|
-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time?
please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario.
the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped.
|
On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped.
The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it.
|
On November 08 2013 08:48 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 08:17 xM(Z wrote:
@Dogfoodboy16
use the deterministic agenda/reasoning/logic then link it with driven-by-subconscious behaviors to show how girls want rape happen to them.
after that, take a stab at what could trigger such behavior/the reasons behind it: self esteem issues, daddy issues, abuse issues, not giving a fuck issues, then you have the complexes of the ego and so on and so forth.
deterministic mechanisms have been linked mostly with people performing an action (perpetrator/aggressor)and less with people having actions performed on them (victim).
if determinism triggers sadism then determinism has to also trigger masochism. So far in my paper i have proposed the following: Women's erotic placidity much more different than a mans. By studies conducted measuring genital blood flow, men inherently know what turns them on a women don't. In women there is often a split between how the body is responding to a stimulus and what she reports to her brain consciously. Not that she lying to herself but that her ability to gauge how her body is responding to sexual encounters is unreliable. I talk about how memory is reconstructed in the brain not stored. Date rape cases are primarily composed of a womens memory of what happen during the event. If a women is drugged with a date rape pill, claims she was raped, but have no psychical evidence of the encounter, their is reasonable doubt that her memory was compromised and is too vague to create a criminal case against the alleged culprit. Right now I am writing about how little date rape is reported to authorities. Mabye they consciously or unconsciously desire to be date raped. Maybe sometime during the altercation they change their mind. After that I am researching on how sex is more of a social experience than reproductive experience for humans and how women falsely claiming to be raped can gravely impact an innocents mans life.
I missed this before, but I worry that you may have misunderstood your assignment. Trivializing rape in such a manner can't possibly be a valid aim for a paper. What kind of institution are you studying at?
|
On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it.
How are they any kind of form of evidence?
None of those things have anything to do with the events in question.
|
On November 08 2013 19:39 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 08:48 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:On November 08 2013 08:17 xM(Z wrote:
@Dogfoodboy16
use the deterministic agenda/reasoning/logic then link it with driven-by-subconscious behaviors to show how girls want rape happen to them.
after that, take a stab at what could trigger such behavior/the reasons behind it: self esteem issues, daddy issues, abuse issues, not giving a fuck issues, then you have the complexes of the ego and so on and so forth.
deterministic mechanisms have been linked mostly with people performing an action (perpetrator/aggressor)and less with people having actions performed on them (victim).
if determinism triggers sadism then determinism has to also trigger masochism. So far in my paper i have proposed the following: Women's erotic placidity much more different than a mans. By studies conducted measuring genital blood flow, men inherently know what turns them on a women don't. In women there is often a split between how the body is responding to a stimulus and what she reports to her brain consciously. Not that she lying to herself but that her ability to gauge how her body is responding to sexual encounters is unreliable. I talk about how memory is reconstructed in the brain not stored. Date rape cases are primarily composed of a womens memory of what happen during the event. If a women is drugged with a date rape pill, claims she was raped, but have no psychical evidence of the encounter, their is reasonable doubt that her memory was compromised and is too vague to create a criminal case against the alleged culprit. Right now I am writing about how little date rape is reported to authorities. Mabye they consciously or unconsciously desire to be date raped. Maybe sometime during the altercation they change their mind. After that I am researching on how sex is more of a social experience than reproductive experience for humans and how women falsely claiming to be raped can gravely impact an innocents mans life. I can only imagine a few different papers that would be more offensive than what you just said here. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, only 8% of all rape reports are "unfounded". From Wikipedia: However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation. Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner says that:
This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.Now, as a woman, I would recommend you stop playing amateur psychologist, because you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. My ability to gauge how my body is responding to sexual encounters is unreliable? Where did you get this "information"? Get out of the universe and completely scrap your paper and start over with a different topic. Don't even write it, because it's going to be a waste of paper and printer ink, and you will probably get an F for having completely flawed research.
by dismissing everything outright you're not helping anyone (especially yourself). your body does things because ... it just does them.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/2243.full
... studies focused on cycling changes in women’s olfactory and visual perception show that, in comparison with women at other phases of the menstrual cycle, women at mid-cycle exhibit increased sexual motivation that biases recognition performance towards objects with a sexual meaning, evaluate the unattractive sweat substance androstenone as more pleasant, and display enhanced preference for the odour and face shape of masculinized, physically attractive and symmetric men. On the other hand, men find the scent of women at mid-cycle more pleasant and sexually attractive than during the luteal phase.
To reach this goal, we will first describe the pattern of sexual behaviour in women. Thereafter, we will focus on extant evidence supporting the notion that women exhibit recurring mid-cycle periods of enhanced sexual desire, although not so patent and overt as those displayed by females from other mammalian species.
that could easily be seen as a sexually vulnerable period.
i'm not saying/quoting this as an excuse/justification for rape but i would really like to know/see statistics on how many rape victims were raped mid-cycle.
|
On November 08 2013 10:11 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 09:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 09:35 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 08:57 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2013 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 08:09 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 05:48 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho Are girls only victims now? Who do you think call girls sluts? It is at least equal between men and women, and I would wager that women are more vicious with the verbal abuse when it comes to calling other women sluts. To pretend that women have no place in changing society and that men are the only ones to blame - that men are the sole cause and only perpetuators of sexist behaviour and attitude - will get you nowhere. This thread has been a very interesting read overall. I feel that I want to chime in on the discussion about what women should and shouldn't wear. In an ideal world women should be able to wear anything and nothing and not get raped, but we don't live in an ideal world. Cautioning women that they should not wear provocatice clothing in precarious situations is not the same as blaming them for dressing that way if and when they do get raped. I think there's a disconnect in feminist discourse here where they cannot recognize that the woman might have made stupid choices and inadvertedly gotten punished for it. The argument that it shouldn't have mattered doesn't hold water when it does matter. It's the same thing as me cautioning my friend from walking through a rough neighbourhood at night. It seems like a bad idea because both of us know people get beat up or mugged there a lot, yet my friend still decides to go there. Is my friend stupid? Most certainly. Does that mean my friend is to blame for being the victim of a crime? Of course not, he should have been able to walk through that neighbourhood unharmed and not have to worry. It's all about making smart decisions. Closing your eyes and saying you shouldn't have to make smart decisions because you want the world to be different doesn't make the world different. A good argument against this would be that provocative clothing doesn't lead to a hightened risk of rape. I don't have any statistics on the issue so I can't know what way reality spins. It seems likely to me that more provocative clothing does entice a potential rapist to commit rape and thus leads to an increased risk for the woman, in which case cautioning against it, especially in settings where the risk is percieved as high, makes sense. The "don't wear provocative clothing" cautioning isn't an excuse to stop the long term work with changing society for the better. And indeed many people do blame the victim by saying she shouldn't have been wearing this or that, or been at that place or gotten that drunk. The fact of the matter is, though, that cautioning against it before hand is not victim blaming but a pragmatic approach to the reality we live in. A reality we can change, but not a reality we can ignore because we want to. I want to end by reminding everyone that changing the society we live in involves not only men but women as well. If we don't work together and look at things as a whole we will get nowhere. What a person wears should never be up for debate. I will not punish someone who has been robbed for having things much like I would never punish someone who has been raped for having clothes. What I don't get is why people always go to the clothing argument when it comes to sexual assault. Why do people analyze rape and sexual assault like they would weather or their eating habits in relation to getting cancer? If you wear this top, you are 10% more likely to be sexually assaulted, so you should avoid that. Also, cut down on salt, it increases your risk of heart problems. Does anyone truly believe that a reduction is trashy clothing will lead to a reduction in rape cases or is this just a thing we use to shift the discussion to the victim? Because assholes are still assholes. I don't know why "they" do, but I do it because it is useful. I'm a pragmatist at heart. If we, based on statistical data, conclude that women who wear a certain clothing are way less likely to be raped then logically advicing your female friends or family members to dress that way is done out of a caring respect for their well-being. Likewise, if a certain clothing is shown to highly increase the instances of rape then advicing against it seems like a good thing, even more so than in the former case. Now let's look at what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that women should wear a certain style of clothing and that it is a way to stop rapes from happening. Rapes will happen regardless. I am also not saying that men are right for raping women who wear certain clothes, ie. there is no redemption on of behalf of the rapist. The fact that my argument is sometimes used in that way by other people does not mean I do. Lastly, I am not shifting the discussion to focus on the victims of them. I am merely explaining that wearing the wrong clothes can be a fucking bad idea*, and that cautioning against that does not make you a sexist asshole or a victim blamer. In fact it means that you care about the person you're cautioning. Just like I would care about my friend in my earlier example and caution him from going through a rough neighbourhood in the dark of night. However, saying that anyone deserves to be raped is sexist and makes the person an asshole. *Statistics pending "found that globally 35% of women have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. Most of this violence is intimate partner violence." http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/Majority of sexual/physical violence comes from intimate partners. Which means majority of the time, what a woman wears has 0 impact on whether or not they will be a target of sexual violence. Of the 10 females you know that have significant others, 3 of them have been raped by their significant other. That's not actually what the fact sheet says. It defines 'intimate partner violence' as: Show nested quote +Intimate partner violence refers to behaviour by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours. I'd probably qualify under those definitions as a guy. Where's my fact sheet?
Not only that but they compare this construct of "intimate partner violence" to "non-partner sexual violence" as if they weren't comparing apples and oranges (on a sidenote, the 35% figure Magpie made up includes 7.2% non-partner sexual violence). I'm not saying that it's nice, but the possibility of getting a yelled at is probably quite a bit less of a traumatic experience than actually being raped...
On top of that, if you look at the actual report, it says that more than 100% (!) of the violence a woman aged 45+ has experienced has happened before she became 20. Such obvious errors, coupled with unreasonable confidence intervals, coupled with the aforementioned problem of apples and oranges, coupled with the fact that there is no control for confounding factors, on top of the well-known issues of lobbyism within the WHO (for instance, did you know that shamanism is equally viable for the treatment of mental illness as psychotherapy as per WHO analyses?) makes these results highly dubious, at least in my humble opinion.
|
On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence?
They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual.
None of those things have anything to do with the events in question.
That's what circumstantial evidence means.
|
On November 08 2013 22:27 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence? They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual.
They cannot demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night. Acting flirty and wearing nothing is not consent. I hope no one has ever in court said well she was wearing exhibit A so obviously she was dtf. Hell she could give him a handjob in the cab and then still get raped. like. there is no connection. She could have said to her friends. "im going to fuck that guy tonight" and then still get raped by him.
Having a history of having sex with other people does not make it less or more likely that you were raped that night. This is slut shaming obviously.
Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. And thinking this is some kind of positive enforcement for your case leads to the kind of mentality where men feel entitled to sex from their partners.
All are factors that suggest nothing. except a sexist point of view.
|
On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:
Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. Why... how? Sorry, although I more or less agree with everything else you wrote, I'm really curious how that could possibly be the case...?
|
On November 08 2013 22:43 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:
Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. Why... how? Sorry, although I more or less agree with everything else you wrote, I'm really curious how that could possibly be the case...?
Ahh maybe i shouldn't have used statistically here but my point was that a large percentage of rapes happen between people in a sexual relationship.
|
Well I guess it would be sexist to ever question a woman so if she says she was raped then the defendant goes to jail without trial.
There we go justice is served no more sexism.
|
On November 08 2013 22:47 Severedevil wrote:
Well I guess it would be sexist to ever question a woman so if she says she was raped then the defendant goes to jail without trial.
There we go justice is served no more sexism.
Question the woman all you want of course! relevant questions not related to slut shaming would be a productive way to start for a change.
|
On November 08 2013 22:47 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 22:43 Poffel wrote:On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:
Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. Why... how? Sorry, although I more or less agree with everything else you wrote, I'm really curious how that could possibly be the case...? Ahh maybe i shouldn't have used statistically here but my point was that a large percentage of rapes happen between people in a sexual relationship.
Ok, that makes more sense then... I was just confused because (statistically) there hopefully still happens (a lot) more consensual than non-consensual sex in the average relationship. 
|
Anyone that thinks rape is justified really is saying that man are animals and cant control themselves.
As a man ... I cant say I disagree =X
On some level we are, the difference is that not everyone is dumb enough to act on their instinct to bang anything that moves.
At the end of the day, responsability must rest with whoever's intention led to the event, and that is always going to be the rapist.
|
On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 22:27 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence? They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual. They cannot demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night. Acting flirty and wearing nothing is not consent. I hope no one has ever in court said well she was wearing exhibit A so obviously she was dtf. Hell she could give him a handjob in the cab and then still get raped. like. there is no connection. She could have said to her friends. "im going to fuck that guy tonight" and then still get raped by him. Having a history of having sex with other people does not make it less or more likely that you were raped that night. This is slut shaming obviously. Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. And thinking this is some kind of positive enforcement for your case leads to the kind of mentality where men feel entitled to sex from their partners. All are factors that suggest nothing. except a sexist point of view.
You are wildly confusing probability with certainty. Wearing a sexy dress has never meant that "obviously she was dtf". But it raises the probability that she was "dtf". Willingly giving someone a handjob raises the probability that you might agree to have sex with them later. Having a history of consensually fucking anyone who asks raises the probability that the next guy who asks will get to have consensual sex as well. There is no certain implication between any of these things, but there is a connection. It is not slut shaming (I think sluts are great!) or a sexist point of view to point out mathematical facts and tendencies in human behavior.
Since you are having trouble getting it, I'll try to help you with a story.
Bob likes to watch football but he doesn't have a tv. Alice tells Bob that on Friday he can come to her place and watch it on her tv. It was an enjoyThis carries on for a while, and eventually Bob stops knocking on her door before going in. Alice still greets him happily when he shows up, even if he didn't knock. She has even started letting him in when she wasn't at home.
But one Saturday morning, police come to arrest Bob for trespassing on Alice's property. Bob explains that he has been welcome in Alice's every Friday for a long time now. Alice admits this, but says that this time he wasn't welcome.
Imagine you are the police now. You obviously don't know what happened except that Bob was in Alice's place. Alice has a history of letting Bob in, but that doesn't prove that he was welcome this time. Nobody is saying that Alice doesn't have the right to revoke Bob's visiting privileges. But given this fact about their "visiting history", do you think it's more likely that he was in fact welcomed in? Or is it equally probable that this is a break-in as if Bob had, say, instead chosen to just walk into the home of Christie (who Bob has never to before)?
If you say they are equally probable, I suggest you take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up.
|
On November 08 2013 23:03 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:27 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence? They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual. They cannot demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night. Acting flirty and wearing nothing is not consent. I hope no one has ever in court said well she was wearing exhibit A so obviously she was dtf. Hell she could give him a handjob in the cab and then still get raped. like. there is no connection. She could have said to her friends. "im going to fuck that guy tonight" and then still get raped by him. Having a history of having sex with other people does not make it less or more likely that you were raped that night. This is slut shaming obviously. Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. And thinking this is some kind of positive enforcement for your case leads to the kind of mentality where men feel entitled to sex from their partners. All are factors that suggest nothing. except a sexist point of view. You are wildly confusing probability with certainty. Wearing a sexy dress has never meant that "obviously she was dtf". But it raises the probability that she was "dtf". Willingly giving someone a handjob raises the probability that you might agree to have sex with them later. Having a history of consensually fucking anyone who asks raises the probability that the next guy who asks will get to have consensual sex as well. There is no certain implication between any of these things, but there is a connection. It is not slut shaming (I think sluts are great!) or a sexist point of view to point out mathematical facts and tendencies in human behavior. Since you are having trouble getting it, I'll try to help you with a story. Bob likes to watch football but he doesn't have a tv. Alice tells Bob that on Friday he can come to her place and watch it on her tv. It was an enjoyThis carries on for a while, and eventually Bob stops knocking on her door before going in. Alice still greets him happily when he shows up, even if he didn't knock. She has even started letting him in when she wasn't at home. But one Saturday morning, police come to arrest Bob for trespassing on Alice's property. Bob explains that he has been welcome in Alice's every Friday for a long time now. Alice admits this, but says that this time he wasn't welcome. Imagine you are the police now. You obviously don't know what happened except that Bob was in Alice's place. Alice has a history of letting Bob in, but that doesn't prove that he was welcome this time. Nobody is saying that Alice doesn't have the right to revoke Bob's visiting privileges. But given this fact about their "visiting history", do you think it's more likely that he was in fact welcomed in? Or is it equally probable that this is a break-in as if Bob had, say, instead chosen to just walk into the home of Christie (who Bob has never to before)? If you say they are equally probable, I suggest you take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up.
Wearing a sexy dress [...] raises the probability that she was "dtf"
are you real? your saying this should be brought to court? shut the fuck up.
|
On November 08 2013 23:07 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:03 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:27 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence? They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual. They cannot demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night. Acting flirty and wearing nothing is not consent. I hope no one has ever in court said well she was wearing exhibit A so obviously she was dtf. Hell she could give him a handjob in the cab and then still get raped. like. there is no connection. She could have said to her friends. "im going to fuck that guy tonight" and then still get raped by him. Having a history of having sex with other people does not make it less or more likely that you were raped that night. This is slut shaming obviously. Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. And thinking this is some kind of positive enforcement for your case leads to the kind of mentality where men feel entitled to sex from their partners. All are factors that suggest nothing. except a sexist point of view. You are wildly confusing probability with certainty. Wearing a sexy dress has never meant that "obviously she was dtf". But it raises the probability that she was "dtf". Willingly giving someone a handjob raises the probability that you might agree to have sex with them later. Having a history of consensually fucking anyone who asks raises the probability that the next guy who asks will get to have consensual sex as well. There is no certain implication between any of these things, but there is a connection. It is not slut shaming (I think sluts are great!) or a sexist point of view to point out mathematical facts and tendencies in human behavior. Since you are having trouble getting it, I'll try to help you with a story. Bob likes to watch football but he doesn't have a tv. Alice tells Bob that on Friday he can come to her place and watch it on her tv. It was an enjoyThis carries on for a while, and eventually Bob stops knocking on her door before going in. Alice still greets him happily when he shows up, even if he didn't knock. She has even started letting him in when she wasn't at home. But one Saturday morning, police come to arrest Bob for trespassing on Alice's property. Bob explains that he has been welcome in Alice's every Friday for a long time now. Alice admits this, but says that this time he wasn't welcome. Imagine you are the police now. You obviously don't know what happened except that Bob was in Alice's place. Alice has a history of letting Bob in, but that doesn't prove that he was welcome this time. Nobody is saying that Alice doesn't have the right to revoke Bob's visiting privileges. But given this fact about their "visiting history", do you think it's more likely that he was in fact welcomed in? Or is it equally probable that this is a break-in as if Bob had, say, instead chosen to just walk into the home of Christie (who Bob has never to before)? If you say they are equally probable, I suggest you take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up. are you real? your saying this should be brought to court? shut the fuck up.
Yes, I'm real and I am saying that. Again, if you have any better method to defend yourself in court, I'd love to hear it.
|
On November 08 2013 23:07 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:03 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:27 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence? They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual. They cannot demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night. Acting flirty and wearing nothing is not consent. I hope no one has ever in court said well she was wearing exhibit A so obviously she was dtf. Hell she could give him a handjob in the cab and then still get raped. like. there is no connection. She could have said to her friends. "im going to fuck that guy tonight" and then still get raped by him. Having a history of having sex with other people does not make it less or more likely that you were raped that night. This is slut shaming obviously. Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. And thinking this is some kind of positive enforcement for your case leads to the kind of mentality where men feel entitled to sex from their partners. All are factors that suggest nothing. except a sexist point of view. You are wildly confusing probability with certainty. Wearing a sexy dress has never meant that "obviously she was dtf". But it raises the probability that she was "dtf". Willingly giving someone a handjob raises the probability that you might agree to have sex with them later. Having a history of consensually fucking anyone who asks raises the probability that the next guy who asks will get to have consensual sex as well. There is no certain implication between any of these things, but there is a connection. It is not slut shaming (I think sluts are great!) or a sexist point of view to point out mathematical facts and tendencies in human behavior. Since you are having trouble getting it, I'll try to help you with a story. Bob likes to watch football but he doesn't have a tv. Alice tells Bob that on Friday he can come to her place and watch it on her tv. It was an enjoyThis carries on for a while, and eventually Bob stops knocking on her door before going in. Alice still greets him happily when he shows up, even if he didn't knock. She has even started letting him in when she wasn't at home. But one Saturday morning, police come to arrest Bob for trespassing on Alice's property. Bob explains that he has been welcome in Alice's every Friday for a long time now. Alice admits this, but says that this time he wasn't welcome. Imagine you are the police now. You obviously don't know what happened except that Bob was in Alice's place. Alice has a history of letting Bob in, but that doesn't prove that he was welcome this time. Nobody is saying that Alice doesn't have the right to revoke Bob's visiting privileges. But given this fact about their "visiting history", do you think it's more likely that he was in fact welcomed in? Or is it equally probable that this is a break-in as if Bob had, say, instead chosen to just walk into the home of Christie (who Bob has never to before)? If you say they are equally probable, I suggest you take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up. are you real? your saying this should be brought to court? shut the fuck up.
Yeah, it's pretty sad. Here's some first hand rape culture boys.
By allowing it to be used as a defense, it tells people that it's more ok to rape a women as long and she is wearing sexy clothing. GG.
Also, someone mentioned Woman calling each other out on wearing slutty clothing. I agree 100%. This is totally a thing, but they do this because they are brought up and told that it is wrong to be open sexually.
EDIT: Obviously not in every case, but in the large majority of times.
|
On November 08 2013 23:08 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:07 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 23:03 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:27 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence? They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual. They cannot demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night. Acting flirty and wearing nothing is not consent. I hope no one has ever in court said well she was wearing exhibit A so obviously she was dtf. Hell she could give him a handjob in the cab and then still get raped. like. there is no connection. She could have said to her friends. "im going to fuck that guy tonight" and then still get raped by him. Having a history of having sex with other people does not make it less or more likely that you were raped that night. This is slut shaming obviously. Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. And thinking this is some kind of positive enforcement for your case leads to the kind of mentality where men feel entitled to sex from their partners. All are factors that suggest nothing. except a sexist point of view. You are wildly confusing probability with certainty. Wearing a sexy dress has never meant that "obviously she was dtf". But it raises the probability that she was "dtf". Willingly giving someone a handjob raises the probability that you might agree to have sex with them later. Having a history of consensually fucking anyone who asks raises the probability that the next guy who asks will get to have consensual sex as well. There is no certain implication between any of these things, but there is a connection. It is not slut shaming (I think sluts are great!) or a sexist point