REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Feminist: Downgrade the crime of rape

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Monday, November 25, 2013 16:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 13697
PAGE 4 of 4

Friday, November 22, 2013 11:31 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:05 AM

AGENTROUKA


These are two statements of Byte's I want to underline as fully agreeing with:

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.



(I am, thank you.)

And

Quote:


It is a RISK. That is why we've been calling it a legal GRAY AREA.



1) 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 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.)


2) And the main point of my argument is that the inherent RISK should be acknowledged and respected.

It seems to me that some on the other side of the argument desire there to be a definite safe line of how intoxicated a person can be and it's definitely never going to be called rape. So they don't have to be on the defensive, don't have to constantly consider and weigh certain risks, don't have to err on the side of caution.

I vehemently reject that.

I am not saying you can't or should never sleep with drunk people. I am saying that any time you do you have to acknowledge the risk you are taking and assume that responsibility.

Why? Because as it is happening intoxication and ability to judge and give consent are fluid. It varies from person to person, from day to day and even during the time that alcohol is processed. You cannot KNOW how affected a person is, and this becomes more difficult the less you know the person. This is why I say you can't know if there was violation until afterward, because while it is happening you cannot measure their state against their unimpaired condition. It is NECESSARILY judged afterwards. Victims don't "change their mind", they come into their right mind and make an assessment of what happened.

The certainty you want does not exist. It's a big grey blob of uncertain risk.

Does taking that drunk woman up on her advances automatically make you a rapist? No, certainly not. Should you have the balls to accept that you're taking a gamble? Yes. Should you assume that responsibility if there is trouble afterwards? Yes. Should a woman's feelings afterwards be immediately dismissed as "regret" or some irrational inability to tell apart personal anger from having been a victim of non-consensual sex? No no no. Which leads me to...

3) 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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 7:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA



G
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.



So we're picking nits here for the sake of picking nits ?
My word, this just gets dumber and dumber - way I see it, you don't KNOW, then don't GO.

Having seen both ends of the spectrum of consent gamesmanship, fer damn sure if I don't trust em I ain't climbin in the sack with em, and *EVEN THEN* I hedge my bets quite a bit and for damn good reason as the crap Becca tried to pull illustrated.

So one could almost say that climbing into bed with someone less than sober is "asking for it" - which as bullshit as any other application of the phrase in this context, but certainly one ought to be firmly aware they're stickin their own neck out pretty far there.

I've certainly seen some face-palm worthy moments inspired by the bottle before though, like one case I had to watch while waiting for my lawyer, where both the guy *AND* the girl were soundly pasted and next morning the BOTH of em were pointing the finger (in a legal sense) AT EACH OTHER.
Never felt sorry for a judge before, kind of a weird feeling that, but damn he looked like he needed about three antacids and a handful of aspirin.


AgentR
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.

Again, amen, halleelooya.
One mighta noticed I am as a rule even harsher about it, and not female, so the above should be obvious enough to not need said, but some people...yeesh.

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.

Damn straight - IMHO that kind of commentary is a pretty strong admission of bias from the source, cause of itself it's taking a shot at someone for gender, which is inappropriate and unfair, ESPECIALLY considering the most vicious, hardcore "feminist" around here ain't even female!

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?

And hell yes.
In fact that is *why* I get all kinda foamy at the chops when someone does pull that crap, or (more common) one of their friends suggests it as a revenge gambit - because it demeans and discredits ACTUAL victims in a seriously disproportionate way, especially when they already have a seriously uphill battle as it is, DOUBLE especially if they're younger cause of the additional demonization of Youth besides...

But in truth such accusations are extremely rare in a legal sense (in a social sense, maybe different story, but that's just people talkin shit, it is) because prosecutors tend to be very recalcitrant to prosecute anything they don't feel is a total slam dunk in order to maintain that almighty conviction rate, and will often brush off real victims for that very reason even when they know damn well a crime has been committed.

But of course the false-accusation bit is useful propaganda, so it gets shouted to the mountain over and over by the same kind of folk who dismissed other kinds of abuse (Religious, Hellcamps), and the same kind who try to shovel the "Welfare cadillac" myth as well as other faery stories - and golly gee, isn't it a coinkydink they all seem to come from one end of the political spectrum, oh who'da thunk it...
*hisssss*

Annyhows, if the notion of keeping your goddamn pants on if you ain't 100% sure is unacceptable to someone, I posit they got deeper problems than just piss-poor judgement.

-Frem

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:03 AM

AGENTROUKA


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.



