Sexual Assault: Does The Victim Share Responsibility?

[Rudy]

they are talking about a blood alcohol level at which most women would clearly be passed out... unless they're not... hard to say because the article is vague on that point and many other points.

if she is passed out, she is incapable of giving consent. the article gives a vague attempt at describing the fact that previous to the enactment of the proposed law* a case can be made that because a woman is incapable of remembering consent in a situation where she is passed out, she cannot deny it. that's the problem.

i do not defend this law... i do not even know what it is based on this one article. i do defend the spirit of the idea that rape laws are worth examining to make accurate - and yes, more - convictions.

also, consent being given - for the purposes of discussion i will stick with woman/man scenario, saying it is a woman's and not a man's decision clouds the issue of communication. it is an artifact of our language. consent is given. communication is a two way street. what about consent is received? there seems to be an issue surrounding the fact that a man receives this consent. why doesn't the man have to prove he has received consent? would it have made a difference in the security guard's case?

the answers to that, may show you just how difficult it is for a woman to prove that she did not give consent in the first place, yet the burden of proof necessarily is on her as the accuser...

the article shows the law to be ineffective at this.

I have no issue whatsoever with a law that would make having sex with an unconscious person to be rape; let me make that clear.

In terms of the man not having to prove that he received consent, that is a natural consequence of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that our laws, at least in the US, are very fundamentally founded upon. The proposed laws described in these articles, essentially, attempt to reverse this to guilty until proven innocent. They presume guilt without any need to prove it. This is a very dangerous and disturbing thing.

[daydreamer]

it seems completely reasonable to me that in the case of sex with a stranger a man could have to prove consent, as a matter of law. in other words, making it illegal to have sex with a stranger without getting consent. no?

yes, the burden of proof in a court case is on the accuser. i wasn't disputing that.

[Rudy]

it seems completely reasonable to me that in the case of sex with a stranger a man could have to prove consent, as a matter of law. in other words, making it illegal to have sex with a stranger without getting consent. no?

No, those two things are not, in fact, the same.

The second is obvious. Of course it should be illegal to have sex with a stranger without consent.

The first is different; you're talking about how it is enforced. And, in that case, you need to adhere to "innocent until proven guilty." If a man has to prove consent, then you are proclaiming him guilty of rape until he proves himself innocent.

[daydreamer]

The first is different; you're talking about how it is enforced. And, in that case, you need to adhere to "innocent until proven guilty." If a man has to prove consent, then you are proclaiming him guilty of rape until he proves himself innocent.

this is the heart of the matter. and this i believe, is where we fundamentally disagree. your position presumes the right of a man to have sex with a woman, oh yeah, unless and until she in some way makes it absolutely clear to him, regardless of his incapacity, incomprehension, or idiocy, that he cannot. it appears you are not in favor of men relinquishing this right in any way... not one iota? in this way, the law favors the rapist again and again.

because we all know, it is every man's god-given right to have sex with women.

i'm betting this isn't your personal approach. rape isn't a man vs. woman issue. it is a society vs. the rapist issue.

--regarding the aforementioned article. i already stated that i disagree with your interpretation of the article and that the article is in my opinion riddled with reporter bias. but i did not make one thing clear: i believe men should be allowed to have sex with women, even women who are drinking, but that alcohol consumption does not excuse a man from his responsibility of receiving consent.

in the case of the security guard, based on what we know, if a law existed saying it was illegal for him to have sex with a stranger without proven consent, it would have been a closed case - guilty. he could not prove he had consent because she was incapacitated to give it. most people find it is unreasonable to require a man to get such consent, consent to that degree, because of the implications to the everyday law-abiding man, and everyday society.

the introduction of a black-and-white measurement device, in this case, blood alcohol level that indicates a woman to be passed out, a state we all agree that she could not give consent - helps build the case against rapists who take advantage of this situation. it does not penalize the everyday law-abiding man. it can, however, raise both men and women's awareness to the problem and promote a culture of change - a lot of laws do that, and a lot of people find that uncomfortable.

[Rudy]

this is the heart of the matter. and this i believe, is where we fundamentally disagree. your position presumes the right of a man to have sex with a woman, oh yeah, unless and until she in some way makes it absolutely clear to him, regardless of his incapacity, incomprehension, or idiocy, that he cannot. it appears you are not in favor of men relinquishing this right in any way... not one iota? in this way, the law favors the rapist again and again.

because we all know, it is every man's god-given right to have sex with women.

To be honest, I don't think you understand my position at all. You're confusing my view on rights and my view on legal burden of proof, and neglecting the consideration of limited information.

My position in no way "presumes the right of a man to have sex with a woman, oh yeah, unless and until she in some way makes it absolutely clear to him, regardless of his incapacity, incomprehension, or idiocy, that he cannot." I do not think it's the woman's duty to refuse consent, I do think it is the man's duty to receive consent. I'm not arguing that point at all. If a woman does not consent, then it is rape.

But then, we're talking about how these things are determined in a courtroom. Yes, if a woman did not consent, then the man is guilty. However, he is innocent until proven guilty, which means the lack of consent is what needs to be proven.

in the case of the security guard, based on what we know, if a law existed saying it was illegal for him to have sex with a stranger without proven consent, it would have been a closed case - guilty. he could not prove he had consent because she was incapacitated to give it. most people find it is unreasonable to require a man to get such consent, consent to that degree, because of the implications to the everyday law-abiding man, and everyday society.

You're correct; the law in question would have led to a conviction in that case. It would also, however, have led to additional false positives. That is, convictions where the man wasn't really guilty, because the woman had consented, just couldn't remember.

The whole idea behind "innocent until proven guilty," is that it's better to let a guilty person go free than to punish or imprison an innocent person. You seem to have no problem with an increase in the number of false positives, as long as it increases the number of convictions.

[LionsPride]

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.

There is a level where a person's incapacitation nullifies things they give consent to in order to protect them from people who would take advantage of the state that they are in. So the idea that you can be protected from what you give consent to when drunk is valid. In many cases a contract isn't valid if you entered into it while drunk or under the influence of mind altering substances. If you commit a crime while drunk, then you have to face consequences, but a person that consents to sex while drunk is not committing a crime. If their condition was used to take advantage of them then they are protected under the law. I consider it no different than if I was on painkillers and my friend managed to get me to sign over the deed to my house. They have my consent in writing and though I might have to prove I was incapacitated, I'd still have a good case to make the contract invalid. Of course rules like that differ from place to place, but the principle is one that is commonly seen.

[daydreamer]

Rudy, mea culpa. i tried to be clear about what i see to be your personal thoughts, vs the position that you were arguing for - the status quo, in reference to the article. status quo before the proposed law. i'm sorry about that.

so, we've learned where we disagree. in my opinion, innocent until proven guilty does not on its own imply that lack of giving consent is what needs to be proven. however, it is how it is practiced today, to my understanding. i think this shows bias in favor of protecting a man's right to a sex act with women.

[Rudy]

So the idea that you can be protected from what you give consent to when drunk is valid.

I guess this is where we'll fundamentally disagree. I don't think it can be argued that a person has the ability to abdicate their responsibility for their actions by getting drunk.


Let's look at the example in context, though. Let's say a woman and man have a few drinks, they get drunk, they have sex. She then claims that although she gave consent, she was drunk, so it doesn't count. He then says the exact same thing. That is, that he gave consent, but he was drunk, so it doesn't count. What do we do in this case? Which one of them is the rapist, and why?




in my opinion, innocent until proven guilty does not on its own imply that lack of giving consent is what needs to be proven. however, it is how it is practiced today, to my understanding. i think this shows bias in favor of protecting a man's right to a sex act with women.
Okay, let's break down innocent until proven guilty in this context.

You start with a rape accusation. You say to the man, "you have to prove that she gave consent, or else you are guilty of rape." This is, by definition, guilty until proven innocent. If the accused fails to prove his case, then he is convicted. This in the exact opposite of how the legal system works in the US. Here, at least, it is the duty of the accuser, or the prosecutor more directly, to prove the guilt of the accused.

With due respect, I don't think you realize the larger complications, and infringements on rights, that could arise from starting with the presumption of guilt in a legal setting.

[daydreamer]

I guess this is where we'll fundamentally disagree. I don't think it can be argued that a person has the ability to abdicate their responsibility for their actions by getting drunk.

Let's look at the example in context, though. Let's say a woman and man have a few drinks, she gets drunk, they have sex. She then claims that although she gave consent, she was drunk, so it doesn't count. He then says the exact same thing. That is, that he gave consent, but he was drunk, so it doesn't count. What do we do in this case? Which one of them is the rapist, and why?

i knew some women from the old neighborhood who tried this. not friends, mind you. they would try to sleep with a drunk guy to get pregnant because they were sick in the head. interesting question, Rudy.

i do not have familiarity enough to speak of the legalities intelligently, and there are quite a lot of issues. but the act itself - i do not think a case could be made for rape, but one could be made for sexual assault, when a woman successfully forces a man to do something sexual without his consent.

[Rudy]

i do not think a case could be made for rape, but one could be made for sexual assault, when a woman successfully forces a man to do something sexual without his consent.

Sexual assault on who's part? Which one of them is the assaulter? In the scenario I described, you're saying that the man would be a rapist, but the woman would not? Why the distinction?

[firebee]

but the act itself - i do not think a case could be made for rape, but one could be made for sexual assault, when a woman successfully forces a man to do something sexual without his consent.

Wait a minute -- how exactly is it not rape if a foo successfully forces a bar to do something sexual without their consent? That strikes me as the very definition of rape, unless you are going to establish some standard which varies by gender -- which is not cool.

[daydreamer]

Wait a minute -- how exactly is it not rape if a foo successfully forces a bar to do something sexual without their consent? That strikes me as the very definition of rape, unless you are going to establish some standard which varies by gender -- which is not cool.

as i said, i have little familiarity... maybe someone who knows can help. but i believe the act of rape necessarily involves penetration. now if you're talking anal rape, sure, that's still rape.

[Rudy]

but i believe the act of rape necessarily involves penetration. now if you're talking anal rape, sure, that's still rape.

Umm... no. Rape is forcing an act of sexual intercourse on a person. It has nothing to do with your gender, or who the "penetrator" is.

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will. Source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Cygnus]

as i said, i have little familiarity... maybe someone who knows can help. but i believe the act of rape necessarily involves penetration. now if you're talking anal rape, sure, that's still rape.

Rape is any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. It is gender neutral, while women raping men is less frequent (certainly very rarely reported), it does happen. Rape is a type of sexual assault.

[LionsPride]

I guess this is where we'll fundamentally disagree. I don't think it can be argued that a person has the ability to abdicate their responsibility for their actions by getting drunk.

They don't, but the people around them, who aren't intoxicated, should know that the consent of a person who is intoxicated isn't worth a dime and any 'contract' that they get out of the person is not going to be valid if contested later. You can't take advantage of a person when they are drunk and be absolved of YOUR actions or YOUR gains because they murmured a yes at the time. Much like you can't visit Grandma when she's on her medication and get her to sign a new will and claim that because she chose to take her meds and said yes, no takey-backies.

Let's look at the example in context, though. Let's say a woman and man have a few drinks, she gets drunk, they have sex. She then claims that although she gave consent, she was drunk, so it doesn't count. He then says the exact same thing. That is, that he gave consent, but he was drunk, so it doesn't count. What do we do in this case? Which one of them is the rapist, and why?

Neither is by default a rapist. I think the crux of the accusation would have to rely on whether either could rightfully claim that they were in a position where the were not in their right mind and the other person was.

[firebee]

Umm... no. Rape is forcing an act of sexual intercourse on a person. It has nothing to do with your gender, or who the "penetrator" is.

And, while it might take some doing (depending on the man), it's hardly impossible to force a guy to take the role of penetrator. The bits operate according to relatively simple rules, and can be made to operate independently of the higher brain functions of the man attached to them.

Failing that, there is of course always the butt. And as I had occasion to say to one of my boyfriends recently, "The advantage of being the sort of guy I am, is that if I want my cock to be larger, smaller, or shaped differently, I have merely to go to the appropriate store and make it so."

[Rudy]

Neither is by default a rapist. I think the crux of the accusation would have to rely on whether either could rightfully claim that they were in a position where the were not in their right mind and the other person was.

Aha, but here comes the difficulty in this position:

If both persons are too drunk to have "competently" consented, and yet you say that neither can be accused of rape, then you are simultaneously forgiving both for having taken advantage of someone in such a state because they, themselves, were inebriated.

Thus, you are allowing inebriation as an excuse for having sex with someone without their competent consent. Surely you can see how this might be a problem?

EDIT: The only way, that I can see, to make your position consistent, is to convict both persons of rape under the circumstances. I hope the absurdity of this, though, would be self evident.

[daydreamer]

Umm... no. Rape is forcing an act of sexual intercourse on a person. It has nothing to do with your gender, or who the "penetrator" is.
Source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

intercourse is penetration. so is unlawful intrusion (wording from the link.) i did not say it was dependent on gender.

but you're right, there is statutory rape, where a woman has sex with an underage male. i did not think that was the example you were making.

as for the example of a man and a woman, you're right. it is unfair that women's biology allows them to be a victim in a unique way. and it is unfair that a man's biology gives him a unique weapon. it sucks that we all can be anally raped too. it sucks that we can be raped with items other than a penis.

i do not see any problems with what i have said so far and the link you posted as definition.

[Rudy]

i do not see any problems with what i have said so far and the link you posted as definition.

The problem is this. You're saying in a situation where neither is "competent" to give consent, the man can be accused of rape, but the woman cannot. However, if you say that their drunkenness makes them incapable of giving consent, then both are rapists under the definition that I linked.

[Cygnus]

Neither is by default a rapist. I think the crux of the accusation would have to rely on whether either could rightfully claim that they were in a position where the were not in their right mind and the other person was.



It would seem the laws being booked designed to deny "she did not say no" as some concocted form of defense, has the reciprocal effect of forcing men to consider the state of women and being held accountable for that. So where is the official line of when someone is impaired they cannot properly consent?

[LionsPride]

If both persons are too drunk to have "competently" consented, and yet you say that neither can be accused of rape, then you are simultaneously forgiving both for having taken advantage of someone in such a state because they, themselves, were inebriated.

Thus, you are allowing inebriation as an excuse for having sex with someone without their competent consent. Surely you can see how this might be a problem?

EDIT: The only way, that I can see, to make your position consistent, it to convict both persons of rape under the circumstances. I hope the absurdity of this, though, would be self evident.

No, I don't think that them both being drunk means that they are forgiven for their crime. What I am saying is that neither may be able to prove the guilt of the other and as such the case may not result in a guilty verdict. Being found innocent via lack of evidence is not the same as declaring that no crime was committed.

[Rudy]

No, I don't think that them both being drunk means that they are forgiven for their crime. What I am saying is that neither may be able to prove the guilt of the other and as such the case may not result in a guilty verdict. Being found innocent via lack of evidence is not the same as declaring that no crime was committed.

Ok, then. What if there was some external evidence, such as videotape, or the testimony of observers, that sufficiently proved that neither one was competent to give consent. Would you support convicting them both as rapists in this case?

[LionsPride]

So where is the official line of when someone is impaired they cannot properly consent?

That's a tough one for sure. The thing with that defence is that I think the onus is on the 'victim' to show that they were impaired to a degree that a reasonable person in the same situation would not have been able to make a good judgment either. That's not easy, nor should it be.

Ok, then. What if there was some external evidence, such as videotape, or the testimony of observers, that sufficiently proved that neither one was competent to give consent. Would you support convicting them both as rapists in this case?

Generally, I would say that in real life there would always be some sort of inequality between the two, such as previous history, character, role in getting the other drunk, etc. that could be used as factors to make one person's case better than the others. But playing along with the hypothetical anyway, let's assume that both people are completely in the same boat. I think if they both pressed charges against each other and stuck to their guns then yes, I think it's conceivable that both could be found guilty. I think they would have to press charges though, I don't think that situation would qualify as a case where the accused has to face charges even though their victim isn't pressing charges.

[Rudy]

I think if they both pressed charges against each other and stuck to their guns then yes, I think it's conceivable that both could be found guilty.

See, that's what seems to be an absurd contradiction to me; that you can conceivably have two people simultaneously raping one another. It makes a joke of the term, "rape," and thus minimizes its seriousness, I think.

[daydreamer]

The problem is this. You're saying in a situation where neither is "competent" to give consent, the man can be accused of rape, but the woman cannot. However, if you say that their drunkenness makes them incapable of giving consent, then both are rapists under the definition that I linked.

i'm saying if the otherwise capably functioning man and a woman have penis-to-vaginal intercourse, and that's all they have, then yes, a man cannot claim rape. he can claim sexual assault. this is my understanding, and i also agree with it.

both are rapists? no. the problem lies in the interpretation of what you read. the link you posted is not all-inclusive, exhaustive. when i read it, i see this. you apparently do not.

it seems unfair doesnt it? maybe the purposes of such laws shouldn't be to protect crimes against inequities, but to hold every person to an equal standard regardless of inequities. of course, then we could have sex with any child who said yes. hmmm, a dilemma...

[Rudy]

i'm saying if the otherwise capably functioning man and a woman have penis-to-vaginal intercourse, and that's all they have, then yes, a man cannot claim rape. he can claim sexual assault. this is my understanding, and i also agree with it.

both are rapists? no. the problem lies in the interpretation of what you read. the link you posted is not all-inclusive, exhaustive. when i read it, i see this. you apparently do not.

Maybe you missed this line: "As of the early 2000s, all states define rape without reference to the sex of the victim and the perpetrator. Though the overwhelming majority of rape victims are women, a woman may be convicted of raping a man, a man may be convicted of raping a man, and a woman may be convicted of raping another woman."

[daydreamer]

You're correct; the law in question would have led to a conviction in that case. It would also, however, have led to additional false positives. That is, convictions where the man wasn't really guilty, because the woman had consented, just couldn't remember.



if it were the law, it wouldnt lead to false positives, it would redefine what legal sex is in the case of sex with a stranger. it would emphasize the responsibility of the "man" in this case.

[LionsPride]

See, that's what seems to be an absurd contradiction to me; that you can conceivably have two people simultaneously raping one another. It makes a joke of the term, "rape," and thus minimizes its seriousness, I think.

I agree that it is absurd, but most hypotheticals are. As I said, in the actual practice of the law, one would be more drunk, more in power, or one would have more intent for the outcome to occur than the other. All of which would have to be proven to result in the assignment of legal guilt.

EDIT: as to minimizing it's seriousness, if a person feel violated by the incident then I don't think it minimizes the seriousness. What minimizes the seriousness of rape is people claiming rape for reasons other than rape, like trying to manipulate someone or 'get back at them' for some other perceived annoyance.

[daydreamer]

Maybe you missed this line: "As of the early 2000s, all states define rape without reference to the sex of the victim and the perpetrator. Though the overwhelming majority of rape victims are women, a woman may be convicted of raping a man, a man may be convicted of raping a man, and a woman may be convicted of raping another woman."

didnt miss it. i see that it is not all-inclusive, exhaustive, in that it does not describe the differences between statutory rape and other rape, regardless of genders. i also see that it does not describe the act of rape as in who rapes whom... someone penetrating someone else with something against their permission. i see that it is summarily described as intercourse or sexual intrusion, which is apparently too vague for you.

in addition to statutory rape, as i continue to state, a woman can rape a man, a man can rape a man, and i have yet to say it but i have implied it, a woman can rape a woman.

if you do not believe rape is about penetration, how exactly does a woman go about raping another woman? how and who rapes whom? if no penetration occurs, how is it rape as opposed to any other sexual assault?

[Rudy]

if it were the law, it wouldnt lead to false positives, it would redefine what legal sex is in the case of sex with a stranger. it would emphasize the responsibility of the "man" in this case.
Of course it would lead to false positives. If you require that the man prove that he had consent, then there will obviously be situations where he did have consent, but would be unable to prove it. Thus, he would be convicted under your scheme. This is a false positive; the conviction of an innocent.

I agree that it is absurd, but most hypotheticals are. As I said, in the actual practice of the law, one would be more drunk, more in power, or one would have more intent for the outcome to occur than the other. All of which would have to be proven to result in the assignment of legal guilt.
Hmm... I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but the assignment of guilt to whichever one is a little less drunk hardly seems less absurd to me.

[LionsPride]

Hmm... I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but the assignment of guilt to whichever one is a little less drunk hardly seems less absurd to me.

Less drunk as in there was one of them that was still in their right mind. I assume that people who feel a little tippy should still be able to determine who they should have sex with.

[Rudy]

if no penetration occurs, how is it rape as opposed to any other sexual assault?

I think you're confusing terms. Rape is a type of sexual assault. It is, specifically, forcing sexual intercourse on a person. The definition does not rely on the rapist being the penetrator in the intercourse. This is the legal definition. If we're defining "forcing" as to include having intercourse when the person is not sufficiently sober, then the woman in the example I gave is forcing sex upon the man, just as he is forcing sex on her.

[daydreamer]

Of course it would lead to false positives. If you require that the man prove that he had consent, then there will obviously be situations where he did have consent, but would be unable to prove it. Thus, he would be convicted under your scheme. This is a false positive; the conviction of an innocent.


i specifically stated the man would require proven consent. i did not state what proven consent would consist of. there would have to be a definition. let's say it was a notarized letter with thumbprints of both parties. yeah, that's silly and extreme. i wasn't arguing for it. i was examining the existing situation in another context. you've done the same. i'm trying to show that between the existing law, and the proposed law's idea taken to the extreme, there is room for a reasonable solution. i still maintain that refusing to budge one iota favors the right of a man to have a sex act with a woman. not in the complete abstract; in application to reality.





daydreamer added to this post, 3 minutes and 22 seconds later...

I think you're confusing terms. Rape is a type of sexual assault. It is, specifically, forcing sexual intercourse on a person. The definition does not rely on the rapist being the penetrator in the intercourse. This is the legal definition. If we're defining "forcing" as to include having intercourse when the person is not sufficiently sober, then the woman in the example I gave is forcing sex upon the man, just as he is forcing sex on her.

how does a woman rape a woman?

are you suggesting that, if a woman passes out drunk and another woman also seriously drunk penetrates the first woman vaginally with a foreign object, that rape cannot be claimed since neither were capable of consent?

i understand rape is sexual assault. but not all sexual assault is rape. i'm not confused.

[Rudy]

Less drunk as in there was one of them that was still in their right mind. I assume that people who feel a little tippy should still be able to determine who they should have sex with.

I guess the core of the problem I have with this is that it, essentially, is criminalizing drunken sex. It's saying to people: "You better not go out and get drunk and have sex, because the other person might just be more drunk than you, and even if they want to have sex with you, you'd still be a rapist." Expecting people to be able to rationally evaluate whether they are more or less drunk than their potential partner is not a realistic expectation. I have no desire to ever have seriously drunken sex, but to tell others that they cannot do so is draconian in the extreme.

And then there's still my other objection, which is that this law would allow people to knowingly and intentionally abdicate some of the responsibility for their actions by getting drunk. Which is, in my mind, never a good thing.

[Rudy]

i specifically stated the man would require proven consent. i did not state what proven consent would consist of. there would have to be a definition. let's say it was a notarized letter with thumbprints of both parties. yeah, that's silly and extreme. i wasn't arguing for it. i was examining the existing situation in another context. you've done the same. i'm trying to show that between the existing law, and the proposed law's idea taken to the extreme, there is room for a reasonable solution. i still maintain that refusing to budge one iota favors the right of a man to have a sex act with a woman. not in the complete abstract; in application to reality.
I'm not refusing to budge on what is called illegal; as I said, I'm fine with the part of the law saying that having sex with an unconscious woman should be a crime. What I am refusing to budge on is the whole "innocent until proven guilty," thing. I'm as stubborn about that as I am about freedom of speech and habeus corpus.

are you suggesting that, if a woman passes out drunk and another woman also seriously drunk penetrates the first woman vaginally with a foreign object, that rape cannot be claimed since neither were capable of consent?
No, I'm not saying that at all, because I don't think that being drunk makes them incapable of consent. I would say that the second woman is raping the first, because the first is unconscious. Being unconscious does make one incapable of giving consent.

[daydreamer]

I have no desire to ever have seriously drunken sex, but to tell others that they cannot do so is draconian in the extreme.

And then there's still my other objection, which is that this law would allow people to knowingly and intentionally abdicate some of the responsibility for their actions by getting drunk. Which is, in my mind, never a good thing.

draconian, really? to expect people to behave whether or not they are drunk?

this law... i'm assuming you're referring to the link you posted several posts back... knowingly and intentionally abdicates some responsibility by getting drunk. isn't that also the first position you're defending, when you say people should be able to go out and get blasted and not have to worry about what happens after that?

[Rudy]

draconian, really? to expect people to behave whether or not they are drunk?

this law... i'm assuming you're referring to the link you posted several posts back... knowingly and intentionally abdicates some responsibility by getting drunk. isn't that also the first position you're defending, when you say people should be able to go out and get blasted and not have to worry about what happens after that?
What? I never once said, in any measure, that people should be able to go out and get blasted and not have to worry. It's my position that each and every person is fully and completely responsible for what they do while inebriated, assuming they became inebriated of their own free will.

[daydreamer]

I'm not refusing to budge on what is called illegal; as I said, I'm fine with the part of the law saying that having sex with an unconscious woman should be a crime. What I am refusing to budge on is the whole "innocent until proven guilty," thing. I'm as stubborn about that as I am about freedom of speech and habeus corpus.

No, I'm not saying that at all, because I don't think that being drunk makes them incapable of consent. I would say that the second woman is raping the first, because the first is unconscious. Being unconscious does make one incapable of giving consent.

my proposed solution was not regarding whether or not she passed out, it was regarding stranger sex... the stranger would be required to get proven consent.

ok so... back to the example of women... so if the other was awake in a blackout, instead of passed out, that would be ok?





daydreamer added to this post, 1 minutes and 12 seconds later...

What? I never once said, in any measure, that people should be able to go out and get blasted and not have to worry.

ok then, what did you mean by "seriously drunk sex"?

[Rudy]

ok so... back to the example of women... so if the other was awake in a blackout, instead of passed out, that would be ok?
It would be okay if, and only if, the other, drunken woman consented. Otherwise it would be rape.


ok then, what did you mean by "seriously drunk sex"?
When I gave the examples of two seriously drunken people having sex, it was to show that laws, such as the one proposed, that remove the responsibility from the drunken party are not consistent.

I said that I, personally, do not want to have drunken sex with strangers, ever. I find the idea extremely distasteful. However, I see no reason to preclude others from doing so. Such infringements on freedom need very good justification.

[LionsPride]

I guess the core of the problem I have with this is that it, essentially, is criminalizing drunken sex. It's saying to people: "You better not go out and get drunk and have sex, because the other person might just be more drunk than you, and even if they want to have sex with you, you'd still be a rapist." Expecting people to be able to rationally evaluate whether they are more or less drunk than their potential partner is not a realistic expectation. I have no desire to ever have seriously drunken sex, but to tell others that they cannot do so is draconian in the extreme.



Ignorance of your crime does not make you innocent. Having seriously drunken sex is not illegal and I'm not telling anyone that they can't do it, but I am saying that if the person that just said yes to sleeping with you forgot what their name is and has serious problems standing then you can't hide behind the yes they gave you if it turns sour in the morning. As far as you know the reason that they can't stand is someone else spiked their drink and they didn't make the conscious choice to get that drunk. Are they now to be responsible for leaving their drink unattended? For attending a party where a person might give them triples instead of singles like they planned? While after the fact a person who gets themselves smashed could be considered more in control of the circumstances than someone who was drugged, at the time of the consent either case could be possible. Are you guilty if someone else drugged them and not if they drugged themselves? How does that make more sense?

And then there's still my other objection, which is that this law would allow people to knowingly and intentionally abdicate some of the responsibility for their actions by getting drunk. Which is, in my mind, never a good thing.

You aren't making the distinction between actions and criminal actions. Criminal actions are never excusable.

[Cygnus]

how does a woman rape a woman?


Rape: Penal Code Section 261
Penal Code Section 261 defines Forcible Rape as sexual intercourse with an alleged victim without consent. Even if no physical force is used, rape charges may be pursued by the prosecution where the victim is intoxicated or physically or mentally disabled to provide lawful consent. Other criminal charges also may be prosecuted alleging forcible sex acts, including violations of Penal Code Section 288 and 289 such as sodomy, rape using a foreign object, or forced oral copulation. Date Rape, or Rape using alcohol or GHB, or other substances, may also be prosecuted as violations of Penal Code Section 261 by the District Attorney’s Office.
The consequences of conviction for such a crime include 3-8 years in prison per count of Rape, probation, sex offender registration for life, and substantial fines.

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

[daydreamer]

It would be okay if, and only if, the other, drunken woman consented. Otherwise it would be rape.



When I gave the examples of two seriously drunken people having sex, it was to show that laws, such as the one proposed, that remove the responsibility from the drunken party are not consistent.

I said that I, personally, do not want to have drunken sex with strangers, ever. I find the idea extremely distasteful. However, I see no reason to preclude others from doing so. Such infringements on freedom need very good justification.

ok. thanks for the response. we disagree again. i think the woman in the blackout is incapable of giving consent even if she is awake. any consent she "gives" at that point cannot be relied on. i think that is responsible sexual behavior. i do not think that is asking too much.

i do not think people have a right to sex that needs protecting.

i think it is a very good reason to curtail the legality of drunken sex. sex isnt a right. sex or sexual contact, sexual penetration is something that happens between people that allows for the violation of a persons given rights in a unique way, and arguably in the most personal way. this is to me a very good reason to refine the definition of a freedom.

[Rudy]

Ignorance of your crime does not make you innocent. Having seriously drunken sex is not illegal and I'm not telling anyone that they can't do it, but I am saying that if the person that just said yes to sleeping with you forgot what their name is and has serious problems standing then you can't hide behind the yes they gave you if it turns sour in the morning. As far as you know the reason that they can't stand is someone else spiked their drink and they didn't make the conscious choice to get that drunk.
Well, to start, it certainly can't be the responsibility of a person to know how drunk the other person intended to get. It terms of spiking the drink, the criminal is the spiker, and that is otherwise irrelevant.

The problem is not ignorance, the problem is having a law that is incredibly vague and hard to evaluate. A person can be well aware of the law, and yet have a hard time evaluating whether the person se's about to sleep with is "too drunk" in the eyes of the law. The only way for them to be sure that they aren't breaking the law, in fact, is to not have sex with anyone that is drunk. Hence my claim that it makes drunken sex illegal, because if you have it, you can never be sure whether you'll be evaluated to have broken the law.

You aren't making the distinction between actions and criminal actions. Criminal actions are never excusable.
That's a strong statement. Do you not believe in the "temporary insanity" defense, then? (I certainly don't, just curious.)

I don't see how, ethically, we can possibly say that a person is responsible for Set A of the decisions they make, when those decisions are against the law, but is not responsible for Set B of their decisions. How do you justify this?

[Rudy]

ok. thanks for the response. we disagree again. i think the woman in the blackout is incapable of giving consent even if she is awake. any consent she "gives" at that point cannot be relied on. i think that is responsible sexual behavior. i do not think that is asking too much.

Sorry, I thought you meant a blackout as in a power outage. If you meant that the woman fainted, then she would be unconscious, and thus unable to give consent.

[daydreamer]

Sorry, I thought you meant a blackout as in a power outage. If you meant that the woman fainted, then she would be unconscious, and thus unable to give consent.

LOL no i mean a drunken blackout. drunks especially alcoholics can function without being aware. once they become aware, the period that they were not aware is called a blackout. blackout does not mean the person passed out.

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

EDIT:
to complete my argument about rape being different from other sexual assault* because of penetration. in the case of two 'seriously' drunken women, one penetrating the other with a foreign object. a legitimate case for rape can be made. -- but how do we know who was raping whom?

well, it seems rather obvious to me... the one with the object (a) raped the one whose vagina received it (b), and never the other way around. penetration.

therefore, outside of statutory rape, a woman cannot rape a man by having vaginal intercourse with him.

now, if (a) and (b) were seriously drunk, and say, watching tv, and (b) took all of (a)'s clothes off with or without permission, and grabbed (a)'s sex with or without drunken consent, without penetration, a case for sexual assault can be made against (b).

*rape is still sexual assault.

[Cygnus]

ok. thanks for the response. we disagree again. i think the woman in the blackout is incapable of giving consent even if she is awake. any consent she "gives" at that point cannot be relied on. i think that is responsible sexual behavior. i do not think that is asking too much.

i do not think people have a right to sex that needs protecting.

i think it is a very good reason to curtail the legality of drunken sex. sex isnt a right. sex or sexual contact, sexual penetration is something that happens between people that allows for the violation of a persons given rights in a unique way, and arguably in the most personal way. this is to me a very good reason to refine the definition of a freedom.

Comendable, however, it is always difficult to legislate ethics and morality. I would argue those things are best handled by society as a whole. Properly educating our youth and setting the proper example for them seems a better long term solution and leaving laws for extreme cases.

[daydreamer]

Comendable, however, it is always difficult to legislate ethics and morality. I would argue those things are best handled by society as a whole. Properly educating our youth and setting the proper example for them seems a better long term solution and leaving laws for extreme cases.

the whole of criminal law is the legislation of ethics and morality.

[Cygnus]

the whole of criminal law is the legislation of ethics and morality.

And thus the difficulty. While we may all agree upon the intent, we may not agree on the literal semantics and execution.

[daydreamer]

And thus the difficulty. While we may all agree upon the intent, we may not agree on the literal semantics and execution.

curious, though, what do you mean by saying, leaving the laws for extreme cases?

[LionsPride]

drunken sex illegal, because if you have it, you can never be sure whether you'll be evaluated to have broken the law.

One doesn't beget the other. Drunken sex is not 'illegal' because you *might* be charged with rape due to recanted consent. I would say that drunken sex is risky, because it does increase your chances of crossing paths with someone who is not going to be okay with the results in the morning, but that is different than being illegal. Obviously there is plenty of drunken sex that does not result in a victim and is therefore not an issue under the law. I consider the same argument for having sex with young people. Even if they say they are within the age of consent, if they prove not to be you could be charged. This means that sleeping with people that look young might increase your chances of sleeping with someone who is underage, but it doesn't make sleeping with people that look young illegal.

That's a strong statement. Do you not believe in the "temporary insanity" defense, then? (I certainly don't, just curious.)

The statement pertained to people who got themselves drunk and committed a crime. Temporary insanity is a different circumstance. There are plenty of nuances with both. My issue with temporary insanity is proving that the person did not know what they were doing at the time. As hard as it is to prove that you were drunk enough to not know what you were doing, it is a lot easier than proving that you were 'temporarily insane'.

I don't see how, ethically, we can possibly say that a person is responsible for Set A of the decisions they make, when those decisions are against the law, but is not responsible for Set B of their decisions. How do you justify this?

The difference isn't about the person that is drunk, the difference is the people around them. If they commit a crime there are victims and justice for those victims has to be served. If someone takes advantage of another person's altered state they should not be allowed to benefit from someone's inability to protect themselves. The division of blame isn't about the person who is drunk, the responsibility of the drunk is preempted by the needs of the victims and the guilt of those that are taking advantage.

[Cygnus]

curious, though, what do you mean by saying, leaving the laws for extreme cases?

The more aligned people are, the fewer rules they need and the less complicated they are. The cases that would need legislation and enforcement would be something extreme.

[daydreamer]

The more aligned people are, the fewer rules they need and the less complicated they are. The cases that would need legislation and enforcement would be something extreme.

extreme like rape? or extreme rape?

aligned... like all christian? all white? what?

it seems on this thread there is a lot of resistance to limiting RIGHT for a law-abiding person to deliberately perform an extreme action, that is not in fact a right at all, regardless if it puts other people at considerable risk instead of favoring the development of laws which protect those at risk. i protest.

if i thought we had a right to perform extreme actions regardless of risk it poses to others, i guess i would have to allow everyone to carry a loaded gun, as long as they don't fire it, right? or do they just have to get everyone's consent first?

[Cygnus]

extreme like rape? or extreme rape?

aligned... like all christian? all white? what?

it seems on this thread there is a lot of resistance to limiting RIGHT for a law-abiding person to deliberately perform an extreme action, that is not in fact a right at all, regardless if it puts other people at considerable risk instead of favoring the development of laws which protect those at risk. i protest.

if i thought we had a right to perform extreme actions regardless of risk it poses to others, i guess i would have to allow everyone to carry a loaded gun, as long as they don't fire it, right? or do they just have to get everyone's consent first?

You are trying to nitpick and argue a simple concept and take it places never intended. The more people treat each other with respect and have similar ethical and moral principles, the less problems they create for each other. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything that would actually require any laws and enforced would be considered extreme, since everyone just "gets it" in this completely hypotheical, perfect world model...

In a more practical sense and since you wish to make it relevant to sexual violence :

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

Strategic Planning Process:
The prevention of sexual violence is a public health priority and is essential to the safety and well being of Florida residents and visitors. The Sexual Violence Prevention Program brought together like-minded partners to create a statewide sexual violence prevention strategic plan using the philosophy that every man, woman, and child has a right to live in a safe, healthy environment and to be treated equally and with respect. Materials used that helped guide the strategic planning process:

Strategic Goals:
1. Increase knowledge and awareness of sexual violence prevention across the lifespan.
2. Influence social norms in support of gender equality, respect, and safety for men, women, and children.
3. Advance policies that promote gender equality, respect and safety.
4. Increase capacity to prevent sexual violence.
5. Increase funding for sexual violence prevention and intervention.
6. Improve and increase access to sexual violence prevention and intervention data.

As you can see increasing knowledge and awareness as well as influencing social norms are number 1 and 2 on preventing sexual violence strategic goals.

[IrishGuy]

if you do not believe rape is about penetration, how exactly does a woman go about raping another woman? how and who rapes whom? if no penetration occurs, how is it rape as opposed to any other sexual assault?
Rape just requires forced intercourse (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
how does a woman rape a woman?

Can be forced penetration using a foreign object or forced oral sex. That may not be all inclusive, but they're possibilities.

LOL no i mean a drunken blackout. drunks especially alcoholics can function without being aware. once they become aware, the period that they were not aware is called a blackout. blackout does not mean the person passed out.

Now you're saying that drunks can function without being aware?!??!! This is what I argued yesterday in a case for unintentional rape and somebody (I think it was you, could be mistaken) argued that sex is too complicated for someone that drunk (in spite of the fact that drunk drivers manage to drive a car; albeit poorly). They're not aware of what they're doing; this is why I compared it to DUI/Manslaughter.





IrishGuy added to this post, 8 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Heck, when I got my wisdom teeth removed (all 4 of them) I was put under with general anesthetic. In the recovery room I pulled out my cell phone; turned it on; entered in the password; made a couple of movies of myself to "document what it's like to be under general anesthetic;" then handed the phone to my mom and instructed her on how to make the movies. I don't remember any of this; the only way I know about it is because of the movies and my mother.

I never intended to do this; and complex actions occurred while under the influence of an inhibitory substance.

[daydreamer]

Rape just requires forced intercourse (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

Can be forced penetration using a foreign object or forced oral sex. That may not be all inclusive, but they're possibilities.


yep. i agree with above. i never claimed rape was only vaginal penetration. oral and anal are included. what i am saying is the penetrator is always the rapist, and the person being penetrated is the victim. someone else was making a case that a woman could rape a man by having vaginal intercourse with him. i'm saying no way. but a case can be made that she sexually assaulted him. this definition does not include the definition of statutory rape.


Now you're saying that drunks can function without being aware?!??!! This is what I argued yesterday in a case for unintentional rape and somebody (I think it was you, could be mistaken) argued that sex is too complicated for someone that drunk (in spite of the fact that drunk drivers manage to drive a car; albeit poorly). They're not aware of what they're doing; this is why I compared it to DUI/Manslaughter.


drunks can function without being completely aware. according to the wiki they can retain around about an ongoing 2 minutes awareness window during a blackout. they are still responsible for the crimes they commit. a person is still responsible for functioning within the law even if they have lessened their mental capacity willfully. committing a violent act willfully. a blackout in no way excuses or lessens the crime. dui/manslaughter is not a lesser charge btw.


Heck, when I got my wisdom teeth removed (all 4 of them) I was put under with general anesthetic. In the recovery room I pulled out my cell phone; turned it on; entered in the password; made a couple of movies of myself to "document what it's like to be under general anesthetic;" then handed the phone to my mom and instructed her on how to make the movies. I don't remember any of this; the only way I know about it is because of the movies and my mother.

I never intended to do this; and complex actions occurred while under the influence of an inhibitory substance.

so, lucky for you your oral surgeon didnt try to remove more than 4 teeth after obtaining your drugged consent !

[IrishGuy]

yep. i agree with above. i never claimed rape was only vaginal penetration. oral and anal are included. what i am saying is the penetrator is always the rapist, and the person being penetrated is the victim. someone else was making a case that a woman could rape a man by having vaginal intercourse with him. i'm saying no way. but a case can be made that she sexually assaulted him. this definition does not include the definition of statutory rape.

Rape is just forced intercourse. Under what you're saying only men and a woman who uses a strap-on or something similar could ever be convicted of rape. This is simply not true. The penis may enter the vagina in an act of forced penetration, but if the male is not forcing it into the female then the male is not raping. The woman who forces the male penis into herself against the man's will would be the rapist. "Force" is not limited to physical movement either.

A stationary male could force penetration by pointing a gun at a woman and telling her that if she did not start having sex that he would kill her. Thus, even though the woman was actively putting the penis in her vagina she was doing so under the threat of force; making the man the rapist.

The important thing is not who has the ability to penetrate but who is forcing penetration.

Note: This is only looking at examples involving penetration.

drunks can function without being completely aware. according to the wiki they can retain around about an ongoing 2 minutes awareness window during a blackout. they are still responsible for the crimes they commit. a person is still responsible for functioning within the law even if they have lessened their mental capacity willfully. committing a violent act willfully. a blackout in no way excuses or lessens the crime. dui/manslaughter is not a lesser charge btw.
Explain to me how you can act willfully and not be completely aware at the same time as this would seem to be a contradiction? DUI/manslaughter is generally a lesser crime than murder.
First degree murder carries a penalty of 25 to life in the state of California (obviously there are appeals etc.)
DUI/Manslaughter carries a charge of 6-10 years with the possibility of parole.

The only state that I know of with equal or harsher punishments for DUI/manslaughter than murder is Florida.


so, lucky for you your oral surgeon didnt try to remove more than 4 teeth after obtaining your drugged consent !

