuality.

rickster

09-24-2009, 04:03 PM

Just throwing some interesting reading material into the mix. This material not to condone or absolve behavior, merely to point additional information.

Nobody throws anything "into the mix" for general informational purposes or light reading. It's fairly clear the point you are making is that we need to consider testosterone and estrogen as a mitigating factor in rape and/or sexual assault, and thereby strengthen The Case For Rape Light.

Like robins in the springtime, young men are more amorous and more reckless, so that they are more likely to break rules, drive dangerously, and get in fights.

I can just see it now...The Robin In The Springtime Rape Defense being laid out in court:

"But your honor, her hormones were making her compete like Marilyn Monroe, and his were like a robin in springtime: her hormones caused this non-rape when he was vulnerable! If any crime was committed it was by her unrestrained horniness!"

Christ almighty, this really is trawling the bottom of the barrel.

IrishGuy

09-24-2009, 04:06 PM

This isn't a matter of logic, it's a matter of factual accuracy. And once again, you couldn't be more wrong; there's no "feeling" about it, much less hypocrisy. Courts do not find someone "75% guilty." They find them guilty or not guilty. They are saying he's either 100% wrong or not wrong at all. Mitigating circumstances might affect sentencing but they do not affect guilt, a point that's been made several times before.

I'm sure you'll find some way to change your argument so it seems something less than completely wrong - something akin to "no one's saying the rapist isn't responsible!" when actually, that's exactly what you said, you just said he's "only 75% responsible" - but utter refusal to acknowledge this basic fact or have even a cursory understanding of the justice system is one of the things that makes this thread so ridiculous.

Is the sentencing and not a reflection of the level of responsibility? What about the charges; don't they assume a certain level of responsibility?
Edit: If not, why not? I'm thinking of something like straight up Murder versus Manslaughter.

IrishGuy added to this post, 4 minutes and 17 seconds later...

As an aside: how many people in here are going to be forum friends after all of this is said and done?

The Maelstrom

09-24-2009, 04:40 PM

TM the only thing we are arguing here is it 100% the rapists fault for rape. I am arguing no, it's not 100%. You could say the vast majority and even 99% but those unlikely scenarios, cases or rage, cases of where courts can't discern who was really at fault because of past history makes me say it can't be 100%. I just find that everyone keeps forcing 100% makes this continue. What is ever 100% accurate? If people can't agree to this then I'd be happy to agree to disagree on the topic.

Mitigating the circumstances for one party does not require finding fault with another. Sometimes shit just happens which would be the case in most of the scenarios men seem to be worried about. With the Title "Does the Victim Share Responsibility?" its blame shifting.

This is not the same as examples of consensual sex where AFTER the fact, one party decides to call rape for whatever reason. Might someone be unfairly tried: sure. Innocent men have been sentenced on a variety of charges just as many guilty have been set free. Law enforcement is not perfect.

Secondly rage is not an excuse for responsibility of actions. For degree of responsibility/sentencing: yes. And even then (as far as I'm aware) only if there was clear, intentional provocation for the level of violence used. Rape goes beyond just "letting one fly" in anger.

Storm

09-24-2009, 04:49 PM

No I think it should be mitigated by what the court deems if any, that the victim may have played a role. I was just giving examples earlier because you guys so demanded it. The fact that you keep denying the victim plays no role does not mean the court would deem that is true. I find it hypocritical that you folks say the rapist is 100% wrong yet if the court says he might have contributed 75% and the victim 25% then the rapist is still 100% wrong? What kind of logic is that? It seems you folks just want to play God. If you just tell me it feels wrong then I can buy that, but if you're telling me that the above logic doesn't make sense I can't buy that.

What are you talking about? Courts don't assign responsibility to victims. Victims don't go to jail.

1)This gets back to what I was arguing earlier about the DUI/Manslaughter. How is DUI/Manslaughter not absolving an individual from responsibility while a drunken accidental rape would be?

Here's the difference. When one gets in a car driving drunk, one is not specifically intending to kill someone with it. However, getting into a car drunk is reckless behavior - it's like shooting a gun in a crowd. One could claim one didn't mean to kill anyone, but the chances are obviously so high that any reasonable person would realize the risks.

Raping someone is not like shooting a gun into a crowd, one's actions are aimed specifically at an individual. One's genitals does not accidentally or recklessly come into contact with another's body. One knows that when one places one's genitals on another that one is committing rape. When one gets in a car intoxicated, one does not know for a fact that one's actions will result in death.

Cygnus

09-24-2009, 04:49 PM

Nobody throws anything "into the mix" for general informational purposes or light reading. It's fairly clear the point you are making is that we need to consider testosterone and estrogen as a mitigating factor in rape and/or sexual assault, and thereby strengthen The Case For Rape Light.

Like robins in the springtime, young men are more amorous and more reckless, so that they are more likely to break rules, drive dangerously, and get in fights.

I can just see it now...The Robin In The Springtime Rape Defense being laid out in court:

"But your honor, her hormones were making her compete like Marilyn Monroe, and his were like a robin in springtime: her hormones caused this non-rape when he was vulnerable! If any crime was committed it was by her unrestrained horniness!"

Christ almighty, this really is trawling the bottom of the barrel.

Been there done that, not Robin in springtime, rather temporary insanity.

In the United States civil courts, a crime of passion is referred to as temporary insanity. This defense was first used by U.S. Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859 after he had killed his wife's lover, Philip Barton Key, but was most used during the 1940s and 1950s. The contention in most of these cases is that there are mitigating circumstances pushing the accused past their limit of rational control.

The equation is rather simple. To understand how to not be a fucknut, you have to understand the factors contributing to you being a fucknut in the first place. We can stay with you "for Chirst almighty, get you head out of your ass" approach to resolution..perhaps it is working well. I will continue to anaylze and look at things from as many angles as possible, it is just what I do. I think Firebee states in one post something similar to "Why did his mamma raise such a cretin", out of the context it was written, it is a valid point, why do we continue to raise our sons to be cretins? For Christ sake, stop raising your son to be a fucking cretin! Pehaps now that someone said it..it will be all better now.

Stop attacking me as if I am advocating rape or compassion to rapists or that I am a rapist myself. I am advocating understanding as much as possible in hope for progess towards a workable, permanent solution. I have stated that many times, yet you persist in attack me.

Nemesis

09-24-2009, 05:01 PM

No I think it should be mitigated by what the court deems if any, that the victim may have played a role. I was just giving examples earlier because you guys so demanded it. The fact that you keep denying the victim plays no role does not mean the court would deem that is true. I find it hypocritical that you folks say the rapist is 100% wrong yet if the court says he might have contributed 75% and the victim 25% then the rapist is still 100% wrong? What kind of logic is that? It seems you folks just want to play God. If you just tell me it feels wrong then I can buy that, but if you're telling me that the above logic doesn't make sense I can't buy that.

Okay, this is complete horse-shit, but I'll play along with you for fun. Let's follow your line of "logic" a bit further, shall we? If we have some ratio of responsibility, than we have to distribute punitive measures accordingly as well. So if the rapist gets 4 years in prison, should the victim get 1 year? I mean, it's 75%-25% right? Or should the victim just accept that the rape itself was part of their punishment? If so, this would signify state mandated rape (albeit retroactively). This is where your logic leads to, CG.

IrishGuy

09-24-2009, 05:08 PM

What are you talking about? Courts don't assign responsibility to victims. Victims don't go to jail.

Here's the difference. When one gets in a car driving drunk, one is not specifically intending to kill someone with it. However, getting into a car drunk is reckless behavior - it's like shooting a gun in a crowd. One could claim one didn't mean to kill anyone, but the chances are obviously so high that any reasonable person would realize the risks.

Raping someone is not like shooting a gun into a crowd, one's actions are aimed specifically at an individual. One's genitals does not accidentally or recklessly come into contact with another's body. One knows that when one places one's genitals on another that one is committing rape. When one gets in a car intoxicated, one does not know for a fact that one's actions will result in death.

What if they're barely clothed to begin with? There's parties here all the time where everyone starts off in their underwear. There's always plenty of alcohol and no shortage of people daring their friends to "go commando" (usually guys) or to "flash" (usually girls) everyone. It's a recipe for reckless behavior, but I doubt anyone intends to rape. These parties are pretty common (they happen about every other week;maybe not exact same frats). It seems to me that the "touching of genitals together" could happen pretty easily.

I'm supposing that that second bolded portion also meant to include "against the other persons will."

Storm

09-24-2009, 05:10 PM

IrishGuy

09-24-2009, 05:33 PM

Do you really not see the difference between firing a gun into a crowd and firing a gun at a specific person, even if one is really really mad?

During a rape, there is always one person one's actions are specifically against. There is no equivalent to driving drunk or firing a gun into a crowd.

I see the difference, I just don't see how this is a valid example. Neither of the people firing the gun is impaired by alcohol. Also, a non-impaired person firing into a crowd intends to harm.

Why can't a drunk person be driven by their desire to have sex, as opposed to their desire to specifically harm and dominate someone? The drunk cannot comprehend the consequences of their actions in the same way as a sober person.

curiousgeorge01

09-24-2009, 07:03 PM

Okay, this is complete horse-shit, but I'll play along with you for fun. Let's follow your line of "logic" a bit further, shall we? If we have some ratio of responsibility, than we have to distribute punitive measures accordingly as well. So if the rapist gets 4 years in prison, should the victim get 1 year? I mean, it's 75%-25% right? Or should the victim just accept that the rape itself was part of their punishment? If so, this would signify state mandated rape (albeit retroactively). This is where your logic leads to, CG.

Well technically it would be 3 years and 1 year but I get what you mean. You can also look at the mitigating factors as subtracting the lower sentence from the higher one. So instead of him getting 3 years he gets 3-1=2 years, while the victim gets none. Just because it isn't stated outright doesn't mean it's not included in the figure. I just think it's their way of saying the victim isn't to blame while the numbers might say otherwise.

Look we all agree there are mitigating factors and we all agree rape is wrong. I think the only disagreement is how we define mitigating factors is it considered responsibility or just a mitigating factor. I'm ok with not having this resolved b/c it doesn't seem anyone is giving in.

Storm

09-24-2009, 07:07 PM

You're misunderstanding something fundamental, CG. There is a range of sentences for rape not because the victim brought it on themself, but because different criminals are considered more or less dangerous.

curiousgeorge01

09-24-2009, 07:11 PM

Storm I know what you're saying, but the way I look at it, if the end result is the same they're basically saying the same thing. I just think for the sake of society, they're stating it the way you guys are. So we're not saying anything really different, we're just wording it differently.

Storm

09-24-2009, 07:21 PM

No, we aren't. Just because two things reach the same result (different sentencing) does not mean they are the same thing.

For instance, suppose Robber A goes into a store, points a gun at the owner and demands all the money. The owner gives him the money and robber flees. This is the robber's first offense, he's 19.

Jury decides to give him the minimum sentence of 10 years (or whatever it is).

Robber B goes in, points a machine gun at the owner and demands all the money. He threatens the children in the store with bodily injury and even shoots at the owner (but misses). Once given the money, he flees. This is his 10th bank robbery.

Jury gives him life.

Obviously, the difference is because the jury thinks Robber B is more dangerous (more dangerous weapon, more threatening behavior, repeat offender). Under your logic, though, the reason Robber B got a longer sentence is because the store owner in Robbery A is more to blame for the robbery than the store owner in Robbery B.

curiousgeorge01

09-24-2009, 07:43 PM

daydreamer

09-24-2009, 07:49 PM

That doesn't apply in the scenario, IT IS the same thing except you're wording it differently.

In my scenario, victim is 25% responsible perp is 75%. Split among 4 years, victim gets 1 and perp gets 3. To simplify it since it serves no purpose in two people going to jail, the perp serves the overall outcome 3-1=2.

In your scenario, victim 0% not guilty and perp is 100% guilty for a total of 2 years but it would've been 3 had there not been any mitigating factors on the victim's part. So the mitigating factor subtracts 1 year which is 3-1=2.

HA HA HA LOL are you seriously recommending legal punishment of the victim ! LOL i leave the thread for a few hours and this is what happens?

btw george, my husband and i were talking about this thread... he's decided that there is one instance of justifiable rape - when a man feels so threatened by the obscure chance that he might be accused of rape if he pursues any green light given by a woman... he clearly has no choice but to pre-emptively rape her in self defense. yeah he has a dry sense of humor like that.

Autoptic

09-24-2009, 07:49 PM

That one was legally provoked would be taken to indicate he's less dangerous than one unprovoked. It's an addition of a negative-valued property (think electron or anti-proton) in this case versus your subtraction (and unpunished reallocation thereof onto the victim) of a positive-valued property (think proton or positron), CG.

Night Runner

09-24-2009, 11:29 PM

That doesn't apply in the scenario, IT IS the same thing except you're wording it differently.

In my scenario, victim is 25% responsible perp is 75%. Split among 4 years, victim gets 1 and perp gets 3. To simplify it since it serves no purpose in two people going to jail, the perp serves the overall outcome 1-1=0 for the victim, 3-1=2 for the perp.