If we all agree on this, I'm really not certain why this discussion has been circling around how women will "change their minds" the next morning and go on accusing innocent people of rape, or how demeaning of women it is to point out that judging competence while intoxicated is not an easy thing at all.

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.



So am I? I don't understand the your position. If you are pissed that you can't count on guaranteed safety from potential rape accusation when sleeping with intoxicated people... well, why?

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.



You realize that the post you're replying to wasn't addressed to you? I was mainly referring to kpo's lines, actually.

And I cannot emphasize this enough: people (not women) have wildly varying tolerances and reactions to alcohol. Is it easy to pretend we're saying "one sip and all those ladies are just helpless damsels"? Apparently. It is more difficult to just acknowledge that you may not be able to tell how intoxicated that man/woman/transgender person offering you sex is, and that sleeping with them is just going to carry a legal risk? Apparently.

Quote:


Hell yeah! You don’t get that someone wants to have a pleasurable experience without jail time looming over their head? Really?



I do get that. But you know what? Wanting it all to be safe and easy doesn't make it so. Your responsibility doesn't go away because you consider it a burden.


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 ***



Someone's in a snippy mood.

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.



There you go again. People who report rape? Didn't "change their minds". A good 99% of them actually feel they have been raped and are convinced enough of that to actually start a harrowing legal process.

Know what that means? That if you don't commit the crime of rape, the chances of being accused and charged are MINUSCULE.

Unless you've been accused of rape by a drunk person you slept with in the past, know what that implies? That you're already doing everything right: not sleeping with people you can't trust to be in their right mind.

Know what that also means? You're desperately picking a fight for the people who don't. The ones who don't care to be certain that their partner is capable of giving consent. The ones who are causing people to actually go and file those genuine rape charges.

I don't understand why you are so afraid unless you intend to be careless in the first place.

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.



If he feels he was raped, it was worth pressing charges. It's a shit situation and it would have been mighty responsible of him to 1)not drink alcohol on anti-depressants, 2) not fucking drink and drive, 3)tell her he was on medication, but considering how anti-depressants and alcohol interact, I can easily believe he wasn't in his right might when the sex happened. I'm actually surprised he was able to drink and drive at all. And yes, that makes was happened a form of rape. I doubt anyone would have stuck her with 10 years, since if she didn't know he was on this medication this should affect sentencing (I should hope), that she also was intoxicated might affect sentencing. But she was being careless about his state. She apparently didn't know the man very well. It's was a gamble and she lost big.

I think they are both assholes for engaging in or encouraging drunk driving. (berserk button)

Want me to feel bad for her children? I do. But feeling bad for someone's kids is not the first and foremost consideration when you consider whether they have (intentionally or unintentionally) committed a crime. Know who probably thought long and hard about those kids before pressing charges? The guy in your story. Because no matter what happens, people will doubt his experience and consider him an evil monster for causing this poor family distress, for being a drunk slut who "changed his mind" in the morning. He would have been thinking about that before pressing charges. That means he was probably really serious about considering what happened rape.

If they both file rape charges.. yeah? If they both genuinely feel they were raped? That's actually the appropriate move. Like Frem's example, it's going to be a legal nightmare for everyone involved, of course, but is that reason enough to prevent them from filing charges if they both genuinely believe this is what happened?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

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?

Do yourself a favour and read some of the links in this thread that detail what the law actually IS. You should know that your interpretation of it is very much contested. When I talk to you, in my mind I'm not hearing about the law, I'm hearing what Rouka wishes the law was. And that's enough to send chills down my spine.

False rape accusations. In the real world, I don't make a big deal about them, or live in fear of them. But that's partly because the law is not open to abuse in this respect. It's hard enough for women to get real rape charges/convictions, let alone fake ones. But YOUR law however permits any woman merely to claim that she feels 'violated' after drinking and sex, and then the man pretty much has ZERO defence. That law is ridiculously open to abuse. As I said to Byte when you craft a law it can't just be to penalise the guilty - it also has to NOT penalise the innocent.

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.

No you're not. Cases of women date-raping men are rare. Men raping other men, violently, forcibly - the laws against that are already robust. MY law does not leave me vulnerable. I have much more to fear from YOUR law, as G's scenario, or 100 others, show.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

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.



From your link...

"She told police on each occasion that she had one drink and also had taken a sedative or sleeping pill that, with the alcohol, made her sleepy."

Wow, just what I have said one drink would not be enough unless there was other circumstances....like a fucking sleeping pill.

Still your point is moot. You could be convicted if the person is a really good liar, no alcohol needed. There is always some risk in having sex. However your one drink idea really carries less risk than pregnancy, STDs and being hit by lightning.

You want to keep digging to try and prove a point that has already been shown to be wrong be my guest. Some people just can't admit they are wrong.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:08 PM

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:33 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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



Still not who you think I'm. You and Kwicko have something put up or shut up. The embarrassment, your, will be fun.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA


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.


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:00 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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



So nothing? That is what I thought. What did he do a google search and find a few threads in which I agree with Dreamtrove in?

Again put up or shut up.

As for labeling me a misogynistoc ass why don't you post proof of that as well. Good luck!

Oh...and fix your quotes, you quoted yourself.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 7:20 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


Wow, just what I have said one drink would not be enough unless there was other circumstances....like a fucking sleeping pill.



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:


Still your point is moot. You could be convicted if the person is a really good liar, no alcohol needed.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 7:39 PM

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.


*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:23 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



...and I've agree with you on it every damn time. Look back at the thread and count the times I have said one drink would not be enough less there was other circumstances...like medicine interaction. I'm agreeing with you on that point.


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.



We all get that, don't think anyone has said you should throw all caution to the wind. The thing is the changes of being accused to rape when the person you are having sex with is with it and giving clear consent is slim to none. Yes, it does happen but so does getting hit with lighting.

Even when you are talking about some type of medical interaction there is a good chance that the person is going to seem out of it. That is a huge fucking clue not to do anything, more so if you have been drinking heavily as well. Think is the amount of times each day, week, month, people get their drink on and hook up and it not be rape is a fuck of a lot bigger than the number of rapes, even counting the one not reported.

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.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:30 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



It is about "innocent until proven guilty". Even the accusation of rape can ruin lives. Unfortunately for many rape victims there are no witnesses and little physical evidence of their attack. If it becomes a matter of he said she said that becomes very hard to convict when you need guilt beyond a doubt.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" ~ William Blackstone

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:33 PM

BYTEMITE


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.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:35 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Some more thoughts on rape, from an article I read. The UK tightened its rape laws in 2003 to demand that men secure the 'active consent' of women before sex. This has flared some debate amongst feminists:

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.



http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/300#.UpFbndJdBY4

And another article:

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’.



http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/8319#.UpFe_tJdBY4

(Interesting sections underlined by me)

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:38 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



Well my stance on lowered inhibitions is back by the law. As for the risk, people take more in driving each day.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:43 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


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.)

I think everyone in this thread is fervently against all of the things you've talked about.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:51 PM

BYTEMITE


Spiked is a front magazine for the UK version of teapartiers. Which you probably know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_%28magazine%29

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.



Basically, the articles you posted are concern trolls. Again. This "dimwitted" female would much prefer protections under the law exist for rape victims who were unconscious at the time, thanks. And I'm glad that the UK has caught up with the US on that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:50 PM

MAL4PREZ


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.


You may note that I was careful in my post to say "rapists," not "men."

Did you note that?


*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:00 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
No. The laws must do BOTH, favor the victim and protect the innocent.


Yeah duh. But that is not the world we are living in.

The reality we live in right now heavily favors the rapist over the raped. State FACTS to counter this if you dare. I can state plenty to show what is really happening.

http://www.theusmarinesrape.com/MarshmallowHead.html

http://theusmarinesrape.com/

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/05/as-students-prepare-to-return-yal
e-faces-new-scrutiny-for-rape-policy
/

Laws should protect those who are taken advantage of, those who the social order of the time leave with no other recourse. These are, without doubt, the rape victims. I think it no bad thing that the rules be adjusted so that potential rapists feel afraid, that they take a minute or two to consider the consequences before they dip their wicks.

I apply this to women as I do to men. Sex has consequences. Every human being should be aware of those and plan accordingly.



*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:23 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Spiked is a front magazine for the UK version of teapartiers. Which you probably know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_%28magazine%29


I didn't know anything about Spiked before I read those articles. I researched the two women who wrote the articles, but not the magazine. I sensed that there was a conservative/individual freedoms slant to it, but that's not necessarily evil (especially in Britain which is to the left of the US on the political spectrum).

Quote:

This "dimwitted" female would much prefer protections under the law exist for rape victims who were unconscious at the time, thanks.

Just so that you know sex with an unconscious person was always illegal and prosecutable as indecent assault - just not as rape, because it lacked the 'forcible' element. I'm in favour of the law change, to require active consent, but it's interesting that it has come at a cost - innocent men having to modify their behaviour and ask permission in the midst of sexual passion, and some women feeling demeaned, and worrying about the message this sends out about how men and women should relate to each other.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

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.


Just to go back to the beginning - it was an interesting if misguided thought process - how badly can you hurt someone with a penis? (Assuming a penis and not some object is used.)

Unfortunately, we're a species that thinks by threat, hierarchy, and domination.

As the people who study these things now understand, rape isn't about sex. And for the most part, it's not about pain. (People who seek the pain of others in sex are sexual sadists, a particular type of rapist.) It's about domination. Power. Threat. It's not about the physical damage caused by a penis, it's about the psychological effects of victimization.

Therefore, rape falls under a different category of assault, not measured by stitches, or bruises, or broken bones.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:43 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

innocent men having to modify their behaviour and ask permission in the midst of sexual passion


Kinda sure they should have been doing that anyway. What do people just not communicate at all before, during, or after sex anymore? Mute wooden planks slamming against each other, dull eyed and disinterested. Hawt.

Quote:

and some women feeling demeaned


Gee, I'm sorry they feel coddled by rape laws. *boggle*

If they really even exist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2013 11:52 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.


As for rape, and laws, and human interaction ... all of the following is pretty casual looking around --- but after reading 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' and doing some reading, 80% of Swedish adult females report being raped or beaten by their partners. The government is doing its best to change that culture by passing stringent laws regading rape. When a woman agrees to have sex with a man, it's a particular type of sex. For example, a woman who agrees to have genital-genital sex can claim to have been raped if the man then forces her to perform fellatio. It's those laws that Julian Assange was charged under.

Also, just to note, many international organizations understand rape to be a legitimate type of assault (as well as forced pregnancy), irrespective of the physical damage done.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:59 AM

MAL4PREZ


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.


My posts were aimed at both the world I live in and certain of the dumb asses who post here in RWED. Are you suggesting there ought to be a difference? Really?

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.

Welcome to the real world, SOBs. Welcome to considering the consequences, whether it be STDs or newborns or unwelcome rape charges. Boo-hoo for rapists having to show up in court, how very unpleasant such an experience must for the poor things!

/sarcasm

Anyone who doesn't consider all of the possible outcomes before taking the plunge has no right to bitch about what they bring on themselves. Man, woman, whatever. You do it, you have to be ready to pay. Think about it before you do it. Everyone would benefit.


*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 24, 2013 1:18 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


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.

Just to point out that you start out talking about ordinary, general sex, and you end up talking about rape. Like there's no clear distinction between the two, and one can easily drift into the other...

Dealing strictly with the scenario where everything is seemingly consensual, and both parties are enjoying themselves: you think legal ramifications ought to loom large in the participants' minds? I would never do anything to a woman against her will/without her consent, and I would be horrified if she ended up feeling 'violated' afterwards. But should I, and people like me, still be at risk of rape conviction?

Quote:

Quote:
and some women feeling demeaned


Gee, I'm sorry they feel coddled by rape laws. *boggle*


Ordinarily, I would feel demeaned if in the build up to sex the woman asked me 'is this ok?' But I suppose this situation only really needs to arise when one party is heavily drunk.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 24, 2013 11:48 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.



"Ordinarily, I would feel demeaned if in the build up to sex the woman asked me 'is this ok?'"

I completely don't understand this. It seems like a perfectly valid, non-demeaning question. Two people will never know each other completely. How else are you going to find out if what you're doing is violating some personal boundary, expectation. ethic or even simple preference if you don't ask?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 25, 2013 7:22 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


I'm talking about times when there have been enough spoken/unspoken signals. And I'm not saying that I would never ask, if there was any doubt - of course I would.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 25, 2013 2:55 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.


Well - unspoken signals are sometimes clear-cut, and sometimes ambiguous. And subject to interpretation, a pretty squishy process depending on what's going on between the ears. For some a yes means yes, a maybe means yes, a 'no reply' means yes, and a no means yes. For example, rapists often claim their victim 'wanted it'. (It doesn't seem to occur to them that if their victim 'wanted it' they at wouldn't have to rely on coercion.) Not saying that you're not personally nuanced about body language, but I don't think you can apply your personal standards to all men and base laws on them.

As for consensual sex segueing into rape, yes it happens. The minute coercion comes into play it stops being mutual and consensual.

I almost agree with Byte about the 'enthusiastic participation' criteria, except it would be very hard to define. While 'active participation' is easier to define, it can be induced by coercion (as many rapists know - rape isn't always about a woman just being required to passively lie there).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 25, 2013 4:10 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I almost agree with Byte about the 'enthusiastic participation' criteria, except it would be very hard to define.


That doesn't sound like something I'd say. Unless...

Yes. I have just found kaneman, murdered in his room, with no pants.

I will take the car to tell the police. The rest of you stay here and try to figure out who the alien shapeshifter is.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 14:36 - 7470 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL