Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Feminist: Downgrade the crime of rape
Friday, November 22, 2013 11:31 PM
BYTEMITE
Quote:At this point you are being wholly disingenuous.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:05 AM
AGENTROUKA
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: From this, however, you should not disregard male rape victims. You also shouldn't disregard rape among the gay male scene. (...) I'm not picking this fight for women. I'm picking it for everyone. Everything I've been saying goes equally for guys and girls. Sounds to me like AR was too.
Quote: It is a RISK. That is why we've been calling it a legal GRAY AREA.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 7:17 AM
FREMDFIRMA
Quote:"Don't sleep with people who cannot give consent, and when in doubt say no" I really don't think a single poster here disagrees with that Frem. I think the distinction is some of us think that women can drink responsibly and give consent that doesn't get revoked and mean jail the next day if they decide to change their minds.
Quote:So no, it's not so much a feminist issue as it is a humanist issue. So, straight men? Stop being so defensive. We're talking about your safety, as well.
Quote:I also really resent this "You're making feminism look bad by being so uptight" angle. I am stating and defending my personal opinion on a particular subject here and I will not be giving a damn about what it makes you feel about feminism. I'm also quite certain feminism isn't out to be popular with people made to feel defensive by it. I rejoice in all people who embrace equality among genders ("allies?") but I'm not going to buy their regard by pretending to feel differently about this issue.
Quote:Another thing I reject is the blanket mistrust against victims, this idea that because they have the opportunity to report something as a crime, the default would be an abuse of that law - and in order to prevent abuse, the law should be less rather than more inclusive. Considering how small the percentage of false rape accusations is even when compared only to reported rapes, this points to some paranoid fear of spiteful liars rather than a reasonable approach to a solid danger. (Sorta like voter fraud?) People already have that opportunity and it is barely happening, barely at all. What is everyone afraid of here? Why the constant mirage of false accusations when all we ask for is that you acknowledge the risk and responsibility involved in intoxicated sex?
Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by G: Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: These are two statements of Byte's I want to underline as fully agreeing with: …You also shouldn't disregard rape among the gay male scene. I'm not picking this fight for women. I'm picking it for everyone. Everything I've been saying goes equally for guys and girls. And It is a RISK. That is why we've been calling it a legal GRAY AREA. I think everyone in this thread agrees with both - please point out who doesn’t so they can discuss or explain.
Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: These are two statements of Byte's I want to underline as fully agreeing with: …You also shouldn't disregard rape among the gay male scene. I'm not picking this fight for women. I'm picking it for everyone. Everything I've been saying goes equally for guys and girls. And It is a RISK. That is why we've been calling it a legal GRAY AREA.
Quote: Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: I have very deliberately been inclusive of both genders in particular with gay men and women in mind. They, too, can be at risk and frequently are. So no, it's not so much a feminist issue as it is a humanist issue. So, straight men? Stop being so defensive. We're talking about your safety, as well. I’m not being defensive as much as incredulous.
Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: I have very deliberately been inclusive of both genders in particular with gay men and women in mind. They, too, can be at risk and frequently are. So no, it's not so much a feminist issue as it is a humanist issue. So, straight men? Stop being so defensive. We're talking about your safety, as well.
Quote: Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: I also really resent this "You're making feminism look bad by being so uptight" angle. I am stating and defending my personal opinion on a particular subject here and I will not be giving a damn about what it makes you feel about feminism. I'm also quite certain feminism isn't out to be popular with people made to feel defensive by it. I rejoice in all people who embrace equality among genders ("allies?") but I'm not going to buy their regard by pretending to feel differently about this issue.) I assume you are referring to what I said, but it’s you who added “so uptight.” Anything else I didn’t say that you want to attribute to me? I think you and Byte have painted women in some instances (drink) as weak and victims waiting to happen.
Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: I also really resent this "You're making feminism look bad by being so uptight" angle. I am stating and defending my personal opinion on a particular subject here and I will not be giving a damn about what it makes you feel about feminism. I'm also quite certain feminism isn't out to be popular with people made to feel defensive by it. I rejoice in all people who embrace equality among genders ("allies?") but I'm not going to buy their regard by pretending to feel differently about this issue.)
Quote: Hell yeah! You don’t get that someone wants to have a pleasurable experience without jail time looming over their head? Really?
Quote: >>>> Line of the thread: <<<< Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: I am not saying you can't or should never sleep with drunk people. *** balloons, confetti, sirens, prizes ***
Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: I am not saying you can't or should never sleep with drunk people.
Quote: Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: I am saying that any time you do you have to acknowledge the risk you are taking and assume that responsibility. You make it sound like “the risk” is getting a cold or a crick in the neck. We’re talking years in jail + , absolute loss of everything, because someone changes their mind in the morning.
Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: I am saying that any time you do you have to acknowledge the risk you are taking and assume that responsibility.
Quote: That concept is not getting through. How about this: Man and women (divorced, single parents) have dinner, both have drinks. He drives her home, she invites him up and makes the first advances. Man accepts, they have sex. The next morning, the man is having doubts. He ends up calling the police and pressing rape charges. It’s found out the man was taking anti-depressants and that mixing those clouded his mind and that since she was the aggressor it was indeed rape and the jury agrees and she spends the next 10 years in jail, away from her kids. Fair or Foul? His responsibility or hers? Or no ones? Even better - they both file rape charges.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:48 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:What is everyone afraid of here? Why the constant mirage of false accusations when all we ask for is that you acknowledge the risk and responsibility involved in intoxicated sex?
Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:02 PM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Quote:At this point you are being wholly disingenuous. Yes, because someone who disagrees with you is lying. Man, whatever, you haven't been honest in your approach this whole time. It's why I've been getting pissed off at you. So fine, you want a conviction for just one drink? You want ONE MORE CITE? http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19911119&slug=1318125 Not having sex with someone even if they've only had one drink is good advice. You could be convicted. And even if you aren't, or if you appeal it and get the conviction overturned, just the report could ruin your reputation. It is a RISK. That is why we've been calling it a legal GRAY AREA. But you're going to make me do more goddamn legwork aren't you? Dig deep down and shovel up some other angle of attack that we've ALREADY COVERED after I have exhaustively argued my case. By refusing to acknowledge a logical conclusion after all the premises have been meet and demanding citation after citation you can actually make people rage quit a conversation with you! Congratulations! You win! I mean that's all you want to hear right? You couldn't give a damn less about consent issues, I'm sure.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:08 PM
Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:33 PM
Quote:Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA: Oh for the love o' cryin mercy shut UP Dreamtrove. You've already outed yourself repeatedly in this thread and everybody KNOWS your pre-existing issues and biases so just quit embarassing yourself further. And yes, I KNOW it's you - anyone with doubts can contact Kwicko as well to confirm this assertion, cause this farce, and your dumbass excuses, have long since run their course. -Frem
Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: And yes, I KNOW it's you - anyone with doubts can contact Kwicko as well to confirm this assertion, cause this farce, and your dumbass excuses, have long since run their course.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:00 PM
Quote:Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA: Fine, ask him too - BOTH of us have caught you out red handed, dickhead. Oh, I'm sorry, you thought that was any kind of SECRET ??!! We've humored your dumb misogynistoc ass far longer than we shoulda. -Frem
Saturday, November 23, 2013 7:20 PM
Quote: Wow, just what I have said one drink would not be enough unless there was other circumstances....like a fucking sleeping pill.