In your scenario, victim 0% not guilty and perp is 100% guilty for a total of 2 years but it would've been 3 had there not been any mitigating factors on the victim's part. So the mitigating factor subtracts 1 year which is 3-1=2.

The only difference is the wording of 25% responsible vs 0% not guilty.

So wait, wait - let me see if I understand this correctly. So if a guy had a bad day (as you infamously stated in one of your previous posts) and a young woman without an authority wearing a short skirt flirts with him (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid she wears lipstick!), it would be what - about 75% victim's fault by your standards? And if that particular rape was more brutal than most (that damn harlot didn't know what a bad day that guy had!) and the sentence is 20 years, we'll just put her in jail for 15 years and sleep safe, knowing that another up-to-no-good succubus is off the street, and our poor defenseless males can breathe easy once more.

Oh, my bad - the victim would serve only 10 years, since 15-5=10. :rolleyes:

Tough Love

09-25-2009, 03:15 AM

Rudy

09-25-2009, 08:40 AM

Australia 2007

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

UK 2006 Read the views at the bottom as well.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. F13BE28A

The second is particularly interesting.

Hmm... the potential laws detailed in those articles are disturbing for two reasons:

One, they are discriminatory. Consider the case in which the man and woman are both rip-roaring drunk, and have sex. To say that the man is guilty of rape in this context, but the woman is not, is incredibly sexist. Yet both of these laws under consideration seem to be leaning in that direction.

Secondly, I'm disturbed by the implication that a woman is not responsible for the consequences of choosing to drink heavily. Again, men are expected to watch their drinking, and are to be held responsible for their behavior as a result of intoxication, but women are not? This is a very sad erosion of the concept of individual responsibility. Of course, people are responsible for the decisions they make while intoxicated.

That's assuming they knowingly chose to become intoxicated, of course. Date rape is a different matter because the woman is drugged without her consent, but if she freely, and without coercion, chooses to take a certain drug, she remains fully responsible for any decisions she makes under the influence. You don't want to have sex because you got too drunk? Don't get too drunk. End of story.

vern

09-25-2009, 09:32 AM

Rudy's point is well made. Earlier in this discussion I pointed out two unusual experiences that happened to me. Problems like this seem to come at you from left field, but in hindsight you can go over it and discover there may well have been signs or something you could have done to turn matters the other way, whether it is not to 'drink to excess' or 'confirm an appointment'. It is true that most victims know their attackers and this is not a man vs. woman issue as keeps getting argued and it is not so much about sex. Sex and rape are completely different matters, sex is about sharing pleasure with someone, rape is about control and domination.

Sexual predators are one step ahead of you, they are cunning and determined, most are well practised at this game and do not act on impulse and they likely have covered their tracks and if successful and more often than not, will avoid prosecution. Not to mention the victim, whether man, woman or child is essentially re-violated by the system that is designed to protect us, having to prove the crime and disclose intimate and painful details. Would any of you like to sit in front of a room of strangers and step by step describe what took place in your bed with some other individual? Now try to imagine if what took place there was painful, humiliating and degrading.

Whether the victim shares responsibility can be debated and is in the eyes of the beholder, one thing you can be assured of is the victim does receive the full share of the consequences of the act.

daydreamer

09-25-2009, 09:44 AM

Rudy - i'd be interested in seeing the that law on the books, in its entirety with the rest of what must be proven to make a rape case stick. i agree the articles are inflammatory, they are meant to be. i would be surprised if what is gleaned from them is accurate.

i encourage you to look at the body of evidence required to convict rape. the reports you post focus on one element in absence of the other elements needed to convict. one thing i noticed about your second article, only 1 in 20 rape cases end in conviction. even that number seems high to me - i will keep looking, but of course it's going to vary from area to area.

it's important to dispel the myth that drunken partners having sex in the absence of any other evidence is enough to convict someone of rape. the truth of the matter is though, that any one can claim rape at any time - there is nothing to prevent that, but gathering enough evidence to go to court is another matter. additionally, someone wrongfully accused does have some recourse, being knowingly wrongfully accused of a crime is a crime.

Rudy

09-25-2009, 09:48 AM

i encourage you to look at the body of evidence required to convict rape. the reports you post focus on one element in absence of the other elements needed to convict. one thing i noticed about your second article, only 1 in 20 rape cases end in conviction. even that number seems high to me - i will keep looking, but of course it's going to vary from area to area.

it's important to dispel the myth that drunken partners having sex in the absence of any other evidence is enough to convict someone of rape. the truth of the matter is though, that any one can claim rape at any time - there is nothing to prevent that, but gathering enough evidence to go to court is another matter. additionally, someone wrongfully accused does have some recourse, being knowingly wrongfully accused of a crime is a crime.
First, they weren't my articles. :)

Second, I'm well aware that drunken partners having sex is not currently enough to convict someone of rape. However, the articles linked by Tough Love indicated that the law attempting to be enacted would classify a "sufficiently" drunk woman as being incapable of giving consent. This would automatically define any sexual encounter involving enough alcohol as rape. The article actually talks about the importance of removing the decision from a jury, if you read it.

daydreamer

09-25-2009, 10:27 AM

First, they weren't my articles. :)

Second, I'm well aware that drunken partners having sex is not currently enough to convict someone of rape. However, the articles linked by Tough Love indicated that the law attempting to be enacted would classify a "sufficiently" drunk woman as being incapable of giving consent. This would automatically define any sexual encounter involving enough alcohol as rape. The article actually talks about the importance of removing the decision from a jury, if you read it.

i did read them. lol sorry, didn't mean to imply that you wrote them !

i re-read the article, a couple of times... i do not see what you're saying, regarding the importance of removing the decision from the jury. - without having access the actual wording of the proposal, what i do see is an attempt to define having sex with a woman incapable of giving consent - passed out - to be rape. i concur with this definition.

unless i misunderstood the article, there is an attempt to define incapability of providing consent in black and white terms - via blood alcohol level. it does not clearly state what level they arrived at, which is disturbing. (this article seems to bring up extremes without clarifying what the proposed law actual says.) it does vaguely reference the notion of drinking two bottles of wine. i can't remember the last time my husband and i sat down and drank 4 bottles of wine between us. (how could i?)
i do vaguely remember this point in college when i drank about 3/4 a bottle of wine and passed out... and i puked all day the next day.

i can't imagine my husband or any past boyfriend having sex with me after i drank 2 bottles of wine, either.

the article goes on to give an example of the law's application. a security guard had sex with a woman to whom he was a stranger while she was passed out near her apartment. apparently she honestly said she was so impaired that she could not remember whether or not she gave consent. the judge then instructed the jury to bring a not guilty verdict because the victim could not remember giving consent. to me, that is an instance of removing the decision from a jury.
EDIT: want to also add, that the article never claims that the facts that he had sex with her and that she was passed out were in dispute.

...

let me throw another scenario into the mix, since some people are fond of comparisons. i think i will start a thread but i will mention it here. imagine you go into the hospital for an abdominal operation. this is planned, you've spoken with the doctor performing the surgery a different day or perhaps several days previously. so you know what you're there for. presumably so does the doctor. you are taken to the OR and prepped, a drip iv slowly putting you in twilight or deeper anesthesia. the doctor shows up just then, you see him but hardly have the energy to speak. a very common occurrence. he then asks you, so, while i'm in there, why don't i take out your gall bladder and your appendix?

are you capable of giving consent? (btw, the drugs you're given tend to make you agreeable.)

Rudy

09-25-2009, 10:33 AM

daydreamer, I'd have no problem with a law making having sex with someone that was passed out to be rape. That should be something that is obviously immoral. However, the proposed laws go farther than that. They try to use the example of the security guard to make the laws seem more agreeable, but as the article states, they would open the way to cases where the woman was just heavily inebriated, of her own volition, being classified as "rape." This is what disturbs me.

Then, again, there is the issue of the sexism. Why, exactly, do these proposals only talk about the woman being too drunk to give consent?

daydreamer

09-25-2009, 10:37 AM

Then, again, there is the issue of the sexism. Why, exactly, do these proposals only talk about the woman being too drunk to give consent?

on this point we are also agreed.

this is one reason articles like this bother me in the first place. inaccuracy, reporter bias. there is no way of knowing what the law really is saying vs. the interpretation of the reporter, who may in this case only think of rape as something existing between opposite genders. i tend to think they are interested in sensationalism more than they are accuracy.

Rudy

09-25-2009, 10:39 AM

let me throw another scenario into the mix, since some people are fond of comparisons. i think i will start a thread but i will mention it here. imagine you go into the hospital for an abdominal operation. this is planned, you've spoken with the doctor performing the surgery a different day or perhaps several days previously. so you know what you're there for. presumably so does the doctor. you are taken to the OR and prepped, a drip iv slowly putting you in twilight or deeper anesthesia. the doctor shows up just then, you see him but hardly have the energy to speak. a very common occurrence. he then asks you, so, while i'm in there, why don't i take out your gall bladder and your appendix?

are you capable of giving consent? (btw, the drugs you're given tend to make you agreeable.)

I have to say, I don't see the applicability of your analogy. The reason it doesn't fit is that, when you consent to being drugged and whatnot, you do this with the full knowledge that there exist explicit and implicit laws to prevent the doctor from doing any surgery other than what you have already agreed to. You are, in essence, agreeing to place your decisions and consent under the protection of this system of medical laws. There is nothing comparable for drunken sex.

When you choose to get drunk, you do so with the knowledge that it will alter your behavior, and that there may be unforseen consequences for said altered behavior. You are not placing yourself under the protection of any system, you retain responsibility for yourself. Thus, you accept the moral responsibility for whatever decisions you then make under said influence.

daydreamer

09-25-2009, 10:45 AM

Thus, you accept the moral responsibility for whatever decisions you then make under said influence.

i'll accept that the comparison can go off in tangents regarding medical malpractice. but i mean to focus on the ethics of the situation.

accepting responsibility for decisions that you make under said influence. yes. accepting responsibility for decisions others make while you're under said influence, no.

do you see the difference?

as for protection. interesting word choice. if i walk from point a to point b and the law protects my physical safety while i'm sober, why shouldn't it protect me while i'm drunk?

Rudy

09-25-2009, 10:51 AM

accepting responsibility for decisions that you make under said influence. yes. accepting responsibility for decisions others make while you're under said influence, no.

do you see the difference?

Sure. But the decision to consent is your decision, not the decision of someone else. The law they are talking about in those articles would say that, even if the woman gives consent while drunk, that it is still rape.

as for protection. interesting word choice. if i walk from point a to point b and the law protects my physical safety while i'm sober, why shouldn't it protect me while i'm drunk?

That analogy doesn't work either. While drunk or sober, the law should protect you from people having sex with you without your consent. However, it doesn't protect you from giving consent while sober, and thus it shouldn't "protect" you from giving consent while drunk. The purpose of law should not be to protect people from their own decisions, it's to protect them from other people's decisions.

LionsPride

09-25-2009, 10:51 AM

Look we all agree there are mitigating factors and we all agree rape is wrong. I think the only disagreement is how we define mitigating factors is it considered responsibility or just a mitigating factor. I'm ok with not having this resolved b/c it doesn't seem anyone is giving in.

A man walks into a dark alley and is knifed and then mugged. Was he partially responsible for the crime? In common discussion I might hear "He should have known better" or "If he didn't walk down the alley he wouldn't have gotten mugged". While these sentiments are common, they are flawed.

The only reason that there are victims is because there are people that choose to commit crimes. The fact that a person made it easier for them to commit a crime doesn't absolve the criminal any responsibility for their actions. The mugging was not an accident, it was a deliberate choice the person made, regardless of whatever circumstances that pushed them to that point.

The confusion lies in the fact that as individuals there are things we can do to reduce our chances of being the victim and because of this people think that we are somehow partly responsible for the crime if we don't take those opportunities. The truth is that no matter how reckless you are, you can't make yourself a victim of crime without a criminal. That is why you can't be partly responsible for being a victim. Even in cases where the victims actions are taken into account, such as manslaughter of self-defence, the case is made on what a reasonable person would have done, not specifically the person that is being charged and in both cases the victim was usually committing or suspected of committing a crime of their own. Not because the victim was going about their day in a way that someone else didn't like or could take advantage of.

What's more insidious about rape than muggings is that the victims of rape most often know their attacker. To take the sort of precautions to protect themselves that people often suggest, then they would have to live their lives never trusting anyone. It reminds me of a commercial I once saw:
"Our family isn't affected by violence. Sure we keep our house locked, avoid the rough areas of town, don't go walking in areas we don't know, make sure our kids aren't outside after dark, and we carry some personal defence equipment, but we aren't effected by violence..."The reason that people like to believe that rape can somehow be prevented by the victim is it makes the potential victims feel safer, but that feeling of safety is more often false. On the other side, the reason why people divvy out sympathy differently to a nice girl that dresses conservatively and a girl that dresses provocatively is due to their own judgment of values that a person ought to be punished for. "Women that tease ought to be punished for being a tease, so they earned some of what came to them" is a common sentiment. So is "he committed a crime and went to prison, if he gets raped that's justice". Both comments are a judgment of the victim's lifestyle not a real commentary on their level of guilt in the crimes that are inflicted on them.