of view to point out mathematical facts and tendencies in human behavior. Since you are having trouble getting it, I'll try to help you with a story. Bob likes to watch football but he doesn't have a tv. Alice tells Bob that on Friday he can come to her place and watch it on her tv. It was an enjoyThis carries on for a while, and eventually Bob stops knocking on her door before going in. Alice still greets him happily when he shows up, even if he didn't knock. She has even started letting him in when she wasn't at home. But one Saturday morning, police come to arrest Bob for trespassing on Alice's property. Bob explains that he has been welcome in Alice's every Friday for a long time now. Alice admits this, but says that this time he wasn't welcome. Imagine you are the police now. You obviously don't know what happened except that Bob was in Alice's place. Alice has a history of letting Bob in, but that doesn't prove that he was welcome this time. Nobody is saying that Alice doesn't have the right to revoke Bob's visiting privileges. But given this fact about their "visiting history", do you think it's more likely that he was in fact welcomed in? Or is it equally probable that this is a break-in as if Bob had, say, instead chosen to just walk into the home of Christie (who Bob has never to before)? If you say they are equally probable, I suggest you take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up. Wearing a sexy dress [...] raises the probability that she was "dtf" are you real? your saying this should be brought to court? shut the fuck up. Yes, I'm real and I am saying that. Again, if you have any better method to defend yourself in court, I'd love to hear it.
Your connection between clothing and consent is misguided.
|
On November 08 2013 23:08 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:07 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 23:03 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:27 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence? They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual. They cannot demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night. Acting flirty and wearing nothing is not consent. I hope no one has ever in court said well she was wearing exhibit A so obviously she was dtf. Hell she could give him a handjob in the cab and then still get raped. like. there is no connection. She could have said to her friends. "im going to fuck that guy tonight" and then still get raped by him. Having a history of having sex with other people does not make it less or more likely that you were raped that night. This is slut shaming obviously. Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. And thinking this is some kind of positive enforcement for your case leads to the kind of mentality where men feel entitled to sex from their partners. All are factors that suggest nothing. except a sexist point of view. You are wildly confusing probability with certainty. Wearing a sexy dress has never meant that "obviously she was dtf". But it raises the probability that she was "dtf". Willingly giving someone a handjob raises the probability that you might agree to have sex with them later. Having a history of consensually fucking anyone who asks raises the probability that the next guy who asks will get to have consensual sex as well. There is no certain implication between any of these things, but there is a connection. It is not slut shaming (I think sluts are great!) or a sexist point of view to point out mathematical facts and tendencies in human behavior. Since you are having trouble getting it, I'll try to help you with a story. Bob likes to watch football but he doesn't have a tv. Alice tells Bob that on Friday he can come to her place and watch it on her tv. It was an enjoyThis carries on for a while, and eventually Bob stops knocking on her door before going in. Alice still greets him happily when he shows up, even if he didn't knock. She has even started letting him in when she wasn't at home. But one Saturday morning, police come to arrest Bob for trespassing on Alice's property. Bob explains that he has been welcome in Alice's every Friday for a long time now. Alice admits this, but says that this time he wasn't welcome. Imagine you are the police now. You obviously don't know what happened except that Bob was in Alice's place. Alice has a history of letting Bob in, but that doesn't prove that he was welcome this time. Nobody is saying that Alice doesn't have the right to revoke Bob's visiting privileges. But given this fact about their "visiting history", do you think it's more likely that he was in fact welcomed in? Or is it equally probable that this is a break-in as if Bob had, say, instead chosen to just walk into the home of Christie (who Bob has never to before)? If you say they are equally probable, I suggest you take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up. Wearing a sexy dress [...] raises the probability that she was "dtf" are you real? your saying this should be brought to court? shut the fuck up. Yes, I'm real and I am saying that. Again, if you have any better method to defend yourself in court, I'd love to hear it.
You do realise, and this may shock you, but in order to be convicted of rape, there has to be evidence /against/ you in the first place.
If there is evidence that it was non consensual, for instance, the women was way too intoxicated, why does clothing or how she was acting need to be brought up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