Quote: Still your point is moot. You could be convicted if the person is a really good liar, no alcohol needed.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 7:39 PM
MAL4PREZ
Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:23 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: And what have *I* been repeatedly saying? That medical interactions with alcohol can make one drink sufficient! The article I linked describes EXACTLY the situation I've been talking about. And that you're still trying to find any means to deny I've got a point (as I predicted) after I've provided everything you've asked for in terms of proof reflects badly on you.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE:THAT IS MY POINT! I am saying that caution is needed! Even in the case of one single drink of alcohol because there is no way for you to know all the particulars that could either implicate you or release you from liability! They could lie using the ONE DRINK of alcohol as grounds, or they could be under the effect of medicine or some other condition that makes their reaction to alcohol unpredictable, or in some cases they could really BE that susceptible to alcohol (or certain proofs) without anything else! You are being dense on purpose and I'm tired of it.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:30 PM
Quote:Originally posted by MAL4PREZ: One of many things I find annoying about certain arguments in this thread is that claim that: oh, a rape victim may actually be someone who "changed their mind" and falsely accused an innocent non-rapist so therefore the laws must remain weak. The accused would go through such distress, and we can't have that, no matter the cost to the multitude of real rape victims out there. There is constant daily proof of the raped not being able to report rape, or of being actively harassed and bullied when they speak up so that the process of reporting it is almost worse than the rape itself. (Really, google Yale rape, or Daisy Coleman, or Steubenville, or rape in the military.) So how many false accusations are there compared to the number of woman who never get justice and have their lives ruined beyond repair? But no, some people clearly put the legal security of one or two falsely accused rapists far above the personal safety and sanity of the thousands who are raped and browbeat into accepting it as their due, with no recourse and no way of stopping the rapist from striking again. It's like RWAs claiming that 2 cases of voter fraud is justification for taking away the voting rights of thousands. There is no actual factual basis in it, no fairness. It's all about trying to maintain a power imbalance. Gods help them if the meek ever get their shit together and rise up.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:33 PM
Quote:So some caution is advised but living by a hard fast rule of not having sex with anyone that has had even a single drop is over board.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:35 PM
Quote:Rape convictions are indeed very low compared to other crimes. This is in part because rape is difficult to prove - there are often no witnesses, little physical evidence, and it’s a matter of his word against hers. Over the past few years the rape conviction rate has fallen further - the numbers of rape cases have shot up while successful convictions increased only marginally - but this is largely the result of the government’s redefinition of rape. More cases are reaching court that no sensible man or woman would call rape: drunken students who woke up the morning after and couldn’t remember what they had done, for example. There was another view in 1970s feminism, which held that rape should be seen as a crime of violence. This is an argument we could do with dusting off today. These feminists - including Germaine Greer - argued that rape had nothing to do with normal sexual attraction: it was about power and degradation, just like other physical assaults. One feminist blog, Den of the Biting Beaver (motto: ‘gnawing away at sexism and misogyny’), put this case recently: ‘Rape is not sex. Sex is not rape. We cannot allow this confusion to escalate or continue. Men rape, not because a woman is sexually attractive to them, but because he wants to get his orgasm from the degradation and control that he is wielding over his victim.’ (2) The ‘rape is violence’ feminists were arguing against a dominant view that saw rape as a ‘crime of passion’, the idea that men raped because they saw a sexy woman and couldn’t help themselves. ‘She was wearing a short skirt, y’honour.’ Greerite feminists argued that rape should be tried like other acts of violence. Rape occurs when a man forces himself on a woman, and the woman resists. There should be no doubt that a crime is being committed: this is a question of assault, not of him neglecting to check for consent at every stage of proceedings. As the individualist feminist Wendy McElroy argued in an essay, ‘The New Mythology of Rape’: ‘Regarding consent the crucial question is, of course, “has a woman agreed to have sex?” It is not: has she been talked into it, bribed, manipulated, filled with regret, drunk too much or ingested drugs. And, in an act that rarely has an explicit “yes” attached to it, the touchstone of consent in sex has to be the presence or absence of physical force.’ (3) As well as proof of physical force, a rape conviction requires the presence of a ‘guilty mind’. That is, the man must have intentionally committed rape, just as a person must have intended to murder in order to be convicted.