I signed the release papers before I was drugged. In that consent was the acknowledgment that there could be complications and that I was in effect releasing the Orthodontic surgeon of any liability (courts generally do not uphold these anyways) for excess damage or death resulting from the operation.





IrishGuy added to this post, 2 minutes and 36 seconds later...

My stepfather was a lawyer for 13 years. I'll run the DUI/Manslaughter vs Murder thing and the Rape and accidental rape thing past him tomorrow (technically today) to see what he says.

[daydreamer]

DUI/manslaughter is generally a lesser crime than murder.

My stepfather was a lawyer for 13 years. I'll run the DUI/Manslaughter vs Murder thing and the Rape and accidental rape thing past him tomorrow (technically today) to see what he says.

manslaughter lesser than murder? yes... dui manslaughter is not lesser than other vehicular manslaughter.

i'll be interested in what he says. ask him if dui vehicular manslaughter cases go generally less punished than other vehicular manslaughter cases, non-plea bargained down. ask him if he thinks that's a good reason to let someone off for drunken rape, or at the very least, giving them a lesser sentence. i'm very curious.

[MartinH]

0% victim responsibility essentially says that the victim is not a person.

No, that equivalence is only an opinion.

0% victim responsibility says that nothing the individual did, or could have done mitigates raping her. At the point she says "no" the responsibility is 100% with the other party to stop, regardless of anything previous.

This does load the responsibility onto the person who's able to do the damage, but hey, they're the person able to do the damage, so it was always theirs, wasn't it?

(with apologies for massive snippage)

[IrishGuy]

No, that equivalence is only an opinion.

0% victim responsibility says that nothing the individual did, or could have done mitigates raping her. At the point she says "no" the responsibility is 100% with the other party to stop, regardless of anything previous.

This does load the responsibility onto the person who's able to do the damage, but hey, they're the person able to do the damage, so it was always theirs, wasn't it?

(with apologies for massive snippage)

The argument that you're referencing is a little more philosophical than legal. I'm saying if you have two individuals with the element of choice; then their coming together at a point in time must be the result of decision making. It cannot be random or one sided; since that would suggest that a party is incapable of making decisions.

My argument does not assign responsibility in a very tasteful way, but it shows that victims do have some control over their circumstances. It was used earlier in an argument for some sort of education for victims who demonstrated "excessively risky" decision making (yes, I know it's vague; we can run around in circles all day). The rapist on the other hand would be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

In theory if you made a decision that put you closer to being raped, then you can argue that you brought yourself closer to the damage.

[daydreamer]

My argument does not assign responsibility in a very tasteful way, but it shows that victims do have some control over their circumstances. It was used earlier in an argument for some sort of education for victims who demonstrated "excessively risky" decision making (yes, I know it's vague; we can run around in circles all day). The rapist on the other hand would be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

In theory if you made a decision that put you closer to being raped, then you can argue that you brought yourself closer to the damage.

interesting idea. do you also think people should be educated about risky behaviors that might put them in a position of being accused of rape?

[IrishGuy]

interesting idea. do you also think people should be educated about risky behaviors that might put them in a position of being accused of rape?

Behaviors that could lead to rape or put them in a position to be accused of rape. I'm not too fond of the wording of the latter half of that since it sort of implies that the education would be about how to make sure the victim cannot prosecute the offender, which is not what I would want the education to be about.

[daydreamer]

Behaviors that could lead to rape or put them in a position to be accused of rape. I'm not too fond of the wording of the latter half of that since it sort of implies that the education would be about how to make sure the victim cannot prosecute the offender, which is not what I would want the education to be about.

risky behaviors leading to rape accusations... for instance telling guys that hey, seriously drunken sex could end you up in a world of hurt legally, especially with a stranger you just met. you could get accused of rape.

do you think that would be bad in some way? do you think that would somehow help a potential criminal from being prosecutable?

[MartinH]

The argument that you're referencing is a little more philosophical than legal. I'm saying if you have two individuals with the element of choice; then their coming together at a point in time must be the result of decision making.

More or less the point of rape is that it removes the element of choice from one of the two at that point.

In theory if you made a decision that put you closer to being raped, then you can argue that you brought yourself closer to the damage.

But those things don't count - if there is no rape, the sexual teasing, flirting, dressing provocatively, or indeed for the man taking a girl home alone, making suggestions, getting drunk with her don't count as offences or morally wrong in general.

Doing things that bring you closer to being raped, or to raping aren't a problem unless a rape actually happens.

To say they then become important, is a path that leads to burkhas - you have a fairly stark choice: you can believe that the victim is partly responsible for her being attacked, and she should avoid these behaviours, constrain her behaviour to only that which isn't going to inflame men or you can believe that most men don't rape, and those that do bear the full responsibility for it and should be removed from society and that within the confines of the law men and women should behave how they please.

Effectively, it's whether you think the constraints on behaviour should exist within the individual or outside the individual (which is a cultural trait). In many countries the constraints are generally external (covering up, being escorted, staying in) - in "western" society, the constraints are generally internal (if I see a girl who's vulnerable, I know not to rape her without anyone stopping me) - I quite like the idea of building a society out of people that have internal self control and constraints that stop them hurting and raping others when they get the urge.

CG's argument, and possibly yours seems to be that people who don't behave like that exist in society, so everyone else should change their behaviour to accommodate that fact or bear some responsibility for getting hurt.

Fuck that. I'd rather educate and breed them out than make provision for their existence. The fact that there are more sexist, homophobic and racist old people than young people indicates to me that it's happening - attitudes to women, homosexuals and other ethnicities are becoming more inclusive over time, it's better than it was, but I think we have a few more generations to go.

Playing along with the attitude that we need external controls (i.e. can't rape any women, because they're all at home or escorted) is going to slow that process and validate the idea that it's the victims fault. I'd rather keep removing the rapists from society and modernising attitudes even as the intransigents die off over time.

[jesse]

More or less the point of rape is that it removes the element of choice from one of the two at that point.

Rape is a simple matter. You commit rape when you have sexual intercourse with a non-consenting partner or partners. Alcohol or drugs are no excuse for this behavior, especially if there is one person who would have not consented to the acts.

But those things don't count - if there is no rape, the sexual teasing, flirting, dressing provocatively, or indeed for the man taking a girl home alone, making suggestions, getting drunk with her don't count as offences or morally wrong in general.

Doing things that bring you closer to being raped, or to raping aren't a problem unless a rape actually happens.

Indeed. Close to being raped is not the same thing as being raped.
The behaviors you've mentioned above can be construed as questionable but they are not criminal.

To say they then become important, is a path that leads to burkhas - you have a fairly stark choice: you can believe that the victim is partly responsible for her being attacked, and she should avoid these behaviours, constrain her behaviour to only that which isn't going to inflame men or you can believe that most men don't rape, and those that do bear the full responsibility for it and should be removed from society and that within the confines of the law men and women should behave how they please.

Provocation is one thing which is directly related to someone who is always crying wolf at every turn. When it actually happens, those around will be so accustombed to hearing a load of crock that they've become desensitized as to not care.

Claiming that all women are seductive whores and that each and every male is a weak-minded sexual addict has the undertone of saying I am not responsible for my actions. This is bullshit and utterly infantile in its logic to claim "they made me do it!" if and when they are caught and prosecuted in court.

Effectively, it's whether you think the constraints on behaviour should exist within the individual or outside the individual (which is a cultural trait). In many countries the constraints are generally external (covering up, being escorted, staying in) - in "western" society, the constraints are generally internal (if I see a girl who's vulnerable, I know not to rape her without anyone stopping me) - I quite like the idea of building a society out of people that have internal self control and constraints that stop them hurting and raping others when they get the urge.

CG's argument, and possibly yours seems to be that people who don't behave like that exist in society, so everyone else should change their behaviour to accommodate that fact or bear some responsibility for getting hurt.

Fuck that. I'd rather educate and breed them out than make provision for their existence. The fact that there are more sexist, homophobic and racist old people than young people indicates to me that it's happening - attitudes to women, homosexuals and other ethnicities are becoming more inclusive over time, it's better than it was, but I think we have a few more generations to go.

Playing along with the attitude that we need external controls (i.e. can't rape any women, because they're all at home or escorted) is going to slow that process and validate the idea that it's the victims fault. I'd rather keep removing the rapists from society and modernising attitudes even as the intransigents die off over time.

I do not agree with imposing external control factors. It is one of those good in principle thoughts but they can be so quickly transformed and perverted into something completely different, stripping individuals of any shred of decency and liberty in the process.

Your assessment of imposing external controls is indeed enforcing this constant cycle on victims which is a pessimistic view on humanity that they cannot be trusted to act accordingly ever.

Times are changing however the change is slow. I also doubt whether it will be even possible to remove homophobic, misogynistic and misandric schools of thought at all. They sure as hell can be wiped off mainstream but that is no proper solution.

[MartinH]

Provocation is one thing which is directly related to someone who is always crying wolf at every turn. When it actually happens, those around will be so accustomed to hearing a load of crock that they've become desensitized as to not care.

Crying wolf would be making repeated false accusations of rape, which might make people inclined to think this is what's happened again where it's not clear from the evidence, or when it's one persons word against anothers.

I'm not sure how it's related to provocation though.

I do not agree with imposing external control factors. It is one of those good in principle thoughts but they can be so quickly transformed and perverted into something completely different, stripping individuals of any shred of decency and liberty in the process.


My point was that it's normal in quite a few cultures to assume that women need to be protected, they aren't left alone with men, are escorted by male family members when out, expected to cover themselves and not behave in overtly sexual ways. In those cultures this is normal and everyday - I don't mean imposing external controls by law or anything, these are cultural customs.

I think that "our way" of implicit internal controls is better. Other cultures have many great things, but internalising these constraints allows more of the population to do more stuff, making the whole culture more competitive and funner. Plus, the other way seems to me to demean both sexes, and set up all sorts of unpleasant ways of thinking and acting.

The external controls I mean are generally that "don't go here after dark, don't accept drinks, don't go out with too many people you don't know" all that advice from authority figures for women to follow - do these *external* things, so the poor men won't have to rely on their *internal* self control. I'm not sure and the perverted and transformed bit, it just seems wrong.

[Prunesquallor]

..The external controls I mean are generally that "don't go here after dark, don't accept drinks, don't go out with too many people you don't know" all that advice from authority figures for women to follow - do these *external* things, so the poor men won't have to rely on their *internal* self control. I'm not sure and the perverted and transformed bit, it just seems wrong.

It is especially fun when it comes to "if you don't do these things (dressing "appropriately," hiding at home), then you deserve to be punished - if you get raped it's only what you deserve blah" as poor deluded individuals so often seem to think. The mentality that it's punishment is heavily tied into the blaming the victim foolishness.

Frankly, this entire thread makes me nauseous.

[polaroid]

I'm quite bothered by the fact that the question "Sexual Assault: Does The Victim Share Responsibility?" hasn't been resolved in 23 pages.

Look in the back of the textbook: the answer is a resounding "no."

[Cygnus]

I'm quite bothered by the fact that the question "Sexual Assault: Does The Victim Share Responsibility?" hasn't been resolved in 23 pages.

Look in the back of the textbook: the answer is a resounding "no."

Agreed. I find disturbing and nauseating how limited in scope some people seem to think sexual assault applies.

[IrishGuy]

Rape is a simple matter. You commit rape when you have sexual intercourse with a non-consenting partner or partners. Alcohol or drugs are no excuse for this behavior, especially if there is one person who would have not consented to the acts.
Nobody is saying that it is an excuse for the behavior. I'm going to leave it at that since I'm still waiting to hear from my stepfather (lawyer 13 years) about this. I think he can provide a higher level of detail from which we can continue the debate.
The behaviors you've mentioned above can be construed as questionable but they are not criminal.
I don't think they are criminal, but they do inherently contribute to the situation.

Claiming that all women are seductive whores and that each and every male is a weak-minded sexual addict has the undertone of saying I am not responsible for my actions. This is bullshit and utterly infantile in its logic to claim "they made me do it!" if and when they are caught and prosecuted in court.
First of all you are making the assumption that only men are sex addicts and that only men commit rape, neither of which is true. Nobody, is saying "oh they made me do it!" Each party is still responsible for their actions. My theory does not change anything for perpetrators of rape, except to include more pre-emptive education. Nobody is saying that all women are seductive whores. The post-rape education would only apply in situations where "excessively risky" decision making was made. I have acknowledged that the definition of excessively risky is ambiguous. However, everything I have stated earlier would imply that this education is not meant to be administered to every sexual assault/rape victim. Thus, your claim that I am relieving the perpetrator of responsibility is bullshit.

The reality of the situation is that there are people addicted to sex. I'm saying we shouldn't lump all rapists together; that's naive and infantile. Some of them may have the capacity for rehabilitation.

I do not agree with imposing external control factors. It is one of those good in principle thoughts but they can be so quickly transformed and perverted into something completely different, stripping individuals of any shred of decency and liberty in the process.
Isn't the law an external control factor? Don't we mitigate the ability of that perversion to propagate by installing a series of checks and balances? Why couldn't you do the same with the education. One check/balance could be to require police to suggest the education if certain decisions were made according to a specified protocol. The recommended education would then be optional. Don't tell me that the protocol..blah blah blah. The police have protocol for arresting people; when they violate that they are subject to the law....Also, since the education is not a mandate, the actual protocols under which the education is recommended lack a significant capacity for abuse.

I think everyone is looking at this education and thinking that it is going to consist of telling the victim what an idiot they are or of a trial for the victim. In reality, a practical implementation would be to bundle the education as part of a victims broader recovery. Part of rape victim counseling could include ways to help prevent becoming a victim in the future. For instance, if someone got completely wasted, passed out, and was raped, suggest moderation instead. You don't have to antagonize them.


Your assessment of imposing external controls is indeed enforcing this constant cycle on victims which is a pessimistic view on humanity that they cannot be trusted to act accordingly ever.
I would agree with you but the education does not apply to everyone. Again, isn't the law itself an external control? The law is designed with the fact that humanity cannot be trusted to act accordingly. This is pessimistic but also realistic since it acknowledges that internal controls are helpful but not sufficient to stop crime.


The external controls I mean are generally that "don't go here after dark, don't accept drinks, don't go out with too many people you don't know" all that advice from authority figures for women to follow - do these *external* things, so the poor men won't have to rely on their *internal* self control. I'm not sure and the perverted and transformed bit, it just seems wrong.
If that's your definition of "external things" then all things are external, since children learn self-restraint and discipline from the people around them. The way I define "authority figures" is very broad. It can include, teachers, parents, mentors etc. By and large these people exist early in life and are not present in the same sense later in life, but the lessons have been learned (ideally) by the individual.





IrishGuy added to this post, 4 minutes and 36 seconds later...

I'm quite bothered by the fact that the question "Sexual Assault: Does The Victim Share Responsibility?" hasn't been resolved in 23 pages.

Look in the back of the textbook: the answer is a resounding "no."
Yes, and back in the day textbooks said the Earth was flat. I understand that under the current definitions the textbook says, no. I am questioning the textbook itself.

As for 23 pages, keep in mind that there have been multiple arguments in the thread (not all relating to the "responsibility of the victim"). Also, it was originally titled (poorly) "Sexual Assault: Does the Victim Share the Blame?"





IrishGuy added to this post, 5 minutes and 53 seconds later...

Agreed. I find disturbing and nauseating how limited in scope some people seem to think sexual assault applies.
Yes, there were a lot of people who did not seem to understand that rape is a type of sexual assault. That took a good 5 pages at least.

By and large we are not arguing general sexual assault anymore.

[daydreamer]

The reality of the situation is that there are people addicted to sex. I'm saying we shouldn't lump all rapists together; that's naive and infantile. Some of them may have the capacity for rehabilitation.


and what would you recommend?

btw, i do not think it is naive and infantile to call a spade a spade, people are calling it like they see it. what is arguably naive and infantile is to expect everyone to see it one way, simply because you believe that one way is open-minded and possibly then somehow morally superior.

[IrishGuy]

and what would you recommend?

btw, i do not think it is naive and infantile to call a spade a spade, people are calling it like they see it. what is arguably naive and infantile is to expect everyone to see it one way, simply because you believe that one way is open-minded and possibly then somehow morally superior.
I've been recommending......read the thread.

Exactly, which is why I am arguing against convention. It is naive and infantile to just assume that convention is right because it's been around a while. These things need to be continually questioned and updated.

You don't know what I believe. I am not claiming moral superiority anymore than anyone else on this thread. If anything, everyone else is doing that....

Some examples....

Agreed. I find disturbing and nauseating how limited in scope some people seem to think sexual assault applies.

I'm quite bothered by the fact that the question "Sexual Assault: Does The Victim Share Responsibility?" hasn't been resolved in 23 pages.

Look in the back of the textbook: the answer is a resounding "no."

It is especially fun when it comes to "if you don't do these things (dressing "appropriately," hiding at home), then you deserve to be punished - if you get raped it's only what you deserve blah" as poor deluded individuals so often seem to think. The mentality that it's punishment is heavily tied into the blaming the victim foolishness.

Frankly, this entire thread makes me nauseous.

[daydreamer]

I've been recommending......read the thread.

Exactly, which is why I am arguing against convention. It is naive and infantile to just assume that convention is right because it's been around a while. These things need to be continually questioned and updated.

You don't know what I believe. I am not claiming moral superiority anymore than anyone else on this thread. If anything, everyone else is doing that....

Some examples....


yep... i specifically wrote one, and one way, as opposed to you and your way because i wish to make the point apart from you. try as i might to do that in this thread, some people have told me that i have made them feel like they are a rapist's best friend, or something to that effect. i'm interested in discussing ideas... not assigning them to people. it is hard sometimes to use a language that will be understood that way.

i have seen you argue against convention, and for education of victims, or would-be victims. i have not seen you say anything about rehabilitation of rapists, until just the post that i previously quoted. what would you recommend?

[Prunesquallor]

You truly honestly believe that after a women has been raped, the best thing to do would be to sit the traumatised, abused creature down and say "now here's how this is your fault....better not do this next time! *pats head*"

[IrishGuy]

yep... i specifically wrote one, and one way, as opposed to you and your way because i wish to make the point apart from you. try as i might to do that in this thread, some people have told me that i have made them feel like they are a rapist's best friend, or something to that effect. i'm interested in discussing ideas... not assigning them to people. it is hard sometimes to use a language that will be understood that way.

i have seen you argue against convention, and for education of victims, or would-be victims. i have not seen you say anything about rehabilitation of rapists, until just the post that i previously quoted. what would you recommend?
The prospect of rehabilitation in this scenario is limited to sex addicts. This excerpt pretty much sums up what I would consider for rehab.
Treatment of sexual addiction focuses on controlling the addictive behavior and helping the person develop a healthy sexuality. Treatment includes education about healthy sexuality, individual counseling, and marital and/or family therapy. Support groups and 12 step recovery programs for people with sexual addictions (like Sex Addicts Anonymous) also are available. In some cases, medications used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder may be used to curb the compulsive nature of the sex addiction. These medications include Prozac and Anafranil.
The full info. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
This is more or less the extent of what they can do now. Keep in mind sexual addiction has not been recognized for that long.
You truly honestly believe that after a women has been raped, the best thing to do would be to sit the traumatised, abused creature down and say "now here's how this is your fault....better not do this next time! *pats head*"

Yes, I think I am morally superior to you. I also need to go throw up now.
READ! The following is from 5 posts above yours....

I think everyone is looking at this education and thinking that it is going to consist of telling the victim what an idiot they are or of a trial for the victim. In reality, a practical implementation would be to bundle the education as part of a victims broader recovery. Part of rape victim counseling could include ways to help prevent becoming a victim in the future. For instance, if someone got completely wasted, passed out, and was raped, suggest moderation instead. You don't have to antagonize them.

[Prunesquallor]

Of course it will antagonise them. Blaming a person for one of the most traumatic, horrifying experiences of their life would antagonise anyone. There is no way this is not offensive to someone who has been raped, and anyone with the least shred of empathy. I have read everything you have written, and your little plan will not succeed. They are more fully aware of consequences than you could ever be, and no one, however reckless, deserves this bullshit. That kind of pain will not be fixed, helped, alleviated in any way by blame. Indeed, a large part of the trauma of rape comes from victims miserably blaming themselves, and a lack of sympathy from people who will judge them for being a victim.

And "Aim for the toilet; you can't flush the sink" is, I am afraid, not remotely convincing as an analogy. It's just sick.

[firebee]

You know, just to point out: This question of "mandatory" education...

One could suggest that it's worthwhile to set aside funding for offering education, or counseling, or self-defense courses such as those offered by RAD Systems (scenario-based seminar offered primarily to women) to all victims of crimes or to anyone who wants it in a certain population or whatever. This would count as something resembling a courtesy, to say that we are going to provide these resources to people in order to assist their recovery from the wrong that has been done to them.

That isn't the option that I'm seeing proposed -- rather, it's to require such people to be educated in the error of their ways. This is supposedly not meant to be a penalty, but consider this: It does not take a rocket surgeon to realize that some people, when offered the lovely opportunity to have the accumulated all-knowing advice givers of the Internet offer criticism of their entirely noncriminal conduct in person (presumably having first been searched and relieved of any rotten tomatoes or similar items) that they may have better ways in mind for how to spend their evening. Washing their hair, for instance, comes to mind, or sorting their accumulated pocket change by year. If that person has recently suffered a stressful and traumatic experience related to the very subject at hand, I would consider it quite likely that they would suddenly come up with an immovable appointment to have their teeth drilled, or their leg hair lasered off, or their nipples tattooed.

In other words, your crime victims are going to be quite likely to politely decline the invitation to be further abused. Which brings us to the distinction between "offer" and "require" -- if you require someone to do something, then you have to have something in mind to penalize those people who refuse to do it. So what are you going to do with your crime victim now? Fine them? Imprison them? Refuse to prosecute the crime? That's what this suggestion ends in -- imposing actual sanctions on people who come in reporting that they have been victimized.

It's fairly obvious, I think, what would come of that: your crime statistics will come down quite a lot indeed -- because people are not going to care to be reporting crimes!

[IrishGuy]

You know, just to point out: This question of "mandatory" education...

One could suggest that it's worthwhile to set aside funding for offering education, or counseling, or self-defense courses such as those offered by RAD Systems (scenario-based seminar offered primarily to women) to all victims of crimes or to anyone who wants it in a certain population or whatever. This would count as something resembling a courtesy, to say that we are going to provide these resources to people in order to assist their recovery from the wrong that has been done to them.

That isn't the option that I'm seeing proposed -- rather, it's to require such people to be educated in the error of their ways. This is supposedly not meant to be a penalty, but consider this: It does not take a rocket surgeon to realize that some people, when offered the lovely opportunity to have the accumulated all-knowing advice givers of the Internet offer criticism of their entirely noncriminal conduct in person (presumably having first been searched and relieved of any rotten tomatoes or similar items) that they may have better ways in mind for how to spend their evening. Washing their hair, for instance, comes to mind, or sorting their accumulated pocket change by year. If that person has recently suffered a stressful and traumatic experience related to the very subject at hand, I would consider it quite likely that they would suddenly come up with an immovable appointment to have their teeth drilled, or their leg hair lasered off, or their nipples tattooed.

In other words, your crime victims are going to be quite likely to politely decline the invitation to be further abused. Which brings us to the distinction between "offer" and "require" -- if you require someone to do something, then you have to have something in mind to penalize those people who refuse to do it. So what are you going to do with your crime victim now? Fine them? Imprison them? Refuse to prosecute the crime? That's what this suggestion ends in -- imposing actual sanctions on people who come in reporting that they have been victimized.

It's fairly obvious, I think, what would come of that: your crime statistics will come down quite a lot indeed -- because people are not going to care to be reporting crimes!
As I have said before the implementation of the education is open for discussion. The last model I proposed involved requiring the police to recommend the education. That leaves the victim with the choice.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that if the education is implemented to antagonize it will antagonize. If it is implemented to be sensitive and "enlightening" then it will be that. How the education is implemented is critical to how the education will affect the victim. If I have not been clear enough, implementation is everything in this case.

Yes, I did start the thread by suggesting that the education be mandatory, but I have been persuaded to move away from that based on other people's arguments.

[daydreamer]

good rocket surgeonry there firebee.

yeah the whole notion of 'risky behaviors' needing correcting. i find it hard to believe so many men are actually in favor of a reduction of the number of strippers and the amount of porn... unless somehow those behaviors are specially sanctioned?

[Prunesquallor]

There are already voluntary self defence classes, counselling, which must get recommended to these people thirty times a day as it stands - well, not where the Taliban are in charge, but around here - as well as a few mandatory self-defence classes in high school (when the guys got to play football).

Forcing even a recommendation on anyone is foolish, especially when they are not the problem. Police are welcome to recommend counselling, just not to make offensive suggestions about blame to an already fragile, traumatised person who, thanks to society, probably unfairly blames themself anyway. There is a difference. Helping the person cope with what happened to them is more important than pointing out things they "did wrong"

[IrishGuy]

good rocket surgeonry there firebee.

yeah the whole notion of 'risky behaviors' needing correcting. i find it hard to believe so many men are actually in favor of a reduction of the number of strippers and the amount of porn... unless somehow those behaviors are specially sanctioned?

Well, porn sets are not open to the general public (they're in controlled environments is what i'm saying). The people involved are paid to do what they do and they do this on a set. You can't rape a pornstar through your computer screen.

Strip clubs are still controlled environments for the strippers anyways. Club owners don't want their strippers (particularly the big earners) to be sexually assaulted. It's bad for business. Consumers who lose it and sexually assault the strippers are going to be thrown out. The strippers have protection in the form of bouncers and club owners. Essentially, the fact that the stripper is a commodity makes the stripping less risky. Although, the fact that the stripper is a commodity is also why I don't like strip clubs (the relationship between customer and stripper is too shallow for my INTJ personality to handle).

Knowing where most strip clubs are located. I would say that the stripper is not at "excessive risk" until they step out the door...

I think it would primarily be the responsibility of the club owner to ensure that the area surrounding the club (back door/alley, parking lot etc.) is safe for the strippers (employees). Thus, in this situation it would be the club owners placing the strippers at "excessive risk." Minimally, clubs should be required to meet stringent standards for the back doors and the parking lots of these establishments to ensure that the strippers can safely reach transportation (clubs should incur the cost). The cost of implementing these changes would also reduce the number of strip clubs. You could apply this to the locations for porn sets too. I don't know if it would be necessary in that instance. I don't know where porn sets are usually located.

[firebee]

Forcing even a recommendation on anyone is foolish, especially when they are not the problem.

True, if one is making some sort of determination of blame -- but I'm thinking that having a non-mandatory resource list available to victims (regardless of their (spit) purity factor) should be standard practice if it's not already. And if we want to fork up money for a given course of counseling -- X number of sessions with a LPC per victim of crimes A, B, and C, say -- that might be a good public service.

The victim can then decide, alone or with the help of their counselor, what they want to do as far as lifestyle changes, educational courses, et cetera, in order to return to a feeling of security. There are already such resources available -- if a person wants to take a short course in self-defense, there's RAD Systems and their ilk, if someone wants to train long-term in a martial art there is a karate shack on every corner, and if someone wants to take up ching ching pao the NRA offers a series of courses aimed at the beginner. For that matter, I'm thinking that any chain bookstore is going to offer at least a couple titles that are useful for beginner-level crime avoidance. I fail to see the gap where someone is likely to be voluntarily searching for learning but is unable to find it.

[daydreamer]

Well, porn sets are not open to the general public (they're in controlled environments is what i'm saying). The people involved are paid to do what they do and they do this on a set. You can't rape a pornstar through your computer screen.


you can't?

it is not unheard of in the porn industry that porn stars choose that industry because of a cycle of abuse. i'm not going further with that one.


Strip clubs are still controlled environments for the strippers anyways. Club owners don't want their strippers (particularly the big earners) to be sexually assaulted. It's bad for business. Consumers who lose it and sexually assault the strippers are going to be thrown out. The strippers have protection in the form of bouncers and club owners. Essentially, the fact that the stripper is a commodity makes the stripping less risky. Although, the fact that the stripper is a commodity is also why I don't like strip clubs (the relationship between customer and stripper is too shallow for my INTJ personality to handle).

Knowing where most strip clubs are located. I would say that the stripper is not at "excessive risk" until they step out the door...

I think it would be the responsibility of the club owner to ensure that the area surrounding the club (back door/alley, parking lot etc.) is safe for the strippers (employees). Thus, in this situation it would be the club owners placing the strippers at "excessive risk." Minimally, clubs should be required to meet stringent standards for the back doors and the parking lots of these establishments to ensure that the strippers can safely reach transportation (clubs should incur the cost). The cost of implementing these changes would also reduce the number of strip clubs. You could apply this to the locations for porn sets too. I don't know if it would be necessary in that instance. I don't know where porn sets are usually located.

do you deny that there are men and women who have the philosophy that strippers and porn stars deserve sexual assault?

[firebee]

you can't?

I'm thinking that any attempt to rape someone through a computer screen is going to cause embarrassing damage to either their equipment or their "equipment".


do you deny that there are men and women who have the philosophy that strippers and porn stars deserve sexual assault?

There are such folks, but how is that relevant to the present conversation?

[IrishGuy]

you can't?

it is not unheard of in the porn industry that porn stars choose that industry because of a cycle of abuse. i'm not going further with that one.
Ahh. I thought you were arguing about something else. You could regulate that through background checks I suppose...


do you deny that there are men and women who have the philosophy that strippers and porn stars deserve sexual assault?
No, there are people who think like that. (I suppose you're going to try and draw me into a corner here)

[daydreamer]

There are such folks, but how is that relevant to the present conversation?

well in my generation we'd call that behavior risky... i think them strippers oughta straighten up and fly straight... mandatory convent !

i'm being facetious of course. curious to his idea of 'risky behaviors' although he admits he does not have a definition. so i'm giving him some people's definition, which purports to desire the end of all things stripper and porn. what is the middle ground when you're trying to classify extreme behaviors. he sounds like he wants his cheesecake and to eat it too.

also seems women can strip and engage in porn, btw, when it is sanctioned by and protected by men... hmm.... but if they do anything risky on their own behalf... walking down porn alley for instance, without protection from a man... well that's just unacceptably risky !!

i think there is a serious problem with that thinking, whether the person thinking it sees and agrees with what i think is the naturally extending absurdity of it... i do not want to live within the confines of that absurdity.

[IrishGuy]

well in my generation we'd call that behavior risky... i think them strippers oughta straighten up and fly straight... mandatory convent !

i'm being facetious of course. curious to his idea of 'risky behaviors' although he admits he does not have a definition. so i'm giving him some people's definition, which purports to desire the end of all things stripper and porn. what is the middle ground when you're trying to classify extreme behaviors. he sounds like he wants his cheesecake and to eat it too.

also seems women can strip and engage in porn, btw, when it is sanctioned by and protected by men... hmm.... but if they do anything risky on their own behalf... walking down porn alley for instance, without protection from a man... well that's just unacceptably risky !!

i think there is a serious problem with that thinking, whether the person thinking it sees and agrees with what i think is the naturally extending absurdity of it... i do not want to live within the confines of that absurdity.
I just said "strippers" and "bouncers" and "pornstars" I did not assign a gender to the people.

EDIT: I specifically refrained from assigning genders because I am not analyzing this based upon genders. I am analyzing this in terms of situations. Your comments are only an effort to imply some sort of sexist bias. You have done this before....it only distracts from the discussion. If you're going to imply a gender bias please support with more evidence or drop it and come up with a counter argument.




IrishGuy added to this post, 0 minutes and 41 seconds later...

Ironically, most of the people that I know who go to strip clubs to see strippers are women going to see men...
Then again I have many more female friends than male....2:1 so maybe that explains it.

[rickster]

Well, porn sets are not open to the general public (they're in controlled environments is what i'm saying). The people involved are paid to do what they do and they do this on a set. You can't rape a pornstar through your computer screen.

Strip clubs are still controlled environments for the strippers anyways. Club owners don't want their strippers (particularly the big earners) to be sexually assaulted. It's bad for business. Consumers who lose it and sexually assault the strippers are going to be thrown out. The strippers have protection in the form of bouncers and club owners. Essentially, the fact that the stripper is a commodity makes the stripping less risky. Although, the fact that the stripper is a commodity is also why I don't like strip clubs (the relationship between customer and stripper is too shallow for my INTJ personality to handle).

Knowing where most strip clubs are located. I would say that the stripper is not at "excessive risk" until they step out the door...

I think it would primarily be the responsibility of the club owner to ensure that the area surrounding the club (back door/alley, parking lot etc.) is safe for the strippers (employees). Thus, in this situation it would be the club owners placing the strippers at "excessive risk." Minimally, clubs should be required to meet stringent standards for the back doors and the parking lots of these establishments to ensure that the strippers can safely reach transportation (clubs should incur the cost). The cost of implementing these changes would also reduce the number of strip clubs. You could apply this to the locations for porn sets too. I don't know if it would be necessary in that instance. I don't know where porn sets are usually located.

Well you don't seem to know much at all about either industry - I've worked in, or been associated with, both.

1. Porn sets are closed to the public because the public i.e. males who would be interested invariably lack the basic respect and intelligence to tell the difference between entertainment and reality.

2. Het male porn performers - pretty much to a man - don't work if their attitudes towards women aren't consistently free of a sexist mindset. Their audience could learn a lot from them: they can still get it up, and not have any problem seeing the women they have sex with as total equals who are respected as just that. I've never even heard of a set - or a performer - where this wasn't the case.

3. Strippers are entertainers - not commodities, as you contemptuously put it. No performer or entertainer's job includes handling from the audience - be it rock'n'roll, stripping or a magic act. There is no relationship between stripper and audience that's any different from any other performance, and to assume differently is the arrogance of a derogatory mindet.

Strippers should get protection on- and offstage to no greater degree than any performer. Overtly sexual acts as performance don't determine an "extra need for protection": that's a silent nod to the ongoing fallacious argument that incitement is a reason for "protection".

[IrishGuy]

3. Strippers are entertainers - not commodities, as you contemptuously put it. No performer or entertainer's job includes handling from the audience - be it rock'n'roll, stripping or a magic act. There is no relationship between stripper and audience that's any different from any other performance, and to assume differently is the arrogance of a derogatory mindet.

Strippers should get protection on- and offstage to no greater degree than any performer. Overtly sexual acts as performance don't determine an "extra need for protection": that's a silent nod to the ongoing fallacious argument that incitement is a reason for "protection".
Commodity: Something useful that can be turned to commercial advantage.
Asset: A useful or valuable quality, person or thing.
Strippers are entertainers, they are people, they are assets and they are commodities. Their product is their body and their performing skills.

The line of questioning that I was addressing was limited to strippers and porn.

good rocket surgeonry there firebee.

yeah the whole notion of 'risky behaviors' needing correcting. i find it hard to believe so many men are actually in favor of a reduction of the number of strippers and the amount of porn... unless somehow those behaviors are specially sanctioned?

The explanation of the security measures was to show that the clubs mitigate the risk to the performers. The proposed property requirements were for security from crimes. Since the thread is about sexual assault/rape. I make my explanation in reference to those crimes. Nobody asked about if this treatment was special or not. That just wasn't a question. You just assumed that without asking it first.

[daydreamer]

EDIT: I specifically refrained from assigning genders because I am not analyzing this based upon genders. I am analyzing this in terms of situations. Your comments are only an effort to imply some sort of sexist bias. You have done this before....it only distracts from the discussion. If you're going to imply a gender bias please support with more evidence or drop it and come up with a counter argument.


you're right. my mistake.

so... you're talking about situations... if i follow you so far: correcting some of the behavior of some people some of the time who do some things but we can't describe what those things are or who exactly did what but we're sure that some of it is wrong and criminal and some of it is contributing -- of that we're sure and it certainly needs addressing. and there was also something thrown in about how some of those people can be rehabilitated if they are also some of these other people but we dont' know if they are but we're assuming there is a strong case for believing so, but all that stuff is new so we can't be sure, but since we can't say who anyone is anyway, then how do we know? wait scratch that i didn't mean to question you by making you describe something.

what are you talking about? no scratch that too.

did i finally get it right?

btw, i still think you're arguments are fallacious.

[rickster]

Strippers are entertainers, they are people, they are assets and they are commodities. Their product is their body and their performing skills.

Wrong. Their product is their labor. Their body as regards to their labor is no different to a fat middle-aged dude who swings a pick-axe to put food on the table. Perceptions of otherwise are naturally rooted in sexual objectification...unless of course you whack off to both, and wouldn't of course be able to tell the difference. :laugh:

[IrishGuy]

Wrong. Their product is their labor. Their body as regards to their labor is no different to a fat middle-aged dude who swings a pick-axe to put food on the table. Perceptions of otherwise are naturally rooted in sexual objectification...unless of course you whack off to both, and wouldn't of course be able to tell the difference. :laugh:
Unfortunately their bodies and their skills determine how valuable they are to their employer. Whatever gets the most money is what the owners want. Not saying that it's fair or right; just the way it is. We live in a relatively capitalist society.

Sexual objectification: that's why I don't like strip clubs. Most of my time at strip clubs was spent acting as a DD. The guys I know finally got those clubs out of their system after a about a year.

EDIT: Stripping for money is not objectification? They're selling their appearance.





IrishGuy added to this post, 6 minutes and 27 seconds later...

you're right. my mistake.

so... you're talking about situations... if i follow you so far: correcting some of the behavior of some people some of the time who do some things but we can't describe what those things are or who exactly did what but we're sure that some of it is wrong and criminal and some of it is contributing -- of that we're sure and it certainly needs addressing. and there was also something thrown in about how some of those people can be rehabilitated if they are also some of these other people but we dont' know if they are but we're assuming there is a strong case for believing so, but all that stuff is new so we can't be sure, but since we can't say who anyone is anyway, then how do we know? wait scratch that i didn't mean to question you by making you describe something.

what are you talking about? no scratch that too.

did i finally get it right?

btw, i still think you're arguments are fallacious.
I'm just not analyzing the problem according to gender. According to situations. Both genders can find themselves any of the situations. Sex addicts can be men and women etc. All of these things cut across both genders; not equally but, I think it is wise to leave gender out of it because it distracts people from the general situations that both genders can find themselves in. Also, it pollutes the discussion with accusations and sexual biases....etc.





IrishGuy added to this post, 9 minutes and 23 seconds later...

As for thinking that my arguments are still fallacious. I have not been convinced that they are fallacious. We've argued pretty much everything; some things more than once. So if I have not persuaded you and you have not persuaded me in the 24 pages of posts then it is probably not going to happen....

[Prunesquallor]

True, if one is making some sort of determination of blame -- but I'm thinking that having a non-mandatory resource list available to victims (regardless of their (spit) purity factor) should be standard practice if it's not already. And if we want to fork up money for a given course of counseling -- X number of sessions with a LPC per victim of crimes A, B, and C, say -- that might be a good public service.

I'm pretty sure that already happens. I don't know if there is funds for counselling - I wouldn't be surprised if something is covered here, probably not in your country, though. But I haven't done that research so I do not know for sure.

And I don't think anyone has any quarrel with that sort of aid, because it is helpful.
It's the shoving judgement down their throat part that's the issue. And the "helpful" listing of all the victim did that was "their own fault."

[IrishGuy]

It's the 1)shoving judgement down their throat part that's the issue. And the 2)"helpful" listing of all the victim did that was "their own fault."

1)This is implementation dependent. The latest model proposed that the police be required to suggest the education in some cases. Is is then up the victim. By only suggesting the education to certain victims based upon a set of criteria a differentiation can be made between victims (remember wayyyy back; the two Irvine sexual assault examples) without resorting to outright victim blaming.

2)Again, this is implementation dependent. If you tell them this whole thing was your fault it will antagonize them. If you put it in terms of how they can help themselves the education will help to restore lost confidence (you have more control of your circumstances).

[firebee]

By only suggesting the education to certain victims based upon a set of criteria a differentiation can be made between victims (remember wayyyy back; the two Irvine sexual assault examples) without resorting to outright victim blaming.

We must by all means be subtle in our victim-blaming.

Where is the benefit in only offering education to certain victims, as opposed to all victims or the general public (with a reference on some hypothetical victim resource directory)?

[Prunesquallor]

1)This is implementation dependent. The latest model proposed that the police be required to suggest the education in some cases. Is is then up the victim. ..blah blah.

It is always and only up to the victim. Trying to determine who is more 'responsible' for being attacked by an entirely different person with full responsibility for their own actions is still playing into a foolish, patronising, and insulting (though sadly typical) mentality.

Probably most people after being raped would wish to learn how to defend themselves, and would appreciate any pointers on resources - but more along the line of how to remove people's kneecaps than what length of skirt to wear, what nice girls are allowed to drink, and where they require strong manly chaperones to preserve their virtue. Yeesh.

The point being, they may want to learn how to deal with fools who do not take no for an answer, but they should not be taught, especially as a mandatory "education," the rationale behind these sick people's delusions and the sorts of things that lead into their sense of entitlement and desire to punish. I know georgie, for one, is very insistent that he can empathise with rapists, but I can't say that I consider it an admirable quality, or one that should be taught to their victims. Or that people who can empathise with these shits ought have any say in what should be done to the victims.

Effective violence and self-defense is helpful, learning the sick twisted rationale of rapists that want to blame the victims - this should not be taught as if it had any validity. It does not have any. Period.

[Tough Love]

This is actually getting to the point of senselessness. If a woman and her husband get drunk and he provokes her to the point that she picks up a baseball bat and hits him with it (always a baseball bat ;) ) is she not liable for domestic violence? If he chooses not to charge, it is his problem, but thats what it is. Clear and simple.
How can there be so much confusion, its baffling me.

[DanteFalling]

Ok and you believe everyone who says that that they're actually going to give you a ride home? That's sort of naive. All I'm saying is that they met under dubious circumstances and that's enough to trust someone? You have to do better than that if you want to protect yourself, there's a lot of people out there who want to hurt you. Unfortunately women are more in danger from men than men are in danger from women in these sort of scenarios and need to up their precautions. Is that so illogical?

So, does someone DESERVE to get touched/raped/assaulted/molested because they are naive?

The only issue I take with this is that it's the reason victims of sexual and other abuse don't come out about it and protect others: social repercussions. At my university two years ago, we had a serial rapist and murderer on the loose for months longer because some victims didn't come forward until others did months later. Valuable evidence and information was lost, and someone died.

Demonizing victims, especially women for choosing to wear the "wrong" clothing, going out with the "wrong" dates, and not wearing the right hijab, is STUPID.

You can't know someone is going to rape you. You can guess at the likelihood someone has control issues, etc.

Suggestions, YES.
Useful information, YES.

Condemnation, WTF?