Quote:Yet rape is difficult to prosecute precisely because it is, sometimes, a matter of his word against hers. There are often no witnesses and little circumstantial evidence, particularly in cases of acquaintance rape. It is very difficult to establish the truth in rape cases, but that does not mean that truth should have no bearing on the outcome of a rape case in court. Yet, with the blessing of the government and various feminists, some important legal safeguards have been eroded in rape cases and the burden of proof has been reversed. Rather than the prosecutor having to prove that the woman did not consent, the defendant now must prove that the woman did consent. Women are done no favours by these changes. They are being treated as feeble dimwits who have constantly to be asked for their consent, to be checked on every step of the way to make sure they’re okay. It is curious that self-described feminists are propounding such a paternalistic view of women as unable to make their own minds up, as too weak and silly to say ‘no’ to men, and as putting themselves at risk by drinking and flirting and potentially knocking out their critical faculties, leading them to wake up in a strange bed without having first given their ‘active consent’.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Ugh. If you're willing to take that risk, then I'd say you're foolish and reckless and the opinion about lowered inhibitions is concerning, but whatever. It's not my job to protect you from your own choices and I said my piece.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:43 PM
Quote:There is constant daily proof of the raped not being able to report rape, or of being actively harassed and bullied when they speak up so that the process of reporting it is almost worse than the rape itself. (Really, google Yale rape, or Daisy Coleman, or Steubenville, or rape in the military.)
Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:51 PM
Quote:The magazine focuses on issues of freedom and state control, science and technology. It seeks to counter positions such as multiculturalism, environmentalism and what they see as a recent trend in Western foreign policy: humanitarian intervention.[6] Spiked claims that it opposes all forms of censorship, by the state or otherwise. Its writers call for a repeal of libel,[7] hate speech[8] and incitement[9][10] laws. They have criticised laws targeted at paedophiles.[11] Spiked also regularly critique risk society; animal rights; political correctness; and environmentalism. As regards the latter, a particular Spiked target has been what they see as "exaggerated" and "hysterical" interpretations of the scientific consensus on global warming.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by G: Quote:Originally posted by MAL4PREZ: One of many things I find annoying about certain arguments in this thread is that claim that: oh, a rape victim may actually be someone who "changed their mind" and falsely accused an innocent non-rapist so therefore the laws must remain weak. The accused would go through such distress, and we can't have that, no matter the cost to the multitude of real rape victims out there. I find everything you say after "therefore" to be frustrating and rather presumptuous. "therefore the laws must remain weak." No. The laws must do BOTH, favor the victim and protect the innocent. "The accused would go through such distress, and we can't have that, no matter the cost to the multitude of real rape victims out there." Hogwarts shit, those are your words wrongly applied, and wrongly presumed. Believe it or not, Rapists are hated by men as well. I detest anyone who would prey on another, and would celebrate their conviction.
Quote:Originally posted by MAL4PREZ: One of many things I find annoying about certain arguments in this thread is that claim that: oh, a rape victim may actually be someone who "changed their mind" and falsely accused an innocent non-rapist so therefore the laws must remain weak. The accused would go through such distress, and we can't have that, no matter the cost to the multitude of real rape victims out there.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:00 PM
Quote:Originally posted by G: No. The laws must do BOTH, favor the victim and protect the innocent.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:23 PM
Quote:Spiked is a front magazine for the UK version of teapartiers. Which you probably know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_%28magazine%29
Quote:This "dimwitted" female would much prefer protections under the law exist for rape victims who were unconscious at the time, thanks.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:38 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:43 PM
Quote: innocent men having to modify their behaviour and ask permission in the midst of sexual passion
Quote:and some women feeling demeaned
Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:52 PM
Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:59 AM
Quote:Originally posted by G: Your original post seemed to have problems with what some people posted here and not directed at the world we live in. If that's not the case then yeah, double duh.
Sunday, November 24, 2013 1:18 PM
Quote:A lot must be thought of before having sex, a lot besides: will this feel good right here right now? I see some posters here boo-hoo-ing about having to take a moment to ponder reality before they dive in. Certain posters seem to believe they need to worry about it less because it's not their bodies and minds and spirits that will get all whacky as a result of an unintended violent encounter.
Quote:Quote: and some women feeling demeaned Gee, I'm sorry they feel coddled by rape laws. *boggle*
Sunday, November 24, 2013 11:48 PM
Monday, November 25, 2013 7:22 AM
Monday, November 25, 2013 2:55 PM
Monday, November 25, 2013 4:10 PM
Quote:I almost agree with Byte about the 'enthusiastic participation' criteria, except it would be very hard to define.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL