While scouring the internet for information for my thesis on the rapid growth of date rape cases filed in America, I came upon this.
In areas with more lenient laws against rape, where rape is a common occurrence, this product could become very useful for defending women from a would be assailant. On the flipside, the argument could be made that this clothing would only escalate the situation further, turning a rape into a violent assault.
What is your stance on this product? Do you think it is necessary or is it an unproductive solution to this problem? Personally, I think anything you can use too prevent yourself from becoming a victim is more of an asset than a liability.
Would any of you ever wear clothing like this to make yourself feel safer?
Added by popular request: A gathering of statistics on rape in the United States of America
This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
Not sure how this would work given how rape works. Rapists rape a person due to an extreme urge, and the rape is made possible through them obtaining a profound physical advantage over their victim. Maybe this would work if the rapist was feeling really rushed, but it wouldn't work otherwise. Hell, this is easily thwarted by being a rapist who has earned the trust of the victim and thus doesn't need to drug the victim to get her somewhere private. Should he encounter the rape-resistant underwear, he can simply force the woman to remove it before raping her. All of this is, of course, disregarding what an unstable individual may do should he have his desire to rape someone thwarted. If he gets really angry, one may be better just taking the rape, even if you've been drugged out.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
Honestly, only fucking idiots adopt the victim blaming mindset. One shouldn't throw out a good idea simply because an unbelievably retarded minority has some stupid fucking view. In most of the first world, we should be past the point of victim blaming being a grave threat. We can simply wait and let the dinosaurs die off. The current generation is very progressive.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
How would it even help then? I dont know, I dont see many rapists being dissuaded because the underwear is 'hard to pull off' or whatever. At most this will just encourage frustrated beatings in tandem with sexual assault.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Rape culture? Sexual assault accepted in our society!? The fuck? Things are pretty bad, but they aren't THAT bad. The vast majority of guys hate sexual assault and hate rape and rapists even more. Also, since when is helping women defend themselves bad? There's absolutely nothing wrong with helping them help themselves while we try and take care of the underlying problem. It's not like this is taking resources away from other efforts. Besides, whether or not "rape culture" is the issue here, causing societal changes takes time. A few decades at the minimum, probably longer considering the negative image feminists have. There'll need to be other methods to help with the rape issue while the long-term solution is put into place.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Rape culture? Sexual assault accepted in our society!? The fuck? Things are pretty bad, but they aren't THAT bad. The vast majority of guys hate sexual assault and hate rape and rapists even more.
We are mostly talking about victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing the act of rape here.
ehrm.... lol? This feels like turning rape into a murder, since the attacker will be very frustrated upon being unable to satisfy himself. I mean basically its a nice idea and it will buy time for sure, but it could also turn out to be backfiring. :o Wp though.
On November 06 2013 10:29 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Rape culture? Sexual assault accepted in our society!? The fuck? Things are pretty bad, but they aren't THAT bad. The vast majority of guys hate sexual assault and hate rape and rapists even more.
We are mostly talking about victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing the act of rape here.
The language he used implied this was an endemic problem infesting the majority of society, even the first world. The language also implied that the root causes were far, far worse than mere sexual objectification. I am not intimately familiar with the words and phrases popular among feminists. Do they have a more... mild meaning when used in your circles?
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
It's one thing to say that rape happens mostly in places where women feel safe, but it's another to argue that rape prevention should focus on these situations and that other measures are useless. It's just that most women already are cautious when they're alone, with strangers, and so forth... so unless you're able to account for rapes that don't even occur due to being failed by preventive measures, there's no way to say which caution is warranted and which isn't. Of course, this doesn't even take into account how practical being cautious in a given situation is... I mean, waiting for a cab instead of walking home is a nuisance, wearing the modern equivalent of a chastity belt (sorry, but that's what this is) when you're with your partner is not merely verging on the paranoid.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
Pretty much this.
A far more effective use of your time and money for the sort of rape this would help against is learning self defence or carrying weaponry. Being taught smart decision making, how to be aware of the people around you.
I can only see this being useful for date rape, for anything else a preventive measure seems like it would be much more effective. For when you know you will have your judgment impaired by clubbing or something. Even then, you should be with a buddy, keep an eye on your drink etc.
Although the idea of anti-rape products has been increasingly popular, it doesn't address the central issue of eliminating the issue of rape. When I say eliminate I don't mean completely, since that's never possible, but to hopefully drastically reduce rape crimes. The only issue I see with the product as others have pointed out is rape between individuals who know each other and rape between strangers. In the case of the former relationship, a woman would find no use to this product as they would trust their friend or family to not rape them, so I suppose this product would be geared towards the stranger to stranger encounters. In the case of this, I'd find it highly probable that the stranger would more likely have a weapon to threaten the victim. In that case the anti-rape product may be even more detrimental if they are brutally tortured/injured or even killed. Anti-rape products are definitely not a bad thing, but it doesn't solve the main problem of preventing rape in the first place.
If this makes a girl feel more secure, sure whatever, but it won't add any additional security. I still like this because if a girl would wear this and only she can unlock it there is no way she can report a false rape claim if she regrets what she did last night.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying; you say that the emphasis on fighting against rape should be on something else and then you suggest that this somehow justifies discounting the product entirely. Even if this product did contribute to a rape blaming mindset, which I think is a mindbogglingly ludicrous suggestion to begin with, this isn't a this or that scenario - why can't both options exist? You said "there shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves"; I don't know what perfect world you're living in but maybe you should work to endorse all the women living in the seedy parts of the the world to move there, as they'll need to wait a long while before this rape culture dismantling project you have in mind comes into effect . Seriously, just think about what you're saying.
On the other point, if this product did contribute to such a mindset how is rape preventing underwear any different from any currently existing defense products? If a victim of rape doesn't have pepperspray on hand to ward off her attacker, we don't blame her for getting raped. I don't see how this underwear changes that qualification in any way.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Because It's going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, women should eschew defending themselves?
i'm just saying that this approach is kind of backwards seeing as how we saw something similar to this (chastity belts) oh a few hundred years ago when women wore them because they "obviously" didn't have control of their bodies
the intentions of the product are good, the implications are bad
On November 06 2013 11:21 mizU wrote: i'm just saying that this approach is kind of backwards seeing as how we saw something similar to this (chastity belts) oh a few hundred years ago when women wore them because they "obviously" didn't have control of their bodies
the intentions of the product are good, the implications are bad
The implications are only bad for the most mind-bogglingly retarded glue-slurping idiots (I'm accusing the people you seem to be concerned about, not you). Buying a gun to defend yourself from murderers doesn't justify murder, doesn't make murder acceptable and doesn't encourage victim-blaming in murder cases. Same deal for this. Literally the only difference here is that this form of self-defense happens to be wrapped around your vagina. You might as well advocate the destruction of all forms of defense on the grounds that they encourage the occurrence of, and tolerance of, violent acts, which is a notion that defies common sense.
i was only saying the implications were bad because we seemed to be going backwards in time i'm not saying the product causes the crime
but i definitely like the idea of a barbed condom (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/20/south.africa.female.condom/) more than rape proof underwear
On November 06 2013 10:24 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Not sure how this would work given how rape works. Rapists rape a person due to an extreme urge, and the rape is made possible through them obtaining a profound physical advantage over their victim. Maybe this would work if the rapist was feeling really rushed, but it wouldn't work otherwise. Hell, this is easily thwarted by being a rapist who has earned the trust of the victim and thus doesn't need to drug the victim to get her somewhere private. Should he encounter the rape-resistant underwear, he can simply force the woman to remove it before raping her. All of this is, of course, disregarding what an unstable individual may do should he have his desire to rape someone thwarted. If he gets really angry, one may be better just taking the rape, even if you've been drugged out.
All what you're saying is definitely possible, but did you watch the video? At time 0:52, they point out that "studies show that resisting sexual assault lessens the chance of a rape taking place without increasing the violence of the attack".
So the product certainly aids in the resistance of the sexual assault; and I think the studies are showing that women can resist and won't necessarily be forced if they resist enough. So yes its possible in other scenarios where they are trusting of their partners and so on and don't feel the need to wear it. But its definitely a positive step in other types of situations. Nice product!
On November 06 2013 10:29 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Rape culture? Sexual assault accepted in our society!? The fuck? Things are pretty bad, but they aren't THAT bad. The vast majority of guys hate sexual assault and hate rape and rapists even more.
We are mostly talking about victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing the act of rape here.
So two things that dont occur, and a [bolded] imaginary term which is nothing more than prudish whining that humans find sexually attractive people...sexually attractive. Cool.
On November 06 2013 10:29 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Rape culture? Sexual assault accepted in our society!? The fuck? Things are pretty bad, but they aren't THAT bad. The vast majority of guys hate sexual assault and hate rape and rapists even more.
We are mostly talking about victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing the act of rape here.
So two things that dont occur, and a [bolded] imaginary term which is nothing more than prudish whining that humans find sexually attractive people...sexually attractive. Cool.
On November 06 2013 12:00 mizU wrote: i was only saying the implications were bad because we seemed to be going backwards in time i'm not saying the product causes the crime
but i definitely like the idea of a barbed condom (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/20/south.africa.female.condom/) more than rape proof underwear
That idea would be good except that potentially, seriously messed-up women could lure men into consensual (beginning of) sex where the well-meaning man could get himself shredded by a psycho witch.
EDIT: Removal of the juvenile courts or at least limiting them to only even younger cases would surely help to discourage savage behaviour (such as in that case) from the shitty young weeds of society that do things partly because they feel empowered by more limited punishments and reduced supposed responsibility. Bullshit they're less responsible for their actions when those are the actions. >_<
On November 06 2013 12:00 mizU wrote: i was only saying the implications were bad because we seemed to be going backwards in time i'm not saying the product causes the crime
but i definitely like the idea of a barbed condom (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/20/south.africa.female.condom/) more than rape proof underwear
Going backwards in time? I seriously can't even comprehend your logic on this one. No sarcasm, could you please elaborate? I'm trying to come up with potential thought processes you could have used to come to this conclusion and all of them sound too idiotic to be true. Once again, not sarcastic or insulting, I'm actually trying to figure this out. Personally, I agree with the assertion that the barbed condom is a better self-defense method, but only if the female isn't drugged and has a follow-up plan to use that takes advantage of the rapist freaking out about his shredded dick. Come to think of it, pretty much no method based around last-second protection is all that effective outside of something unrealistically potent. As long as the rapist has a superior position of physical strength, the girl is most likely horribly screwed in some fashion. Doesn't have to be rape, if he has a physical advantage he can do anything he wants. Things like barbed condoms are pretty much an irl save roll; if you're luckier than you should be, you might still make it out, but you don't have good odds.
It's very simple; there was a time at which female sexual issues were addressed almost exclusively through the notion that women were not to be allowed to be in control of their sexual organs, hence chastity belts and the idea that women are to basically be sold for marriage/procreation. In other words, a woman's sexuality was a thing meant to be divorced from their person and manipulated by exterior objects and men. This device, while certainly not designed with similar intentions, works by making a woman's vagina more difficult to access, and is, effectually, a white flag in the sense that a woman who wears such a thing is basically saying, "I'm willing to wear difficult to remove underwear because I am unable to be in control of access to my sexual organs and I'd like to make the process as time consuming as possible.". Like you said, AA, it amounts to a saving throw, but the issue some might take with this kind of anti-rape protection is that it revolves around dice throwing as opposed to definite improvement. Many would worry, and, given history, perhaps justifiably so, that solutions like rape-proof underwear put the onus for making progress in rape prevention unfairly on the shoulders of women.
What if the girl puts that on, gets massively drunk and suddenly need to go take a dump? If you think operating keys to unlock your house is hard when drunk, I can't imagine unbuttoning the pant being easy
On November 06 2013 13:55 farvacola wrote: It's very simple; there was a time at which female sexual issues were addressed almost exclusively through the notion that women were not to be allowed to be in control of their sexual organs, hence chastity belts and the idea that women are to basically be sold for marriage/procreation. In other words, a woman's sexuality was a thing meant to be divorced from their person and manipulated by exterior objects and men. This device, while certainly not designed with similar intentions, works by making a woman's vagina more difficult to access, and is, effectually, a white flag in the sense that a woman who wears such a thing is basically saying, "I'm willing to wear difficult to remove underwear because I am unable to be in control of access to my sexual organs and I'd like to make the process as time consuming as possible.". Like you said, AA, it amounts to a saving throw, but the issue some might take with this kind of anti-rape protection is that it revolves around dice throwing as opposed to definite improvement. Many would worry, and, given history, perhaps justifiably so, that solutions like rape-proof underwear put the onus for making progress in rape prevention unfairly on the shoulders of women.
That last bit makes more sense. Historically speaking, it doesn't seem unlikely that we'll have a repeat. Doesn't mean I agree with the notion, at all really, but I can see how someone would come to think that. Unlike before. The white flag thing seems kind of odd to me, though. Sure, it's a depressing reminder of the current state of affairs, but I don't think a self-defense product should be morally condemned due to some misplaced sense of pride. One can personally prefer to not use it for those reasons, but don't denounce it as a moral wrong. I think I'll try and wrap things up in this thread after this.
On November 06 2013 13:55 farvacola wrote: It's very simple; there was a time at which female sexual issues were addressed almost exclusively through the notion that women were not to be allowed to be in control of their sexual organs, hence chastity belts and the idea that women are to basically be sold for marriage/procreation. In other words, a woman's sexuality was a thing meant to be divorced from their person and manipulated by exterior objects and men. This device, while certainly not designed with similar intentions, works by making a woman's vagina more difficult to access, and is, effectually, a white flag in the sense that a woman who wears such a thing is basically saying, "I'm willing to wear difficult to remove underwear because I am unable to be in control of access to my sexual organs and I'd like to make the process as time consuming as possible.". Like you said, AA, it amounts to a saving throw, but the issue some might take with this kind of anti-rape protection is that it revolves around dice throwing as opposed to definite improvement. Many would worry, and, given history, perhaps justifiably so, that solutions like rape-proof underwear put the onus for making progress in rape prevention unfairly on the shoulders of women.
I don't think so. It takes a very simple-minded person, someone incapable of realizing we can do more than one thing at a time, to decry development of new tools of self defense. The invention and use of defensive gadgets like this or mace or firearms can easily run concurrent with progressively improving societal norms that hopes to make them unnecessary in the long run. It's actually quite perverse to try to strip potential victims of what they may find, in their own best judgement, to be a worthwhile preventative measure.
That said, I don't think this product looks like a particularly effective deterrent.
Whenever I hear guns or self defense/martial arts brought up in a rape discussion, I get pretty damn frustrated due to the lack of understanding those people tend to have about rape.
On November 06 2013 14:32 Shiragaku wrote: Whenever I hear guns or self defense/martial arts brought up in a rape discussion, I get pretty damn frustrated due to the lack of understanding those people tend to have about rape.
This isn't a rape discussion though, it's a discussion about a self-defense garment. Does that help?
On November 06 2013 13:55 farvacola wrote: It's very simple; there was a time at which female sexual issues were addressed almost exclusively through the notion that women were not to be allowed to be in control of their sexual organs, hence chastity belts and the idea that women are to basically be sold for marriage/procreation. In other words, a woman's sexuality was a thing meant to be divorced from their person and manipulated by exterior objects and men. This device, while certainly not designed with similar intentions, works by making a woman's vagina more difficult to access, and is, effectually, a white flag in the sense that a woman who wears such a thing is basically saying, "I'm willing to wear difficult to remove underwear because I am unable to be in control of access to my sexual organs and I'd like to make the process as time consuming as possible.". Like you said, AA, it amounts to a saving throw, but the issue some might take with this kind of anti-rape protection is that it revolves around dice throwing as opposed to definite improvement. Many would worry, and, given history, perhaps justifiably so, that solutions like rape-proof underwear put the onus for making progress in rape prevention unfairly on the shoulders of women.
I don't think so. It takes a very simple-minded person, someone incapable of realizing we can do more than one thing at a time, to decry development of new tools of self defense. The invention and use of defensive gadgets like this or mace or firearms can easily run concurrent with progressively improving societal norms that hopes to make them unnecessary in the long run. It's actually quite perverse to try to strip potential victims of what they may find, in their own best judgement, to be a worthwhile preventative measure.
That said, I don't think this product looks like a particularly effective deterrent.
It also only takes a simple-minded person to see that women have had control of their body parts turned against them in the name of their own defense. I'm not suggesting that this anti-rape underwear is necessarily an example of this, but belittling folks who take different lessons from history is probably not the best way of convincing them otherwise.
I think it's premature speculation to say that this wouldn't help at all. Be it from family, friend/boyfriend, or a stranger, it may very well prevent cases of unwanted sex.
Obviously it's possible for it to just cause more problems in a percentage of cases, but it's hard to speculate. I think one thing that is more or less assured would be that some victims may be likely to get minor cuts due to knifes trying to cut the garment, but that's not necessarily a big deal.
Thing is, this does not prevent abduction, physical abuse, or murder which I thought is just as high, or higher than plain rape cases (at least in Americas/Europe, maybe not on other continent), and hence logically should not make a person feel much safer (although at least in north america it's not like the danger is very high to begin with)
On November 06 2013 14:20 SagaZ wrote: What if the girl puts that on, gets massively drunk and suddenly need to go take a dump? If you think operating keys to unlock your house is hard when drunk, I can't imagine unbuttoning the pant being easy
They'll suffer the consequences of doing something stupid like that. More relevantly: if someone gets massively drunk they'll have potentially bigger issues than just peeing their pants (or pooing their pants which I don't think happens? at least to any significant frequency), like getting their face marked up with a marker, being hung over (potentially losing their job), having sex with someone due to to loss of reasoning presuming they do have the dexterity to take it off or voice to get someone else to take it off (which isn't necessarily something I entirely follow, but I'm sure many people do), etc.
If this start catching on, I would suspect that rapest just carry scissors with them. It could also be used to threaten and cut the cloth fairly easily. Interesting concept but seem too overly complex imo to wear and go to the bathroom. Then again women spend 10000 hours deciding cloths and time in the bathroom so why does a few extra minute or so matter lol. In the end it better to have then not to have I suppose.
Hmm..wasn't there that jaw-like piece of machinery distributed in a local area in Africa that was inserted into the female's private part to destroy rapists if they tried any funny biz? It worked well IIRC...
For a few seconds I was skeptical, then I promptly decided to not have a real opinion. Who the fuck am I, and who the fuck are you? If this makes a person feel safer, even if it's just a little bit, then great. And who knows, maybe it'll actually help, too. Like I said, I don't know.
The bullshit about victim-blaming has gotten to the point where it has lost its basis in reality in many cases. It's not "blaming the victim" to suggest potential preventative measures. It can be but not always... There is a true hazard, rape is a thing that happens - to say that there may be things that women can do to try to avoid being put into that situation is not "blaming the victim". It's a really shitty point to argue because people get overly emotional about this but it's true.
I think it's really fucked up that the second you bring the possibility of prevention, people immediately assume that people who don't take those preventative steps are somehow to blame for anything. Or rather, people assume that others assume... IDK, makes sense in my head. Either way, the existence of potential preventative measures doesn't mean that the victim is to blame.
On November 06 2013 13:55 farvacola wrote: It's very simple; there was a time at which female sexual issues were addressed almost exclusively through the notion that women were not to be allowed to be in control of their sexual organs, hence chastity belts and the idea that women are to basically be sold for marriage/procreation. In other words, a woman's sexuality was a thing meant to be divorced from their person and manipulated by exterior objects and men. This device, while certainly not designed with similar intentions, works by making a woman's vagina more difficult to access, and is, effectually, a white flag in the sense that a woman who wears such a thing is basically saying, "I'm willing to wear difficult to remove underwear because I am unable to be in control of access to my sexual organs and I'd like to make the process as time consuming as possible.". Like you said, AA, it amounts to a saving throw, but the issue some might take with this kind of anti-rape protection is that it revolves around dice throwing as opposed to definite improvement. Many would worry, and, given history, perhaps justifiably so, that solutions like rape-proof underwear put the onus for making progress in rape prevention unfairly on the shoulders of women.
I don't think so. It takes a very simple-minded person, someone incapable of realizing we can do more than one thing at a time, to decry development of new tools of self defense. The invention and use of defensive gadgets like this or mace or firearms can easily run concurrent with progressively improving societal norms that hopes to make them unnecessary in the long run. It's actually quite perverse to try to strip potential victims of what they may find, in their own best judgement, to be a worthwhile preventative measure.
That said, I don't think this product looks like a particularly effective deterrent.
It also only takes a simple-minded person to see that women have had control of their body parts turned against them in the name of their own defense. I'm not suggesting that this anti-rape underwear is necessarily an example of this, but belittling folks who take different lessons from history is probably not the best way of convincing them otherwise.
Now that's just bizarre. We used to be controlling them mentally and physically, now we're trying to protect them from some of the worst humanity has to offer. There was no reason to prevent sex and even masturbation, whereas there is definitely a reason to prevent rape. Before, we were making their choices for them, now they make their own choices, albeit driven by necessity. Perhaps you believe the bolded in part because of victim-blaming giving women no choice in the matter, but victim-blaming is not an endemic, all-encompassing attitude. It is common, far, far more than it should be, but definitely not enough for society to have taken control of women's body parts. Even if that did play a part in guiding women's decision making, they'll still make the same choice in the end, because ultimately, one uses stuff like this because one doesn't want to get raped, which is a threat that will continue to exist despite this ivory tower morality.
On November 06 2013 14:49 SheaR619 wrote: If this start catching on, I would suspect that rapest just carry scissors with them. It could also be used to threaten and cut the cloth fairly easily. Interesting concept but seem too overly complex imo to wear and go to the bathroom. Then again women spend 10000 hours deciding cloths and time in the bathroom so why does a few extra minute or so matter lol. In the end it better to have then not to have I suppose.
Scissors and knives have a really hard time cutting through the underwear. The video demonstrated that the underwear has an extraordinarily high level of resistance. I think one would need to use something like a serrated blade to cut it. Also, the garment is extremely tight-fitting. Not easy to cut into unless you don't care about the girl you're cutting into, in which case the underwear probably wouldn't have helped anyways.
I meant in a historic sense, particularly since the chastity belt=anti-rape underwear bit lines up so well. Again, I'm not saying that this is the case, only that I've heard similar arguments from women who are against measures like this, and I don't think "it's for their own good" is really gonna cut it as a reason.
On November 06 2013 11:21 mizU wrote: i'm just saying that this approach is kind of backwards seeing as how we saw something similar to this (chastity belts) oh a few hundred years ago when women wore them because they "obviously" didn't have control of their bodies
the intentions of the product are good, the implications are bad
The implications are only bad for the most mind-bogglingly retarded glue-slurping idiots (I'm accusing the people you seem to be concerned about, not you). Buying a gun to defend yourself from murderers doesn't justify murder, doesn't make murder acceptable and doesn't encourage victim-blaming in murder cases. Same deal for this. Literally the only difference here is that this form of self-defense happens to be wrapped around your vagina. You might as well advocate the destruction of all forms of defense on the grounds that they encourage the occurrence of, and tolerance of, violent acts, which is a notion that defies common sense.
Eh I was actually thinking what you were thinking, and was about to post something similar. The analogy I wanted to use was that if I went around on a bike, I'd lock it when I park it, and that doesn't mean that I am to blame if it is stolen.
But when I was writing this out, I started thinking: ok if everyone doesn't lock their bike and one gets stolen, everyone will blame the thief, however if everyone starts locking theirs and I didn't lock mine, when mine gets stolen I can see people saying "you dummy, why didn't you lock it?"
So now I'm not so sure it doesn't contribute to a victim blaming mindset.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
They made this underwear to help prevent date rape. Although rape by family members, and trusted ones may occur more often, they are at least helping prevent some portion of rapes. All types of rapes need solving.
On November 06 2013 15:00 farvacola wrote: I meant in a historic sense, particularly since the chastity belt=anti-rape underwear bit lines up so well. Again, I'm not saying that this is the case, only that I've heard similar arguments from women who are against measures like this, and I don't think "it's for their own good" is really gonna cut it as a reason.
Hilarious. I mean, if they prefer not to use it due to personal preference that's fine, but if they morally condemn it due to some ivory tower moral grandstanding then... hmmm. While it is certainly not their fault that there are some really shitty guys out there, that doesn't mean it's not their problem, because those really shitty guys are going to make it their problem. Sort of reminds me of how the inventor of super-wheat was sometimes condemned for the drastic increase in food supply he made possible causing some instability. His response was that the Africans didn't give a shit, they were starving to death.
On November 06 2013 11:40 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 06 2013 11:21 mizU wrote: i'm just saying that this approach is kind of backwards seeing as how we saw something similar to this (chastity belts) oh a few hundred years ago when women wore them because they "obviously" didn't have control of their bodies
the intentions of the product are good, the implications are bad
The implications are only bad for the most mind-bogglingly retarded glue-slurping idiots (I'm accusing the people you seem to be concerned about, not you). Buying a gun to defend yourself from murderers doesn't justify murder, doesn't make murder acceptable and doesn't encourage victim-blaming in murder cases. Same deal for this. Literally the only difference here is that this form of self-defense happens to be wrapped around your vagina. You might as well advocate the destruction of all forms of defense on the grounds that they encourage the occurrence of, and tolerance of, violent acts, which is a notion that defies common sense.
Eh I was actually thinking what you were thinking, and was about to post something similar. The analogy I wanted to use was that if I went around on a bike, I'd lock it when I park it, and that doesn't mean that I am to blame if it is stolen.
But when I was writing this out, I started thinking: ok if everyone doesn't lock their bike and one gets stolen, everyone will blame the thief, however if everyone starts locking theirs and I didn't lock mine, when mine gets stolen I can see people saying "you dummy, why didn't you lock it?"
So now I'm not so sure it doesn't contribute to a victim blaming mindset.
I suppose the difference here is the scale of the loss. If your son died because he was drunk driving, the fact that he was dumb enough to be drunk driving would be overshadowed by the fact that your son DIED. The sheer pain of that fact would override any irritation at your son's mistake. A person that uses victim blaming using your rationale is a person that is incapable of sympathizing with the victim appropriately, meaning that in order to defeat the victim blaming, one would need to attack a different issue entirely.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
I can only see this being useful for date rape, for anything else a preventive measure seems like it would be much more effective.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
Yea. According to US statistics less than 4% of rapes in the US occur outdoors. Most of them are from people the person being raped trusts/trusted. This is just a marketing against fear.
Side note! Men out at night that are dangerous are not likely to rape you but more likely (a lot more! Like a lot lot more like a ton more like almost infinitely greater) to mug you. Why you ask? Well rape is a felony which can get you 25 years in prison and people hunt down rapists like crazy while mugging is a misdemeanor, unless life was threatened, and almost no one cares about finding a mugger.
On November 06 2013 14:49 SheaR619 wrote: If this start catching on, I would suspect that rapest just carry scissors with them. It could also be used to threaten and cut the cloth fairly easily. Interesting concept but seem too overly complex imo to wear and go to the bathroom. Then again women spend 10000 hours deciding cloths and time in the bathroom so why does a few extra minute or so matter lol. In the end it better to have then not to have I suppose.
Scissors and knives have a really hard time cutting through the underwear. The video demonstrated that the underwear has an extraordinarily high level of resistance. I think one would need to use something like a serrated blade to cut it. Also, the garment is extremely tight-fitting. Not easy to cut into unless you don't care about the girl you're cutting into, in which case the underwear probably wouldn't have helped anyways.
Holy shit wouldnt be surprise if this stuff is bullet proof too. Re watched the video and see what you mean by it being tough to cut. Still seems like a pain in the ass to wear though :/
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
How would it even help then? I dont know, I dont see many rapists being dissuaded because the underwear is 'hard to pull off' or whatever. At most this will just encourage frustrated beatings in tandem with sexual assault.
There have been several cases where a women was found lying about being raped because her clothes were too difficult for anyone but her to remove. So if she gets raped while wearing this it might backfire.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
... wtf, what is this 'rape culture' and since when is assault acceptable?
Rape isn't acceptable. Being mugged is so people are afraid. If you are raped they will search for people and bring them in for questioning simply based on matching partial appearance of the culprit. If you are mugged they won't look for anyone.
the only "acceptable rape" (i don't find it acceptable but courts do) is when an underage male rapes an older women. The man gets charged but since he is a minor receives little to no jail time.
Hey anything to assist towards less rapes is a good thing.
Kinda have to lol @ people who are like.. arguing against an anti-rape concept... so.... lol @ you derps.
Explain it away all ya want, just because you don't seem to think it will prevent 100% of rapes, it's VERY clear that the product will easily be capable of preventing SOME rapes.
It's a good idea and a good concept. It seems to have a positive benefit to society, which I support.
However, let's say you meet a girl who is wearing one of these. You click and head home to have sex. She's too drunk to remember / input the combination to the device. Bad night?
Different situation this time. You meet a girl who is NOT wearing one of these, but owns one in her wardrobe back at her place. You click and head home to have sex. She consents to coitus. Later, for whatever reason she decides to falsely accuse you of raping her. Does her anti-rape underwear support or hinder her case against you? Could she spend a few days destroying the device before making the accusation and use it as evidence?
Let's say she does get raped by somebody because she wasn't wearing the device that particular night. Does it support or hinder her case against the rapist?
On November 06 2013 15:58 hp.Shell wrote: It's a good idea and a good concept. It seems to have a positive benefit to society, which I support.
However, let's say you meet a girl who is wearing one of these. You click and head home to have sex. She's too drunk to remember / input the combination to the device. Bad night?
Different situation this time. You meet a girl who is NOT wearing one of these, but owns one in her wardrobe back at her place. You click and head home to have sex. She consents to coitus. Later, for whatever reason she decides to falsely accuse you of raping her. Does her anti-rape underwear support or hinder her case against you? Could she spend a few days destroying the device before making the accusation and use it as evidence?
Let's say she does get raped by somebody because she wasn't wearing the device that particular night. Does it support or hinder her case against the rapist?
Some states in the US say having sex with anyone drunk/tipsy is considered raping them. So you're guilty either way in those states. Just you know... don't have sex with anyone cause yea... anyone can lie and when it comes to rape you generally don't get a he said she said argument you get a he lie she truthed.
But the device is good. It'll stop some rape. That is what matters. Should everyone be required to wear them? Of course not.
On November 06 2013 16:27 r.Evo wrote: This kind of reminds me of the good old "I have a pepper spray in my pocket, why would I not walk through the park at night? I can defend myself!"
Sigh.
People who go out and deliberately look for trouble while full well knowing that there is a risk of being attacked are very ignorant towards our current state of society. I can't help but blame them for their own stupidity when thinking that way. However, this device does serve the same function as the pepper spray in your argument, but can obviously in some cases used in the same sentence. Women who go the extremes of wearing these devices fear an immediate danger and may be previous victims of rape, thus they don't go out looking for danger but rather try to protect themselves. On the other hand, some of these women may just be wearing these because they plan to go on dates with strangers or the like, and this is where they go looking for trouble whilst thinking they have a safeguard.
On November 06 2013 16:27 r.Evo wrote: This kind of reminds me of the good old "I have a pepper spray in my pocket, why would I not walk through the park at night? I can defend myself!"
Sigh.
People who go out and deliberately look for trouble while full well knowing that there is a risk of being attacked are very ignorant towards our current state of society. I can't help but blame them for their own stupidity when thinking that way. However, this device does serve the same function as the pepper spray in your argument, but can obviously in some cases used in the same sentence. Women who go the extremes of wearing these devices fear an immediate danger and may be previous victims of rape, thus they don't go out looking for danger but rather try to protect themselves. On the other hand, some of these women may just be wearing these because they plan to go on dates with strangers or the like, and this is where they go looking for trouble whilst thinking they have a safeguard.
Well, rEvo is on to something insofar as what's for sale here is, once again, the illusion of safety. As with pepper spray... it probably doesn't hurt carrying it, but it's arguably a lousy excuse of a weapon because it only works on faces and is rendered useless by a gust of wind. A big car key provides more self-defense value. Or those 6-week self defense courses that supposedly teach a woman how to physically stand up to a male who's likely to have at least a couple of weight classes on her. Professional martial artists would complain if they had to go into such a match-up. And in the video, they say the lock has "up to 132" positions. That means, provided that an attacker knows that such devices exist, if he simply tries one combination after another, opening these undergarments takes... a minute on average? Two minutes max? Although it might indeed be a marginal improvement of safety, we're realistically talking about a device that's put to shame by a 5$ bike lock. But hey, the important thing is that somebody found a way to make money of it, right?
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
That's the most stupid thing i've ever heard on teamliquid. First of all, such a culture doesn't exist. Is murder considered a cultural thing nowadays, because these things seem to happen, though never being trendy or pop culture. When you excuse crimes, committed by individual persons, by culture, you're someone i don't want to meet at night, when the lights in the streets are gone.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
That's the most stupid thing i've ever heard on teamliquid. First of all, such a culture doesn't exist. Is murder considered a cultural thing nowadays, because these things seem to happen, though never being trendy or pop culture. When you excuse crimes, committed by individual persons, by culture, you're someone i don't want to meet at night, when the lights in the streets are gone.
Nobody wants to meet me alone at night, when the lights in the streets are gone, let alone a rapist. Rapists wear special underwear because they are afraid of ME. If there is a rape culture, then it needs to say hello to MY culture - kicking-ass culture. Rapists, welcome to Painville, population: YOU, MOTHERFUCKER.
On November 06 2013 16:27 r.Evo wrote: This kind of reminds me of the good old "I have a pepper spray in my pocket, why would I not walk through the park at night? I can defend myself!"
Sigh.
People who go out and deliberately look for trouble while full well knowing that there is a risk of being attacked are very ignorant towards our current state of society. I can't help but blame them for their own stupidity when thinking that way. However, this device does serve the same function as the pepper spray in your argument, but can obviously in some cases used in the same sentence. Women who go the extremes of wearing these devices fear an immediate danger and may be previous victims of rape, thus they don't go out looking for danger but rather try to protect themselves. On the other hand, some of these women may just be wearing these because they plan to go on dates with strangers or the like, and this is where they go looking for trouble whilst thinking they have a safeguard.
Well, rEvo is on to something insofar as what's for sale here is, once again, the illusion of safety. As with pepper spray... it probably doesn't hurt carrying it, but it's arguably a lousy excuse of a weapon because it only works on faces and is rendered useless by a gust of wind.
What I was getting at is that it's very easy to simply forget common sense when it comes to things like this. Don't meet a stranger from the interwebs at a place where there aren't lots of people. Don't go jogging through a forest in the middle of the night. Don't leave your drinks unattended when going out. Basics like this.
Barring edge cases because of a psychological reasoning if you're about to do something where "Oh I better wear my anti-rape underwear so that I'm safe if something bad happens" comes to mind then it was probably not a good idea to do it to begin with.
The same holds true for things like pepper spray (or knives =P). If there is just the slightest chance that such an item might make you less cautious it was an awful idea to bring it along. Not to mention that it's highly likely that if someone really wants to do physical harm to you he most likely has a better idea of how to use said weapon than you do.
On November 06 2013 17:35 ninazerg wrote: My anti-rape underwear is a fucking knife.
That sounds effective, yet quite uncomfortable.
No, I hide it in my boot, so then when they try to rape me, I slash their achilles' tendons, and run like crazy.
Not sure if you are just joking or not, but I'm pretty sure these kind of plans doesn't pan out they way one thinks when shit hits the fan. Just the like females doing some self defense contact sport think they are untouchable.
When someone much larger than you pops out the bush taking stranglehold on you from behind, or tackles you down on the ground, hitting you in the face, maybe flashing a knife you will most likely freeze out fear and shock.
I don't understand why people are arguing against this.
Let's take an analogy. In a perfect world, there would be no car accidents, and we should continue working to try and keep the rate down as much as possible. But as we all know, it can happen to anyone at any time, hence we wear seatbelts to reduce the damage in the case that something does happen. I don't see how this product is much different.
I agree with the guy above though that it could lead to some awkward scenarios if you really need to pee.
I think something like this will be very effective in combating date rape or club rape where the girl is incapacitated, but the guy is not necessarily carrying a weapon. He just wants easy sex, and he's likely to give up before threatening the girl's life.
However, the other type of rapist who attacks women who are jogging or whatever is pursuing a different impulse. It's more about violence for him than sex, and therefore any kind of resistance, even a passive one like stiff underwear, will give him cause to act out in other harmful ways. It's entirely possible that the girl will be maimed or killed in place of rape, since the rapist simply needs some immediate way to pacify his urges.
On November 06 2013 19:35 BillGates wrote: How about women just pull a gun on the would be rapist and shoot him? Believe me you would be 5x safer with a gun, than with this weird underwear.
Of course if you are in certain parts of Europe you are criminalized for your right to self defense.
Ah yes, a gun control discussion. Just what we needed.
On November 06 2013 19:35 BillGates wrote: How about women just pull a gun on the would be rapist and shoot him? Believe me you would be 5x safer with a gun, than with this weird underwear.
Of course if you are in certain parts of Europe you are criminalized for your right to self defense.
When are you gonna have the time to successfully draw a weapon without getting your fucking face slashed to pieces while laying down on the ground with a bigger, stronger violent person on top of you?
Just ignore Bill, he just posted his opinion and is running off. He is doing what he does best which is making awful attempts to somehow make his opinions relevant to the topic at hand.
On November 06 2013 19:35 BillGates wrote: How about women just pull a gun on the would be rapist and shoot him? Believe me you would be 5x safer with a gun, than with this weird underwear.
Of course if you are in certain parts of Europe you are criminalized for your right to self defense.
I don't see how this would be possible if he's already got you in a strangehold and you have no way to reach out for your gun, switch off the safety, and point and shoot.
On November 06 2013 19:35 BillGates wrote: How about women just pull a gun on the would be rapist and shoot him? Believe me you would be 5x safer with a gun, than with this weird underwear.
Of course if you are in certain parts of Europe you are criminalized for your right to self defense.
Ah yes, a gun control discussion. Just what we needed.
Let's just bite the bullet and discuss how circumcision affects rape, because fuck it we're already off the deep end.
Hm, it think it's meant to be a defense in situations where women are assaulted while asleep and/or after being drugged by rapists putting stuff in drinks at bars for example.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
Because no woman ever got raped going for a jog... :x Ofcourse it does help. It doesn't fix the problem, but it certainly helps in certain circumstances.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Whatever this means, this is the same as saying 'we need to focus on eradicating poverty and neutralising all diseases'. It's pie in the sky and completely unrealistic. There should be an equal emphasis on the long-term ideological solutions i.e. educating youngsters properly to have respect for each other AND the short-term pragmatic solutions i.e. educating youngsters on the principals of self-preservation and self-defence. Notice I don't single out women for the latter or men for the former, because everyone should be learning respect and self-preservation.
And while I'm at it, I would like to emphasise that respect is a two-way street and as much as we should be admonishing men for using physical violence and intimidation on women to get their way and discouraging it vigorously, we should also be doing the same towards mothers who use violence and intimidation to get their way with their children (not ignoring fathers here ofc but the emphasis seems often to be on men as the agents of violence in modern culture). The general precept of a modern society should be: 'the use of force against each other is unacceptable', full stop.
Too often do I see frustrated mothers shouting aggressively at children and even smacking them in public with anger (for no good reason). It may not be nearly as ruinous and egregious as rape but it is in the same vein, and I have to say that for all the times I have seen this behaviour from mothers I have never seen (at least in public) this behaviour from a father, and that is perhaps because the passers by would probably be far more likely to get involved and stop it (and this is because it seems to be acceptable for mothers to bully their children but not men) so they don't try it in the first place.
The concept isnt as useful here in the western world because rape is generally by a trusted individual (unfortunately..) It would be good against date rape, I guess.
HOWEVER, the science behind this stuff is cool. very interesting!
On November 06 2013 19:35 BillGates wrote: How about women just pull a gun on the would be rapist and shoot him? Believe me you would be 5x safer with a gun, than with this weird underwear.
Of course if you are in certain parts of Europe you are criminalized for your right to self defense.
I don't see how this would be possible if he's already got you in a strangehold and you have no way to reach out for your gun, switch off the safety, and point and shoot.
99% of handguns don't have external safeties besides the key lock which should be disengaged when carried.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
Pretty much this.
A far more effective use of your time and money for the sort of rape this would help against is learning self defence or carrying weaponry. Being taught smart decision making, how to be aware of the people around you.
I can only see this being useful for date rape, for anything else a preventive measure seems like it would be much more effective. For when you know you will have your judgment impaired by clubbing or something. Even then, you should be with a buddy, keep an eye on your drink etc.
"Date rape" has a wide variety of ways it can occur. It's not always some sleezeball slipping some drug with a little skull on it into your drink... the vast majority of my friends that were raped happened in really one way; they got way too drunk at a party, and passed out in some frat boy's room or couch. Then who knows what happened...
It's awful that some men will laugh and say "well, she shouldn't have been in my bed if she didn't want it". I think this product can help in a different way than it is intended to- it might remind girls that they, too, have a responsibility for making smart decisions. Touching a passed-out girl is absolutely rape, but there is also the responsibility that too many people forget of keeping aware of your surroundings. If a girl can feel these underwear as she's wearing them, and just be reminded that she needs to be aware of herself, then it might prevent a large number of date rapes.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
Pretty much this.
A far more effective use of your time and money for the sort of rape this would help against is learning self defence or carrying weaponry. Being taught smart decision making, how to be aware of the people around you.
I can only see this being useful for date rape, for anything else a preventive measure seems like it would be much more effective. For when you know you will have your judgment impaired by clubbing or something. Even then, you should be with a buddy, keep an eye on your drink etc.
"Date rape" has a wide variety of ways it can occur. It's not always some sleezeball slipping some drug with a little skull on it into your drink... the vast majority of my friends that were raped happened in really one way; they got way too drunk at a party, and passed out in some frat boy's room or couch. Then who knows what happened...
It's awful that some men will laugh and say "well, she shouldn't have been in my bed if she didn't want it". I think this product can help in a different way than it is intended to- it might remind girls that they, too, have a responsibility for making smart decisions. Touching a passed-out girl is absolutely rape, but there is also the responsibility that too many people forget of keeping aware of your surroundings. If a girl can feel these underwear as she's wearing them, and just be reminded that she needs to be aware of herself, then it might prevent a large number of date rapes.
"well, she shouldn't have been in my bed if she didn't want it" see guys rape culture isn't made up. I dunno if i'm comfortable saying a girl has a "responsibility" to avoid rapey situations tho. One shouldn't have to NEED to be aware of oneself to avoid rape. that's a hop skip and a jump away from the victim blaming that some people don't acknowledge is still extremely common.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
Pretty much this.
A far more effective use of your time and money for the sort of rape this would help against is learning self defence or carrying weaponry. Being taught smart decision making, how to be aware of the people around you.
I can only see this being useful for date rape, for anything else a preventive measure seems like it would be much more effective. For when you know you will have your judgment impaired by clubbing or something. Even then, you should be with a buddy, keep an eye on your drink etc.
"Date rape" has a wide variety of ways it can occur. It's not always some sleezeball slipping some drug with a little skull on it into your drink... the vast majority of my friends that were raped happened in really one way; they got way too drunk at a party, and passed out in some frat boy's room or couch. Then who knows what happened...
It's awful that some men will laugh and say "well, she shouldn't have been in my bed if she didn't want it". I think this product can help in a different way than it is intended to- it might remind girls that they, too, have a responsibility for making smart decisions. Touching a passed-out girl is absolutely rape, but there is also the responsibility that too many people forget of keeping aware of your surroundings. If a girl can feel these underwear as she's wearing them, and just be reminded that she needs to be aware of herself, then it might prevent a large number of date rapes.
"well, she shouldn't have been in my bed if she didn't want it" see guys rape culture isn't made up. I dunno if i'm comfortable saying a girl has a "responsibility" to avoid rapey situations tho. One shouldn't have to NEED to be aware of oneself to avoid rape. that's a hop skip and a jump away from the victim blaming that some people don't acknowledge is still extremely common.
Do people actually think like that? I can't say I know anyone who would say something like that. And I grew up in a shithole backwards ass area of America.
On November 06 2013 10:29 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Rape culture? Sexual assault accepted in our society!? The fuck? Things are pretty bad, but they aren't THAT bad. The vast majority of guys hate sexual assault and hate rape and rapists even more.
We are mostly talking about victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing the act of rape here.
All I can think about right now is Demuslim's utterly ignorant statements about rape in the context of winning in SC2.
SC2 players have a long history of trivializing rape.
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote: the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Excuse me ?
Also, talking about rape in terms of a game has nothing to do with the sexual act. If you can't differentiate between the two, well, that's just sad. That being said, using the term while being an e-sports figure is pretty dumb because you know, e-sports .
On November 07 2013 01:25 Zealos wrote: Love how no one knows about rape culture, and acts all shocked and offended when it's mentioned : D
The term and definition of Rape Culture originally came from the prison system.
The new term Rape Culture, is thrown around and used so much, so incorrectly, it doesn't mean anything (if it did at all in this case), and is only used as an "I win button" in the place of actual intellectual discourse.
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though.
Pretty much this.
A far more effective use of your time and money for the sort of rape this would help against is learning self defence or carrying weaponry. Being taught smart decision making, how to be aware of the people around you.
I can only see this being useful for date rape, for anything else a preventive measure seems like it would be much more effective. For when you know you will have your judgment impaired by clubbing or something. Even then, you should be with a buddy, keep an eye on your drink etc.
"Date rape" has a wide variety of ways it can occur. It's not always some sleezeball slipping some drug with a little skull on it into your drink... the vast majority of my friends that were raped happened in really one way; they got way too drunk at a party, and passed out in some frat boy's room or couch. Then who knows what happened...
It's awful that some men will laugh and say "well, she shouldn't have been in my bed if she didn't want it". I think this product can help in a different way than it is intended to- it might remind girls that they, too, have a responsibility for making smart decisions. Touching a passed-out girl is absolutely rape, but there is also the responsibility that too many people forget of keeping aware of your surroundings. If a girl can feel these underwear as she's wearing them, and just be reminded that she needs to be aware of herself, then it might prevent a large number of date rapes.
"well, she shouldn't have been in my bed if she didn't want it" see guys rape culture isn't made up. I dunno if i'm comfortable saying a girl has a "responsibility" to avoid rapey situations tho. One shouldn't have to NEED to be aware of oneself to avoid rape. that's a hop skip and a jump away from the victim blaming that some people don't acknowledge is still extremely common.
Do people actually think like that? I can't say I know anyone who would say something like that. And I grew up in a shithole backwards ass area of America.
yes many people actually think like that and you are fortunate to have avoided them.
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote: the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Excuse me ?
why did you fart?
Also, talking about rape in terms of a game has nothing to do with the sexual act. If you can't differentiate between the two, well, that's just sad. That being said, using the term while being an e-sports figure is pretty dumb because you know, e-sports .
except for using the exact same word to mean completely dominate. if you can't avoid using offensive words then that's just sad.
On November 07 2013 01:25 Zealos wrote: Love how no one knows about rape culture, and acts all shocked and offended when it's mentioned : D
The term and definition of Rape Culture originally came from the prison system.
The new term Rape Culture, is thrown around and used so much, so incorrectly, it doesn't mean anything (if it did at all in this case), and is only used as an "I win button" in the place of actual intellectual discourse.
I disagree entirely. Rape culture is a fairly ingrained part of society and anyone that studies urban, feminine, or anthropological/sociological studies knows that it's not just a phrase, but a cultural norm.
With regards to the actual product: go for it. If you believe you need special underwear to reduce your chance of actually being raped, and these will be effective in doing so, then have at. This is no different from pepper spray, self defense classes, or any other method you might use to reduce your risk of "successful" assault. The idea that a tool such as this enforces the idea that the victim is at fault, or that rape is ok to try is absolutely ludicrous. That is like saying putting money in a vault indicates it is ok to try to steal it.
Regarding this whole "crusade against rape" and putting a stop to "rape culture" (a bullshit term), it is a fabricated, nonsensical focus on one specific crime because it is (ostensibly) an engendered crime. Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime. We can talk about how they shouldn't happen, or they are bad and we should try to eliminate them (all of which are true), but you don't see people seriously talking about ending all murders by removing "murder culture." We live in a society (western) that you can see assault and murder on tv almost any time of day. Yet there aren't these "conversations" of "murder culture," or ideas that if we just inform everyone that murder is bad, murder will stop.
Yet for some reason, rape is given this special treatment. Like we might realistically live in a world where no one would ever be raped. That it is a practical goal in thinking if we just "discuss" it enough, people will realize that rape isn't actually ok, and will stop. After that, we'll tell everyone not to murder or steal. We'll get them off that, too. But let's tackle rape first.
Rape gets special attention because it is (ostensibly) one sex committing a crime against another sex (although this isn't true, this is how it is portrayed). This is bullshit. I'm not saying rape is ok; it isn't. I'm not saying blaming the victim is fine; it's not. What I am saying is the idea that rape is a special kind of crime, and that any method that prevents rape outside of trying to eliminate "rape culture" is actually enforcing "rape culture" (an argument that seems to be gaining traction), is idiotic, and needs to stop. Rape will always occur, no matter what. Personal safety will always ultimately fall on the individual (whether this is "right" or not), and if you feel like you need to take measures to protect yourself from ANY sort of crime, then do so, within the boundaries of the law.
On November 06 2013 10:29 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Rape culture? Sexual assault accepted in our society!? The fuck? Things are pretty bad, but they aren't THAT bad. The vast majority of guys hate sexual assault and hate rape and rapists even more.
We are mostly talking about victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing the act of rape here.
All I can think about right now is Demuslim's utterly ignorant statements about rape in the context of winning in SC2.
SC2 players have a long history of trivializing rape.
It has nothing to do with trivialising rape... In this context "rape" meant "crush" or "own" as in "I crushed/owned you!". It has nothing to do with the act of raping a helpless woman.
It's the same with fuck.You would laugh if I were to say that the pure act of sexual intercourse is being trivialised every time some guy gets excited, happy, angry or frustrated.
To be honest I think that if something like this will be used at all it will be by decree of obsessive male family members that want to watch over your chastity.
On November 06 2013 10:29 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Rape culture? Sexual assault accepted in our society!? The fuck? Things are pretty bad, but they aren't THAT bad. The vast majority of guys hate sexual assault and hate rape and rapists even more.
We are mostly talking about victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing the act of rape here.
All I can think about right now is Demuslim's utterly ignorant statements about rape in the context of winning in SC2.
SC2 players have a long history of trivializing rape.
It has nothing to do with trivialising rape... In this context "rape" meant "crush" or "own" as in "I crushed/owned you!". It has nothing to do with the act of raping a helpless woman.
It's the same with fuck.You would laugh if I were to say that the pure act of sexual intercourse is being trivialised every time some guy gets excited, happy, angry or frustrated.
DeMuslim's constant use of raperapraperaperape in that tournament he casted was I think justifiable reason for anyone to never take e-sports seriously anymore. Fortunately everyone is professional enough by now to stop using certain words, even Destiny is giving in. Victory for the shadowy Political Correctness cabal.
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
On November 07 2013 01:25 Zealos wrote: Love how no one knows about rape culture, and acts all shocked and offended when it's mentioned : D
The term and definition of Rape Culture originally came from the prison system.
The new term Rape Culture, is thrown around and used so much, so incorrectly, it doesn't mean anything (if it did at all in this case), and is only used as an "I win button" in the place of actual intellectual discourse.
I disagree entirely. Rape culture is a fairly ingrained part of society and anyone that studies urban, feminine, or anthropological/sociological studies knows that it's not just a phrase, but a cultural norm.
I honestly do not understand. I think in the entire civilized world raping anyone is frowned up and punished with jail? Can you maybe give some examples of what is this rape culture you talk about? Someone mentioned putting your dick inside a passed out girl before; well yeah that's obviously rape and I think 99% of ppl would agree?
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
On November 07 2013 01:25 Zealos wrote: Love how no one knows about rape culture, and acts all shocked and offended when it's mentioned : D
The term and definition of Rape Culture originally came from the prison system.
The new term Rape Culture, is thrown around and used so much, so incorrectly, it doesn't mean anything (if it did at all in this case), and is only used as an "I win button" in the place of actual intellectual discourse.
I disagree entirely. Rape culture is a fairly ingrained part of society and anyone that studies urban, feminine, or anthropological/sociological studies knows that it's not just a phrase, but a cultural norm.
I honestly do not understand. I think in the entire civilized world raping anyone is frowned up and punished with jail? Can you maybe give some examples of what is this rape culture you talk about? Someone mentioned putting your dick inside a passed out girl before; well yeah that's obviously rape and I think 99% of ppl would agree?
Blaming the victim (“She asked for it!”) Trivializing sexual assault (“Boys will be boys!”) Tolerance of sexual harassment Inflating false rape report statistics Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress, mental state, motives, and history Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive Defining “womanhood” as submissive and sexually passive Pressure on men to “score” Pressure on women to not appear “cold” Assuming only promiscuous women get raped Assuming that men don’t get raped or that only “weak” men get raped Refusing to take rape accusations seriously Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape
On November 07 2013 01:45 ComaDose wrote: if you can't avoid using offensive words then that's just sad.
You mean "offensive to someone", words aren't inherently offensive. If I got actually offended by things that offend me on a principle level, I'd be a rage filled murder machine (gee, I hope no one reading this had someone close to him murdered by a raging maniac....). Words should be the least of the things someone is bothered with.
On November 07 2013 02:53 Grumbels wrote: To be honest I think that if something like this will be used at all it will be by decree of obsessive male family members that want to watch over your chastity.
On November 06 2013 10:29 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote:
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
Rape culture? Sexual assault accepted in our society!? The fuck? Things are pretty bad, but they aren't THAT bad. The vast majority of guys hate sexual assault and hate rape and rapists even more.
We are mostly talking about victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing the act of rape here.
All I can think about right now is Demuslim's utterly ignorant statements about rape in the context of winning in SC2.
SC2 players have a long history of trivializing rape.
It has nothing to do with trivialising rape... In this context "rape" meant "crush" or "own" as in "I crushed/owned you!". It has nothing to do with the act of raping a helpless woman.
It's the same with fuck.You would laugh if I were to say that the pure act of sexual intercourse is being trivialised every time some guy gets excited, happy, angry or frustrated.
DeMuslim's constant use of raperapraperaperape in that tournament he casted was I think justifiable reason for anyone to never take e-sports seriously anymore. Fortunately everyone is professional enough by now to stop using certain words, even Destiny is giving in. Victory for the shadowy Political Correctness cabal.
hahaha well I definitely agree that it isn't professional and it's not the right move to make to let people take e-sports seriously.
...but calling it "trivialising" rape is going too far.
On November 07 2013 01:45 ComaDose wrote: if you can't avoid using offensive words then that's just sad.
You mean "offensive to someone", words aren't inherently offensive. If I got actually offended by things that offend me on a principle level, I'd be a rage filled murder machine (gee, I hope no one reading this had someone close to him murdered by a raging maniac....). Words should be the least of the things someone is bothered with.
oh god you sympathize with white people casually dropping the n word?
On November 07 2013 01:25 Zealos wrote: Love how no one knows about rape culture, and acts all shocked and offended when it's mentioned : D
The term and definition of Rape Culture originally came from the prison system.
The new term Rape Culture, is thrown around and used so much, so incorrectly, it doesn't mean anything (if it did at all in this case), and is only used as an "I win button" in the place of actual intellectual discourse.
I disagree entirely. Rape culture is a fairly ingrained part of society and anyone that studies urban, feminine, or anthropological/sociological studies knows that it's not just a phrase, but a cultural norm.
I honestly do not understand. I think in the entire civilized world raping anyone is frowned up and punished with jail? Can you maybe give some examples of what is this rape culture you talk about? Someone mentioned putting your dick inside a passed out girl before; well yeah that's obviously rape and I think 99% of ppl would agree?
Blaming the victim (“She asked for it!”) Trivializing sexual assault (“Boys will be boys!”) Tolerance of sexual harassment Inflating false rape report statistics Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress, mental state, motives, and history Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive Defining “womanhood” as submissive and sexually passive Pressure on men to “score” Pressure on women to not appear “cold” Assuming only promiscuous women get raped Assuming that men don’t get raped or that only “weak” men get raped Refusing to take rape accusations seriously Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape
I think 99% of ppl have seen examples of these?
I have never in my life seen any examples of those and that includes the internet lol. Who the making-love (see what I did there?) stands up for a rapist. They are the bottom of the barrel even in prisons, one step above pedophiles.
On November 07 2013 01:45 ComaDose wrote: if you can't avoid using offensive words then that's just sad.
You mean "offensive to someone", words aren't inherently offensive. If I got actually offended by things that offend me on a principle level, I'd be a rage filled murder machine (gee, I hope no one reading this had someone close to him murdered by a raging maniac....). Words should be the least of the things someone is bothered with.
oh god you sympathize with white people casually dropping the n word?
I knew you would pull that card lmfao. Well get this, women getting raped isn't a cultural thing, it's a crime. Slaves, the oppression of blacks by whites and Africa getting exploited ( just so you know, I was about to use the "R" word. would you say it would be appropriate there ? yes? no? could you repeat the question?) was fully culturally ingrained. Comparing the two is nothing more then short-sighted.
On November 07 2013 01:25 Zealos wrote: Love how no one knows about rape culture, and acts all shocked and offended when it's mentioned : D
The term and definition of Rape Culture originally came from the prison system.
The new term Rape Culture, is thrown around and used so much, so incorrectly, it doesn't mean anything (if it did at all in this case), and is only used as an "I win button" in the place of actual intellectual discourse.
I disagree entirely. Rape culture is a fairly ingrained part of society and anyone that studies urban, feminine, or anthropological/sociological studies knows that it's not just a phrase, but a cultural norm.
I honestly do not understand. I think in the entire civilized world raping anyone is frowned up and punished with jail? Can you maybe give some examples of what is this rape culture you talk about? Someone mentioned putting your dick inside a passed out girl before; well yeah that's obviously rape and I think 99% of ppl would agree?
Blaming the victim (“She asked for it!”) Trivializing sexual assault (“Boys will be boys!”) Tolerance of sexual harassment Inflating false rape report statistics Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress, mental state, motives, and history Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive Defining “womanhood” as submissive and sexually passive Pressure on men to “score” Pressure on women to not appear “cold” Assuming only promiscuous women get raped Assuming that men don’t get raped or that only “weak” men get raped Refusing to take rape accusations seriously Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape
I think 99% of ppl have seen examples of these?
I have never in my life seen any examples of those and that includes the internet lol. Who the making-love (see what I did there?) stands up for a rapist. They are the bottom of the barrel even in prisons, one step above pedophiles.
You are the 1%. Revolution!
In any case, the Netherlands isn't quite as bad with rape culture, and we don't have disturbed right wing talk show hosts or politicians perpetuating this sort of thing, but there are a significant number of people that want to say these things despite it not being acceptable.
On November 07 2013 01:45 ComaDose wrote: if you can't avoid using offensive words then that's just sad.
You mean "offensive to someone", words aren't inherently offensive. If I got actually offended by things that offend me on a principle level, I'd be a rage filled murder machine (gee, I hope no one reading this had someone close to him murdered by a raging maniac....). Words should be the least of the things someone is bothered with.
oh god you sympathize with white people casually dropping the n word?
I knew you would pull that card lmfao. Well get this, women getting raped isn't a cultural thing, it's a crime.
Wrong. Please read any article on rape culture in India for a present day example.
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
On November 07 2013 01:25 Zealos wrote: Love how no one knows about rape culture, and acts all shocked and offended when it's mentioned : D
The term and definition of Rape Culture originally came from the prison system.
The new term Rape Culture, is thrown around and used so much, so incorrectly, it doesn't mean anything (if it did at all in this case), and is only used as an "I win button" in the place of actual intellectual discourse.
I disagree entirely. Rape culture is a fairly ingrained part of society and anyone that studies urban, feminine, or anthropological/sociological studies knows that it's not just a phrase, but a cultural norm.
I honestly do not understand. I think in the entire civilized world raping anyone is frowned up and punished with jail? Can you maybe give some examples of what is this rape culture you talk about? Someone mentioned putting your dick inside a passed out girl before; well yeah that's obviously rape and I think 99% of ppl would agree?
Blaming the victim (“She asked for it!”) Trivializing sexual assault (“Boys will be boys!”) Tolerance of sexual harassment Inflating false rape report statistics Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress, mental state, motives, and history Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive Defining “womanhood” as submissive and sexually passive Pressure on men to “score” Pressure on women to not appear “cold” Assuming only promiscuous women get raped Assuming that men don’t get raped or that only “weak” men get raped Refusing to take rape accusations seriously Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape
I think 99% of ppl have seen examples of these?
I have never in my life seen any examples of those and that includes the internet lol. Who the making-love (see what I did there?) stands up for a rapist. They are the bottom of the barrel even in prisons, one step above pedophiles.
I think you just don't even know you witnessed all of those. It's very popular in music and television. And standing up for rapists (which people do mostly by calling the victim a liar) is only one of the points anyway. Maybe you have not seen the refusal to take rape accusations seriously but that's more of a law enforcement problem that is very real all over the world.
On November 07 2013 01:45 ComaDose wrote: if you can't avoid using offensive words then that's just sad.
You mean "offensive to someone", words aren't inherently offensive. If I got actually offended by things that offend me on a principle level, I'd be a rage filled murder machine (gee, I hope no one reading this had someone close to him murdered by a raging maniac....). Words should be the least of the things someone is bothered with.
oh god you sympathize with white people casually dropping the n word?
I knew you would pull that card lmfao. Well get this, women getting raped isn't a cultural thing, it's a crime. Slaves, the oppression of blacks by whites and Africa getting exploited ( just so you know, I was about to use the "R" word. would you say it would be appropriate there ? yes? no? could you repeat the question?) was fully culturally ingrained. Comparing the two is nothing more then short-sighted.
"words aren't inherently offensive" is quite short sighted
On November 07 2013 04:02 heliusx wrote: Haha. How does someone believing someone else is innocent of rape equal "rape culture"? That's got to be the worst example you could have used.
Don't believe someone is guilty of murder? murder culture!
when a victim approaches an officer and says i need to report a rape and is viewed with skepticism
Wrong. Please read any article on rape culture in India for a present day example.
I thought we were discussing "rape culture" in western countries. I'm fully aware (or at least somewhat, I'm no expert ) of the rape culture in, for example, places like India and some Arab countries, but comparing that to the general view of rape in "the west" is pretty useless.
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
You could remove the "violent" part of everything I said and just leave "crime" and it is just as true. Feel free to do so, if you insist on making completely arbitrary classifications of crimes, based on... nothing at all.
I don't see how nitpicking one word out of everyone I wrote helps anything, though.
On November 07 2013 01:45 ComaDose wrote: if you can't avoid using offensive words then that's just sad.
You mean "offensive to someone", words aren't inherently offensive. If I got actually offended by things that offend me on a principle level, I'd be a rage filled murder machine (gee, I hope no one reading this had someone close to him murdered by a raging maniac....). Words should be the least of the things someone is bothered with.
oh god you sympathize with white people casually dropping the n word?
I knew you would pull that card lmfao. Well get this, women getting raped isn't a cultural thing, it's a crime. Slaves, the oppression of blacks by whites and Africa getting exploited ( just so you know, I was about to use the "R" word. would you say it would be appropriate there ? yes? no? could you repeat the question?) was fully culturally ingrained. Comparing the two is nothing more then short-sighted.
"words aren't inherently offensive" is quite short sighted
By nature, offence is taken, not given. Words aren't inherently offensive, it's on the listener to be offended or not.
On November 07 2013 01:45 ComaDose wrote: if you can't avoid using offensive words then that's just sad.
You mean "offensive to someone", words aren't inherently offensive. If I got actually offended by things that offend me on a principle level, I'd be a rage filled murder machine (gee, I hope no one reading this had someone close to him murdered by a raging maniac....). Words should be the least of the things someone is bothered with.
oh god you sympathize with white people casually dropping the n word?
I knew you would pull that card lmfao. Well get this, women getting raped isn't a cultural thing, it's a crime. Slaves, the oppression of blacks by whites and Africa getting exploited ( just so you know, I was about to use the "R" word. would you say it would be appropriate there ? yes? no? could you repeat the question?) was fully culturally ingrained. Comparing the two is nothing more then short-sighted.
"words aren't inherently offensive" is quite short sighted
Ok lol, I'm done wasting my time. Have a good one !
On November 07 2013 04:02 heliusx wrote: Haha. How does someone believing someone else is innocent of rape equal "rape culture"? That's got to be the worst example you could have used.
Don't believe someone is guilty of murder? murder culture!
when a victim approaches an officer and says i need to report a rape and is viewed with skepticism
I can hardly believe that is anywhere near common enough to define as "rape culture". Sounds more like small town cops protecting rapist friends and relatives.
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
Wrong. Please read any article on rape culture in India for a present day example.
I thought we were discussing "rape culture" in western countries. I'm fully aware (or at least somewhat, I'm no expert ) of the rape culture in, for example, places like India and some Arab countries, but comparing that to the general view of rape in "the west" is pretty useless.
Rape culture exists in the Western countries but not as prevalently It's usually disguised as "she was dressed like a slut" or "she shouldn't have drank in the first place" or "she deserved it"
On November 07 2013 04:02 heliusx wrote: Haha. How does someone believing someone else is innocent of rape equal "rape culture"? That's got to be the worst example you could have used.
Don't believe someone is guilty of murder? murder culture!
when a victim approaches an officer and says i need to report a rape and is viewed with skepticism
I can hardly believe that is anywhere near common enough to define as "rape culture". Sounds more like small town cops protecting rapist friends and relatives.
Well you can believe it or not but its pretty common in all major western cities. I know it happens in toronto. I read articles about it happening at universities all the time.
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
where are you getting that information?. alphas?, really?. are the acquaintances of the victims, alphas?. alphas don't rape, there is no reason for them to do so. they just wait for females to go/be in heat.
On November 07 2013 04:02 heliusx wrote: Haha. How does someone believing someone else is innocent of rape equal "rape culture"? That's got to be the worst example you could have used.
Don't believe someone is guilty of murder? murder culture!
Give up now. 'Rape culture' is a term designed to be as vague as possible, exactly because they don't want to have to explain themselves against comments like those. There's no point in trying to debate them.
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
You just reminded me of this old Brinks commercial
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
where are you getting that information?. alphas?, really?. are the acquaintances of the victims, alphas?. alphas don't rape, there is no reason for them to do so. they just wait for females to go/be in heat.
That is just a prime example of everything that is wrong with the internet passive-aggressive "dating culture."
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
where are you getting that information?. alphas?, really?. are the acquaintances of the victims, alphas?. alphas don't rape, there is no reason for them to do so. they just wait for females to go/be in heat.
That is just a prime example of everything that is wrong with the internet passive-aggressive "dating culture."
that was just an example of what happens in the animal world. you know, where alphas still exist...
On November 07 2013 05:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:41 xM(Z wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:25 mizU wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:55 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:36 HardlyNever wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:17 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
where are you getting that information?. alphas?, really?. are the acquaintances of the victims, alphas?. alphas don't rape, there is no reason for them to do so. they just wait for females to go/be in heat.
That is just a prime example of everything that is wrong with the internet passive-aggressive "dating culture."
that was just an example of what happens in the animal world. you know, where alphas still exist...
Lovely. It's ok, because it's what animals do. Mind boggling.
On November 07 2013 05:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:41 xM(Z wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:25 mizU wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:55 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:36 HardlyNever wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:17 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
where are you getting that information?. alphas?, really?. are the acquaintances of the victims, alphas?. alphas don't rape, there is no reason for them to do so. they just wait for females to go/be in heat.
That is just a prime example of everything that is wrong with the internet passive-aggressive "dating culture."
that was just an example of what happens in the animal world. you know, where alphas still exist...
So that was sarcasm? If it was, I'm sorry. I've read too much depressing crap on the internet over the past few weeks. One man's joke seems to be another man's sincere (and sincerely stupid) belief.
On November 07 2013 05:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:41 xM(Z wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:25 mizU wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:55 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:36 HardlyNever wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:17 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
where are you getting that information?. alphas?, really?. are the acquaintances of the victims, alphas?. alphas don't rape, there is no reason for them to do so. they just wait for females to go/be in heat.
That is just a prime example of everything that is wrong with the internet passive-aggressive "dating culture."
that was just an example of what happens in the animal world. you know, where alphas still exist...
Lovely. It's ok, because it's what animals do. Mind boggling.
It frustrates me that putting any responsibility on women's behavior for the prevalence of rape is met with accusations of victim blaming. I think all that that does is create more victims. Wearing provocative clothing, treating men as objects, and using sex to manipulate are just as valid to label contributing causes of rape as the ideas that men don't know that rape is wrong or are inherently wired to rape if not taught otherwise. We don't live in bubbles; our actions affect others for good or ill. That applies to both sexes.
This may sound backward to many, but I think the dissolution of the family and the loss of marriage as a means to unite families and raise children makes rape increase. People don't know what footing they stand on with each other, and sex is a commodity, so an unscrupulous person can look at someone they don't care about and think "why not take it by force?" It's ironic how tough we are on prostitution and yet make sex more of a commodity than it ever was. But it's hard to grasp such a global issue and pinpoint its causes and solutions. Anti-rape underwear seems to me like treatment of a symptom rather than the disease.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
If I get drunk, walk home through a dark park and get mugged is it partially my fault that someone mugged me? Yes, because I was acting like a moron. That has nothing to do with justifying the deed of the person who mugged me.
I could have done things differently to make it less likely to happen. Simply assuming that everyone should be able to walk through scary neighborhoods unharmed and, more importantly, that it's a completely reasonable thing to do is just plain naive.
There is a major difference between "blaming a victim" and "expecting common sense from every potential victim".
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
If I get drunk, walk home through a dark park and get mugged is it partially my fault that someone mugged me? Yes, because I was acting like a moron. That has nothing to do with justifying the deed of the person who mugged me.
I could have done things differently to make it less likely to happen. Simply assuming that everyone should be able to walk through scary neighborhoods unharmed and, more importantly, that it's a completely reasonable thing to do is just plain naive.
There is a major difference between "blaming a victim" and "expecting common sense from every potential victim".
okay that's a very small percentage of rapes you're talking about tho. assuming your talking about walking through a dark dangerous area and not actually trying to justify telling women how to dress
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
How is it valid? That's like saying if I wear a T-shirt with a knife on it, it's partially my fault if someone stabs me. Honestly, you can wear whatever the fuck you want without the fear of people violently forcing you to have sex, what kind of person seriously feel "Oh it's OK if I punch her and fuck her, she's wearing a short skirt".
On November 07 2013 06:39 Mothra wrote: It frustrates me that putting any responsibility on women's behavior for the prevalence of rape is met with accusations of victim blaming. I think all that that does is create more victims. Wearing provocative clothing, treating men as objects, and using sex to manipulate are just as valid to label contributing causes of rape as the ideas that men don't know that rape is wrong or are inherently wired to rape if not taught otherwise. We don't live in bubbles; our actions affect others for good or ill. That applies to both sexes.
This may sound backward to many, but I think the dissolution of the family and the loss of marriage as a means to unite families and raise children makes rape increase. People don't know what footing they stand on with each other, and sex is a commodity, so an unscrupulous person can look at someone they don't care about and think "why not take it by force?" It's ironic how tough we are on prostitution and yet make sex more of a commodity than it ever was. But it's hard to grasp such a global issue and pinpoint its causes and solutions. Anti-rape underwear seems to me like treatment of a symptom rather than the disease.
So far I have hypothesized that broken families, lack of eduction, and emotional immaturity are the primary causes of date rape. I am currently researching how the vast increase in pornography has impacted the increase of date rape among younger people. I have yet to find a strong correlation although i do believe one may exist.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
If I get drunk, walk home through a dark park and get mugged is it partially my fault that someone mugged me? Yes, because I was acting like a moron. That has nothing to do with justifying the deed of the person who mugged me.
I could have done things differently to make it less likely to happen. Simply assuming that everyone should be able to walk through scary neighborhoods unharmed and, more importantly, that it's a completely reasonable thing to do is just plain naive.
There is a major difference between "blaming a victim" and "expecting common sense from every potential victim".
okay that's a very small percentage of rapes your talking about tho.
It's the same chain of thought. We can all agree that it shouldn't make it more likely to be assaulted in any shape or form but the closer your outfit gets to a certain extreme the more likely you are to provoke extreme reactions. If I wear a pink string, walk into a biker bar and get punched in the face because "LOL LOOK AT HIM LOL GTFO" then I was being a moron as well. That line is completely fluid however.
There is a difference between wearing a short dress at a club and walking home half drunk at 4 am alone afterwards. If you're genuinely worried about your own safety you shouldn't compromise it that easily.
PS: Can someone link me all these "rapes occur here and there in that situation in x percentage"-statistics everyone seems to take as given? :3
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
How is it valid? That's like saying if I wear a T-shirt with a knife on it, it's partially my fault if someone stabs me. Honestly, you can wear whatever the fuck you want without the fear of people violently forcing you to have sex, what kind of person seriously feel "Oh it's OK if I punch her and fuck her, she's wearing a short skirt".
You're missing the point.
If you have a knife in your pocket you are more likely to get stabbed during a bar fight. That's why it was "partially your fault". You made sure there is at least one knife around in the first place. Whether you wanted to protect yourself with that knife, stab someone or make sure you can slice your bread the next morning is completely irrelevant here. That has nothing to do with excusing whatever happens to you, it's about appealing to common sense.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
If I get drunk, walk home through a dark park and get mugged is it partially my fault that someone mugged me? Yes, because I was acting like a moron. That has nothing to do with justifying the deed of the person who mugged me.
I could have done things differently to make it less likely to happen. Simply assuming that everyone should be able to walk through scary neighborhoods unharmed and, more importantly, that it's a completely reasonable thing to do is just plain naive.
There is a major difference between "blaming a victim" and "expecting common sense from every potential victim".
Does that mean that you're less likely to get a conviction though? When they come to court, will the jury rule less harshly because you were stupid to walk through the dark park?
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
If I get drunk, walk home through a dark park and get mugged is it partially my fault that someone mugged me? Yes, because I was acting like a moron. That has nothing to do with justifying the deed of the person who mugged me.
I could have done things differently to make it less likely to happen. Simply assuming that everyone should be able to walk through scary neighborhoods unharmed and, more importantly, that it's a completely reasonable thing to do is just plain naive.
There is a major difference between "blaming a victim" and "expecting common sense from every potential victim".
Does that mean that you're less likely to get a conviction though? When they come to court, will the jury rule less harshly because you were stupid to walk through the dark park?
I hope not.
As someone who isn't a lawyer I would argue that there shouldn't be a difference between being mugged when sober in bright daylight or when being drunk in the middle of the night. I was still mugged after all. I'm genuinely not sure if and to what extent there are (court-) arguments for situations like this. At least I can't think of anything that makes sense. =P
On November 07 2013 05:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:41 xM(Z wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:25 mizU wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:55 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:36 HardlyNever wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:17 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
where are you getting that information?. alphas?, really?. are the acquaintances of the victims, alphas?. alphas don't rape, there is no reason for them to do so. they just wait for females to go/be in heat.
That is just a prime example of everything that is wrong with the internet passive-aggressive "dating culture."
that was just an example of what happens in the animal world. you know, where alphas still exist...
So that was sarcasm? If it was, I'm sorry. I've read too much depressing crap on the internet over the past few weeks. One man's joke seems to be another man's sincere (and sincerely stupid) belief.
it's just shitty when wannabe feminists misuse that word thinking that if they cut of the head/leader, the others will fall in line. curing rape by striking (at) alphas... it makes no sense.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
If I get drunk, walk home through a dark park and get mugged is it partially my fault that someone mugged me? Yes, because I was acting like a moron. That has nothing to do with justifying the deed of the person who mugged me.
I could have done things differently to make it less likely to happen. Simply assuming that everyone should be able to walk through scary neighborhoods unharmed and, more importantly, that it's a completely reasonable thing to do is just plain naive.
There is a major difference between "blaming a victim" and "expecting common sense from every potential victim".
Does that mean that you're less likely to get a conviction though? When they come to court, will the jury rule less harshly because you were stupid to walk through the dark park?
I hope not.
As someone who isn't a lawyer I would argue that there shouldn't be a difference between being mugged when sober in bright daylight or when being drunk in the middle of the night. I was still mugged after all. I'm genuinely not sure if and to what extent there are (court-) arguments for situations like this. At least I can't think of anything that makes sense. =P
On November 07 2013 06:27 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:01 xM(Z wrote:
On November 07 2013 05:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:41 xM(Z wrote:
On November 07 2013 04:25 mizU wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:55 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:36 HardlyNever wrote:
On November 07 2013 03:17 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
On November 07 2013 02:48 HardlyNever wrote: Rape is a violent crime, like any other violent crime.
No, it isn't. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape includes violence and is a violent expression of sexuality, but derived from a persons insatiable need to be engaged in sexual proclivity.
In many instances of date rape, no violence occurs
Are you suggesting there is only one single motivation for all rapes ever?
Is there only one motivation for all murders ever? (A desire to have a person be dead, maybe?)
Overwhelmingly, the main motivation for rape is sex. Yes, their are exceptions to that rule but that does not change the fact that rape is a sexual crime
In most cases during a rape violence occurs when the girl resists the initial assault. After the rapist is done satisfying himself, he does not stick around to beat the hell out of the victim.
Violent crimes are completely different from sexual crimes. You don't hear many cases about somebody hitting a person in the head with a baseball bat then ejaculating afterwords.
Where are you getting this information? Rapes are more about dominance and exertion of power than sex. Almost all male rapists are alphas, there's a reason for this.
where are you getting that information?. alphas?, really?. are the acquaintances of the victims, alphas?. alphas don't rape, there is no reason for them to do so. they just wait for females to go/be in heat.
That is just a prime example of everything that is wrong with the internet passive-aggressive "dating culture."
that was just an example of what happens in the animal world. you know, where alphas still exist...
So that was sarcasm? If it was, I'm sorry. I've read too much depressing crap on the internet over the past few weeks. One man's joke seems to be another man's sincere (and sincerely stupid) belief.
it's just shitty when wannabe feminists misuse that word thinking that if they cut of the head/leader, the others will fall in line. curing rape by striking (at) alphas... it makes no sense.
Yeah, urr, not really sure how you've got that strawman together.
Good job, anyway, I'm glad you refuted that point.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is how much should we blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped and how much should we let that affect our sympathy for the victim. Just to let my opinion be known on this one, I don't believe clothes choice should affect how we allocate blame. It doesn't make any particular sense to do that, it's mainly just vindictiveness, envy and this other emotion that is equally inane but I don't know the word for.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is whether or not one should blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped, which as a corollary effect makes people sympathize less with the woman who just got raped.
And people shouldn't blame women. But they do. hence, problem.
On November 07 2013 08:23 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:48 ComaDose wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:46 Mothra wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is whether or not one should blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped, which as a corollary effect makes people sympathize less with the woman who just got raped.
And people shouldn't blame women. But they do. hence, problem.
You probably didn't read my post thoroughly. I absolutely despise the notion of blaming women for getting raped outside of particularly bizarre circumstances and I hate the notion of not sympathizing with the rape victim even more. I was attacking a different point, the notion that provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape. It is a contributing factor, albeit pretty minor, but blaming women for getting raped because they were wearing a certain kind of clothing is inane in the extreme.
On November 07 2013 08:23 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:48 ComaDose wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:46 Mothra wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is whether or not one should blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped, which as a corollary effect makes people sympathize less with the woman who just got raped.
And people shouldn't blame women. But they do. hence, problem.
You probably didn't read my post thoroughly. I absolutely despise the notion of blaming women for getting raped outside of particularly bizarre circumstances and I hate the notion of not sympathizing with the rape victim even more. I was attacking a different point, the notion that provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape. It is a contributing factor, albeit pretty minor, but blaming women for getting raped because they were wearing a certain kind of clothing is inane in the extreme.
I guess I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you. I would caution people that almost use that factor of clothing ect as an "excuse" of sorts. The problem is the people that rape, not the girls that go out in nice clothes.
On November 07 2013 08:55 neptunusfisk wrote: But most of rape cases happen in situations where you wouldn't prepare for it, e.g. in relationships
Didn't the World Health Organization figure out that its about 70%-80% a spouse or significant other that does the rape and not a stranger?
So? That can mean all sort of things...
Maybe women spend significantly more time with their spouse or significant other than with strangers. Maybe women are more cautious around strangers and have gotten rather good at circumventing dangerous situations. Maybe women are more likely to be raped when they let their guard down. Maybe rapists are more eager to target victims they know. Maybe rapists are more eager to target victims with whom they have an intimate relationship. Maybe rapists are acting upon opportunities. ...
It's one thing to collect some numbers, but unless you control for a whole lot of different factors that might or might not play into this, I find it awfully hard to take anything away from this that could be considered even remotely insightful.
man i watched that video.. and not to be weird or anything but i feel like any grown man could just pull those things down.. did you see how lightly she was tugging on them?
On November 07 2013 08:55 neptunusfisk wrote: But most of rape cases happen in situations where you wouldn't prepare for it, e.g. in relationships
Didn't the World Health Organization figure out that its about 70%-80% a spouse or significant other that does the rape and not a stranger?
So? That can mean all sort of things...
Maybe women spend significantly more time with their spouse or significant other than with strangers. Maybe women are more cautious around strangers and have gotten rather good at circumventing dangerous situations. Maybe women are more likely to be raped when they let their guard down. Maybe rapists are more eager to target victims they know. Maybe rapists are more eager to target victims with whom they have an intimate relationship. Maybe rapists are acting upon opportunities. ...
It's one thing to collect some numbers, but unless you control for a whole lot of different factors that might or might not play into this, I find it awfully hard to take anything away from this that could be considered even remotely insightful.
I'm sure the World Health Organization are a bunch of lazy fucks who don't care about their findings.
On November 07 2013 08:55 neptunusfisk wrote: But most of rape cases happen in situations where you wouldn't prepare for it, e.g. in relationships
Didn't the World Health Organization figure out that its about 70%-80% a spouse or significant other that does the rape and not a stranger?
So? That can mean all sort of things...
Maybe women spend significantly more time with their spouse or significant other than with strangers. Maybe women are more cautious around strangers and have gotten rather good at circumventing dangerous situations. Maybe women are more likely to be raped when they let their guard down. Maybe rapists are more eager to target victims they know. Maybe rapists are more eager to target victims with whom they have an intimate relationship. Maybe rapists are acting upon opportunities. ...
It's one thing to collect some numbers, but unless you control for a whole lot of different factors that might or might not play into this, I find it awfully hard to take anything away from this that could be considered even remotely insightful.
I'm sure the World Health Organization are a bunch of lazy fucks who don't care about their findings.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is how much should we blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped and how much should we let that affect our sympathy for the victim. Just to let my opinion be known on this one, I don't believe clothes choice should affect how we allocate blame. It doesn't make any particular sense to do that, it's mainly just vindictiveness, envy and this other emotion that is equally inane but I don't know the word for.
What I had in mind was more that the prevalence of people objectifying themselves as sexual objects leads to increased animosity, frustration and lust, and decreased respect for others and self. Those lead to more rapes. Not so much that looking pretty on a particular night increases chances of being raped.
I think we have to all have to take responsibility for it as a society instead of just blaming either victim or rapist and then washing our hands of it. Rape culture is a vague and meaningless phrase to me, whereas the violence and hypersexualization of society I can understand and believe perpetuates rape. I do believe that dressing in a sexually provocative manner is a part of the problem, but it doesn't mean I blame people for being raped or feel anyone deserves to be.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is how much should we blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped and how much should we let that affect our sympathy for the victim. Just to let my opinion be known on this one, I don't believe clothes choice should affect how we allocate blame. It doesn't make any particular sense to do that, it's mainly just vindictiveness, envy and this other emotion that is equally inane but I don't know the word for.
Are there any stats anywhere that supports this notion of prettier looking girls being more likely to get raped? If I had to make an hypothesis it would be that there is no correlation but I don't know.
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
You haven't said why you think wearing provocative clothing doesn't contribute to increased rape (on a society wide level). You just say that it is so and that it's not okay to question that. I'm not interested in blame, just causes. You can't prevent something without knowing its causes.
On November 07 2013 11:13 Xahhk wrote: This isn't going to stop a guy from fucking her between the thighs or just humping her butt even with those pants on.
Need to make it abrasive so it hurts if the guy tries to do some between the thighs kinky shit.
Also, notice how all the models are hot? What about the less than flattering females? How will this underwear work for those who are quite flabby?
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
You haven't said why you think wearing provocative clothing doesn't contribute to increased rape (on a society wide level). You just say that it is so and that it's not okay to question that. I'm not interested in blame, just causes. You can't prevent something without knowing its causes.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
On November 07 2013 08:55 neptunusfisk wrote: But most of rape cases happen in situations where you wouldn't prepare for it, e.g. in relationships
Didn't the World Health Organization figure out that its about 70%-80% a spouse or significant other that does the rape and not a stranger?
So? That can mean all sort of things...
Maybe women spend significantly more time with their spouse or significant other than with strangers. Maybe women are more cautious around strangers and have gotten rather good at circumventing dangerous situations. Maybe women are more likely to be raped when they let their guard down. Maybe rapists are more eager to target victims they know. Maybe rapists are more eager to target victims with whom they have an intimate relationship. Maybe rapists are acting upon opportunities. ...
It's one thing to collect some numbers, but unless you control for a whole lot of different factors that might or might not play into this, I find it awfully hard to take anything away from this that could be considered even remotely insightful.
I'm sure the World Health Organization are a bunch of lazy fucks who don't care about their findings.
Glad we agree on that.
Hahaha wasn't expecting that comeback line hahahaha. You really have a point.
to keep the price of this very sophisticated garment as low as possible it'll be manufactured in rural chinese factories where 8 year old slaves assemble them for $0.14/hour.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
There're many different situations that can lead to raping. This product will not magically cover all of them. What it can cover is, the situations as described. People who think the product is useless because it doesn't cover cases they say are just.....
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime.
Why can't it be both?
It is a inaccurate representation of the crime. In several different instances violence never occurs during a rape. Rape is most commonly induced by drugging, cohesion, or an trusted authority figure abusing his power. Saying a crime that centers around sex is a violent crime is unconscionable.
People who say rape is a violent crime remind me of this:
On November 07 2013 08:23 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:48 ComaDose wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:46 Mothra wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is whether or not one should blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped, which as a corollary effect makes people sympathize less with the woman who just got raped.
And people shouldn't blame women. But they do. hence, problem.
As much as people blame women, they do it happens it sucks, people blame the rapist a lot more. I don't see the woman standing trial and being thrown in jail for 20+ years. Now sometimes there isn't enough evidence to actually reach a guilty verdict which is sometimes because the man didn't rape the woman. This is the correct verdict if he is actually innocent. A lot of issue arises because you don't need a witness or strong forensic evidence to go to trial in a rape case so it catches a lot of media attention regardless of whether the man is guilty or not. If the man is guilty he should go to jail, if he is innocent he should stay free and not have his name dragged through the mud.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime.
Look at Mr. Lawyerman here with his semantics.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation disagrees with you though. Check it.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime.
Look at Mr. Lawyerman here with his semantics.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation disagrees with you though. Check it.
Thousands of years of biological anthropology disagree with this abstract human construct. Since the Paleolithic Era, women would form emotional bonds with their abuser (i.e. Stockholm Syndrome) all the time. Sexual attraction, sex and rape are so closely related. Oxytoxin is a helluva drug.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime.
Look at Mr. Lawyerman here with his semantics.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation disagrees with you though. Check it.
Thousands of years of biological anthropology disagree. Since the Paleolithic Era, women would form emotional bonds with their abuser (i.e. Stockholm Syndrome) all the time. Sexual attraction, sex and rape are so closely related. Oxytoxin is a helluva drug.
Try using that argument in any courtroom or any kind of moderated debate. Biological anthropology didn't even exist until the 18th century, and just because some victims bond with the perpetrators doesn't mean that most of them do.
But yeah, I'm not sure what he meant by "Oxytoxin is a helluva drug". In fact, I'm not sure what anyone here is arguing about. Rape is really wrong and people should not rape each other. I don't think this product will really do anything, it seems to be more of a fear-management item as opposed to a danger-management product, but to each his (or her) own.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime.
On November 07 2013 08:23 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:48 ComaDose wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:46 Mothra wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is whether or not one should blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped, which as a corollary effect makes people sympathize less with the woman who just got raped.
And people shouldn't blame women. But they do. hence, problem.
As much as people blame women, they do it happens it sucks, people blame the rapist a lot more. I don't see the woman standing trial and being thrown in jail for 20+ years. Now sometimes there isn't enough evidence to actually reach a guilty verdict which is sometimes because the man didn't rape the woman. This is the correct verdict if he is actually innocent. A lot of issue arises because you don't need a witness or strong forensic evidence to go to trial in a rape case so it catches a lot of media attention regardless of whether the man is guilty or not. If the man is guilty he should go to jail, if he is innocent he should stay free and not have his name dragged through the mud.
Urm. Right. No one was saying women were being punished. Blame in the sense that there is a lot of shame for people that have been raped. On top of this, the number of convicted rapists to the number of rapes is pretty tragically low: http://www.uky.edu/CRVAW/files/TopTen/07_Rape_Prosecution.pdf
On November 07 2013 08:23 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:48 ComaDose wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:46 Mothra wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is how much should we blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped and how much should we let that affect our sympathy for the victim. Just to let my opinion be known on this one, I don't believe clothes choice should affect how we allocate blame. It doesn't make any particular sense to do that, it's mainly just vindictiveness, envy and this other emotion that is equally inane but I don't know the word for.
What I had in mind was more that the prevalence of people objectifying themselves as sexual objects leads to increased animosity, frustration and lust, and decreased respect for others and self. Those lead to more rapes. Not so much that looking pretty on a particular night increases chances of being raped.
I think we have to all have to take responsibility for it as a society instead of just blaming either victim or rapist and then washing our hands of it. Rape culture is a vague and meaningless phrase to me, whereas the violence and hypersexualization of society I can understand and believe perpetuates rape. I do believe that dressing in a sexually provocative manner is a part of the problem, but it doesn't mean I blame people for being raped or feel anyone deserves to be.
LOL So, women can't wear "Provocative clothing"
I suppose men get to define what that means right? We don't want them to be causing problems for potential rapists. Why can't women wear what they want? It's not like they're walking round naked. What counts as provocative clothing for men? Not to mention, if women went to nightclothes making sure not to be "Provocative" then they would probably be called cold and boring.
EDIT: Sorry for multiposting btw. I'll try to keep it in one post in future.
On November 07 2013 08:23 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:48 ComaDose wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:46 Mothra wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is how much should we blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped and how much should we let that affect our sympathy for the victim. Just to let my opinion be known on this one, I don't believe clothes choice should affect how we allocate blame. It doesn't make any particular sense to do that, it's mainly just vindictiveness, envy and this other emotion that is equally inane but I don't know the word for.
What I had in mind was more that the prevalence of people objectifying themselves as sexual objects leads to increased animosity, frustration and lust, and decreased respect for others and self. Those lead to more rapes. Not so much that looking pretty on a particular night increases chances of being raped.
I think we have to all have to take responsibility for it as a society instead of just blaming either victim or rapist and then washing our hands of it. Rape culture is a vague and meaningless phrase to me, whereas the violence and hypersexualization of society I can understand and believe perpetuates rape. I do believe that dressing in a sexually provocative manner is a part of the problem, but it doesn't mean I blame people for being raped or feel anyone deserves to be.
LOL So, women can't wear "Provocative clothing"
I suppose men get to define what that means right? We don't want them to be causing problems for potential rapists. Why can't women wear what they want? It's not like they're walking round naked. What counts as provocative clothing for men? Not to mention, if women went to nightclothes making sure not to be "Provocative" then they would probably be called cold and boring.
EDIT: Sorry for multiposting btw. I'll try to keep it in one post in future.
I don't really think the clothing matters too much. As long as a girl shows interest in a guy he'll probably go after her (not meaning rape her) unless there is a hotter girl there. Men aren't that picky. The idea that provocative clothing causes rape is silly. (I'm agreeing with you) Yes it increases desire for sex but lots of guys control themselves enough to not rape women. A woman should be allowed to wear nothing and not have fear of rape. Sadly in the real world baby's die, people get shot without anyone being found guilty, wars happen, and women get raped.
I think there needs to be more effort put towards helping the victim get back to what life was before. It was a tragic event but they should be taught not to let it define them as it happens to be. I can't understand this idea that rape culture means rape is accepted. I can however see the culture where a woman/man who is raped is thought to be ruined by the event.
Boyfriends break up with the woman who was raped, friends leave them behind because they don't want to think of the bad event. They might not be blaming the victim but to the victim it seems like everyone is blaming her/him for the event when all people really want is to just not think about bad things. People are selfish like this, they don't want a constant reminder there is evil/misfortune in the world (you see this in cases where marriages end in divorce when a baby is still-born or toddler dies by an accident.)
It's like any traumatic event, if you can't move forward you break and stop functioning. Nothing works and everything seems hopeless. It might be best to put in money into traumatic stress treatments and counseling in order to help victims.
On November 07 2013 08:23 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:48 ComaDose wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:46 Mothra wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is how much should we blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped and how much should we let that affect our sympathy for the victim. Just to let my opinion be known on this one, I don't believe clothes choice should affect how we allocate blame. It doesn't make any particular sense to do that, it's mainly just vindictiveness, envy and this other emotion that is equally inane but I don't know the word for.
What I had in mind was more that the prevalence of people objectifying themselves as sexual objects leads to increased animosity, frustration and lust, and decreased respect for others and self. Those lead to more rapes. Not so much that looking pretty on a particular night increases chances of being raped.
I think we have to all have to take responsibility for it as a society instead of just blaming either victim or rapist and then washing our hands of it. Rape culture is a vague and meaningless phrase to me, whereas the violence and hypersexualization of society I can understand and believe perpetuates rape. I do believe that dressing in a sexually provocative manner is a part of the problem, but it doesn't mean I blame people for being raped or feel anyone deserves to be.
LOL So, women can't wear "Provocative clothing"
I suppose men get to define what that means right? We don't want them to be causing problems for potential rapists. Why can't women wear what they want? It's not like they're walking round naked. What counts as provocative clothing for men? Not to mention, if women went to nightclothes making sure not to be "Provocative" then they would probably be called cold and boring.
EDIT: Sorry for multiposting btw. I'll try to keep it in one post in future.
I don't really think the clothing matters too much. As long as a girl shows interest in a guy he'll probably go after her (not meaning rape her) unless there is a hotter girl there. Men aren't that picky. The idea that provocative clothing causes rape is silly. (I'm agreeing with you) Yes it increases desire for sex but lots of guys control themselves enough to not rape women. A woman should be allowed to wear nothing and not have fear of rape. Sadly in the real world baby's die, people get shot without anyone being found guilty, wars happen, and women get raped.
I think there needs to be more effort put towards helping the victim get back to what life was before. It was a tragic event but they should be taught not to let it define them as it happens to be. I can't understand this idea that rape culture means rape is accepted. I can however see the culture where a woman/man who is raped is thought to be ruined by the event.
Boyfriends break up with the woman who was raped, friends leave them behind because they don't want to think of the bad event. They might not be blaming the victim but to the victim it seems like everyone is blaming her/him for the event when all people really want is to just not think about bad things. People are selfish like this, they don't want a constant reminder there is evil/misfortune in the world (you see this in cases where marriages end in divorce when a baby is still-born or toddler dies by an accident.)
It's like any traumatic event, if you can't move forward you break and stop functioning. Nothing works and everything seems hopeless. It might be best to put in money into traumatic stress treatments and counseling in order to help victims.
If you actually want to know what it is/want to understand it, just drop me a pm, because I feel like I'm cluttering up the thread saying the same things over and over :')
I find it ridiculous you're equating personal responsibility ads with rape culture. If such a thing was so prevalent you would think you could find actual examples.
You know that it shouldn't be a women's responsibility not to get raped, right? The 2nd half of the poster is a women that has just been raped, with a caption that basically tells her she should have been more careful.
On November 07 2013 23:31 Zealos wrote: You know that it shouldn't be a women's responsibility not to get raped, right? The 2nd half of the poster is a women that has just been raped, with a caption that basically tells her she should have been more careful.
It should be everyone's responsibility to take basic precautions to avoid becoming the victim of a crime. Any crime. That poster is telling women to drink responsibly and get home safely. It's the equivalent of saying "don't forget to lock your door when you leave home", and it is good advice.
Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
On November 07 2013 23:31 Zealos wrote: You know that it shouldn't be a women's responsibility not to get raped, right? The 2nd half of the poster is a women that has just been raped, with a caption that basically tells her she should have been more careful.
The only issue I have with the vimeo is they targeted comedians who say things for laughs and not serious discussion. That said their choices are open for discussion. Also snookie or however it is spelled was being sexual not being raped. Not all of the other images were of women being raped they were of women enjoying rough sex. Is it wrong for a woman to enjoy rough sex? If anything popular culture in the past couple years (Fifty Shades of Grey) shows that there are quite a few women who fantasize about rough sex. Now the videos that have rape in them were older generation back when it was a huge issue, rape has dropped roughly 60% since 1993.
A more current movie to talk about would be the girl with the dragon tattoo that has a rape scene in it if i remember correctly.
On November 07 2013 13:38 Mothra wrote: I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Your assertion is that scantily clad women increase the amount of rape. You call this a logical argument but you use no logic. My argument was that it does not; I provided arguments to support it. is that clear enough for you? now its your turn to tell me why dressing in revealing clothing increases rape.
The 2 sentences you repeated at the end of your posts were trying to encourage you to recommend a solution. are you suggesting longer club dresses for women? Don't you have any qualms with telling women how they should dress to protect them from men? are you still so tunnel visioned on the small percentage of rape that happens to strangers that you think this argument matters on the scale of rapes every year?
On November 07 2013 13:38 Mothra wrote: I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Your assertion is that scantily clad women increase the amount of rape. You call this a logical argument but you use no logic. My argument was that it does not; I provided arguments to support it. is that clear enough for you? now its your turn to tell me why dressing in revealing clothing increases rape.
The 2 sentences you repeated at the end of your posts were trying to encourage you to recommend a solution. are you suggesting longer club dresses for women? Don't you have any qualms with telling women how they should dress to protect them from men? are you still so tunnel visioned on the small percentage of rape that happens to strangers that you think this argument matters on the scale of rapes every year?
The occurrence of rape has been dropping in the US while the amount of skin shown by women has increased. If correlation equaling causation has taught me anything this means that the more skin a woman shows the less likely it is for her to be raped.
On November 07 2013 13:38 Mothra wrote: I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Your assertion is that scantily clad women increase the amount of rape. You call this a logical argument but you use no logic. My argument was that it does not; I provided arguments to support it. is that clear enough for you? now its your turn to tell me why dressing in revealing clothing increases rape.
The 2 sentences you repeated at the end of your posts were trying to encourage you to recommend a solution. are you suggesting longer club dresses for women? Don't you have any qualms with telling women how they should dress to protect them from men? are you still so tunnel visioned on the small percentage of rape that happens to strangers that you think this argument matters on the scale of rapes every year?
The occurrence of rape has been dropping in the US while the amount of skin shown by women has increased. If correlation equaling causation has taught me anything this means that the more skin a woman shows the less likely it is for her to be raped.
I would argue that the decrease in rape has more to do with increased availability of porn than it does with amount of skin shown in public.
I would also argue that even if more visible skin did lower the overall prevalence of rape, it would still increase the risk that a potential rapist picks you.
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
On November 07 2013 13:38 Mothra wrote: I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Your assertion is that scantily clad women increase the amount of rape. You call this a logical argument but you use no logic. My argument was that it does not; I provided arguments to support it. is that clear enough for you? now its your turn to tell me why dressing in revealing clothing increases rape.
The 2 sentences you repeated at the end of your posts were trying to encourage you to recommend a solution. are you suggesting longer club dresses for women? Don't you have any qualms with telling women how they should dress to protect them from men? are you still so tunnel visioned on the small percentage of rape that happens to strangers that you think this argument matters on the scale of rapes every year?
The occurrence of rape has been dropping in the US while the amount of skin shown by women has increased. If correlation equaling causation has taught me anything this means that the more skin a woman shows the less likely it is for her to be raped.
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish.
Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence.
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish.
Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence.
First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false.
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish.
Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence.
First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false.
You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared...
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish.
Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence.
First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false.
You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared...
Oh so random stories about police departments failing to do their jobs means rape culture? Its not just rape. Its robberies, assaults, etc. Unless you have some actual evidence of rape culture you're wasting your time googling random articles to "support" your argument.
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish.
Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence.
First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false.
You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared...
MUGGED. Right there. You put "mugged" in a sentence as if you were comparing things. Then you say you can't compare things to "mugged" the thing you compared things too. Quite often a police officer will treat a fire as a self inflicted crime done to get insurance money.
On November 08 2013 00:33 heliusx wrote: Oh so random stories about police departments failing to do their jobs means rape culture? Its not just rape. Its robberies, assaults, etc. Unless you have some actual evidence of rape culture you're wasting your time googling random articles to "support" your argument.
You also convinently ignore points that don't suit you. In 31 states the rapist can sue for rights to see the child of the raped women. Can you understand that only in a culture where rape is normalized, that men who rape a women are able to sue the women so that he can take custody of the child?
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish.
Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence.
First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false.
You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared...
MUGGED. Right there. You put "mugged" in a sentence as if you were comparing things. Then you say you can't compare things to "mugged" the thing you compared things too. Quite often a police officer will treat a fire as a self inflicted crime done to get insurance money.
Yes. I did. I was wondering where I said they can't be compared?
On November 08 2013 00:33 heliusx wrote: Oh so random stories about police departments failing to do their jobs means rape culture? Its not just rape. Its robberies, assaults, etc. Unless you have some actual evidence of rape culture you're wasting your time googling random articles to "support" your argument.
You also convinently ignore points that don't suit you. In 31 states the rapist can sue for rights to see the child of the raped women. Can you understand that only in a culture where rape is normalized, that men who rape a women are able to sue the women so that he can take custody of the child?
So yea. They can ask for rights to their child, a Judge will probably just say something like, "You're admitting to the rape? Then that's new evidence. As such you can go back to court and I'm denying your right to custody of the kid." That is completely dependent on the judge. I doubt a sane one would give rights to the rapist.
Lets talk about your "stats" http://socialismartnature.tumblr.com/post/30840803485/dont-believe-rape-culture-is-real-here-are-some I see no mention of where this data was obtained. I can't verify it. Out of every single one of my male friends not a single one would rape a woman or even have sex with one that was black out drunk. Hell half of them have issues picking a chick up and most time just play video games and watch porn to pass time. They're all college age.
Again, how do you know how many are getting not-reported? You can use made up evidence to create anything such as 100% of those unreported aliens were green eyed dancing martians that looked like norse gods. Campus rape rates have dropped which can be seen in the earlier evidence I posted, that evidence is from the US government. One/two Politicians doesn't mean lots of politicians. He got heckled out of office I think. I might be wrong though.
Tumblr isn't the best source for... sources. The government does a decent job at it because they have an accurate census report.
Yea Todd Akin is out of office. He is no longer a politician.
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish.
Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence.
First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false.
You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared...
MUGGED. Right there. You put "mugged" in a sentence as if you were comparing things. Then you say you can't compare things to "mugged" the thing you compared things too. Quite often a police officer will treat a fire as a self inflicted crime done to get insurance money.
Yes. I did. I was wondering where I said they can't be compared?
Have you read the sources they show at the bottom of the pictures and posts? One of the places they get them from is here: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates There are several sources at the bottom of that page too. Please take the time to actually read the sources, instead of pretending they don't exist.
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish.
Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence.
First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false.
You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared...
MUGGED. Right there. You put "mugged" in a sentence as if you were comparing things. Then you say you can't compare things to "mugged" the thing you compared things too. Quite often a police officer will treat a fire as a self inflicted crime done to get insurance money.
Yes. I did. I was wondering where I said they can't be compared?
On November 08 2013 00:57 Zealos wrote: Have you read the sources they show at the bottom of the pictures and posts? One of the places they get them from is here: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates There are several sources at the bottom of that page too. Please take the time to actually read the sources, instead of pretending they don't exist.
On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote: Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius.
Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish.
Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence.
First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false.
You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared...
MUGGED. Right there. You put "mugged" in a sentence as if you were comparing things. Then you say you can't compare things to "mugged" the thing you compared things too. Quite often a police officer will treat a fire as a self inflicted crime done to get insurance money.
Yes. I did. I was wondering where I said they can't be compared?
But it looks like they have a decent way of surveying. I don't know the exact accuracy but neither do they. So statistically speaking they're probably good.
On November 08 2013 01:04 Zealos wrote: You're looking at violent crime, not rape.
Yea 49% in 2010 then 27% in 2011 and 2002 55%. That deviation...
If you're not reporting a crime, you have no reason to be upset that the person didn't get caught. Things don't magically happen. Tumblr should probably talk more about making sure crimes get reported.
On November 08 2013 00:33 heliusx wrote: Oh so random stories about police departments failing to do their jobs means rape culture? Its not just rape. Its robberies, assaults, etc. Unless you have some actual evidence of rape culture you're wasting your time googling random articles to "support" your argument.
You also convinently ignore points that don't suit you. In 31 states the rapist can sue for rights to see the child of the raped women. Can you understand that only in a culture where rape is normalized, that men who rape a women are able to sue the women so that he can take custody of the child?
So yea. They can ask for rights to their child, a Judge will probably just say something like, "You're admitting to the rape? Then that's new evidence. As such you can go back to court and I'm denying your right to custody of the kid." That is completely dependent on the judge. I doubt a sane one would give rights to the rapist.
On November 08 2013 00:33 heliusx wrote: Oh so random stories about police departments failing to do their jobs means rape culture? Its not just rape. Its robberies, assaults, etc. Unless you have some actual evidence of rape culture you're wasting your time googling random articles to "support" your argument.
You also convinently ignore points that don't suit you. In 31 states the rapist can sue for rights to see the child of the raped women. Can you understand that only in a culture where rape is normalized, that men who rape a women are able to sue the women so that he can take custody of the child?
So yea. They can ask for rights to their child, a Judge will probably just say something like, "You're admitting to the rape? Then that's new evidence. As such you can go back to court and I'm denying your right to custody of the kid." That is completely dependent on the judge. I doubt a sane one would give rights to the rapist.
To be honest though, even the fact they are allowed is pretty sad.
Yea it's pretty shitty. I would have taken the deal of not taking the 110 dollars a week in child support.
"After a family court judge ordered Melendez to pay $110 a week in child support, Melendez asked for visitation rights, and offered to withdraw his request in exchange for not having to pay child support, according to the lawsuit."
Judge is a judge... I don't know how well he judges though.
You have to have nearly without a doubt evidence in order to convict someone. Sometimes it is even required to make an arrest. So I'm not surprised these crimes lack strong evidence to make an arrest. It doesn't mean we should change the legal system just means we need to have ways to get more concrete evidence.
So we can really only look at the 40 that were reported. You can't do anything if a report was never filed.
3/40 is still a low number. 8/40 go to court so 1/5 have strong enough evidence to convict them. The rest is up to lawyers.
On November 08 2013 00:40 Zealos wrote: You also convinently ignore points that don't suit you. In 31 states the rapist can sue for rights to see the child of the raped women. Can you understand that only in a culture where rape is normalized, that men who rape a women are able to sue the women so that he can take custody of the child?
I've been googling a bit for a source for this statement and the best thing I can find is an open letter by a woman who says she was raped, got pregnant and kept the baby. She does not explain her assertion other than saying "there are no laws preventing it".
There are two problems with what she's saying. First, her alleged rapist was never convicted. So, in the eyes of the law, he is not a rapist. She argues in her letter that women may decide to drop charges as a private deal with their alleged rapists, in order to not have to go through the custody battle. Again she is speaking of people who are not convicted rapists. People who are not convicted rapists should have the ability to sue for custody of their children. Since I haven't found any facts besides her own assertion, I can't confirm whether it is alleged rapists or convicted rapists that in these 31 states enjoy the right to sue.
Second problem is that all she's saying is that there's no law against suing. As in, it is not expressly forbidden. That doesn't mean it will have a chance of actually succeeding in court. There are a lot of things that, while legal to sue for, will get thrown out of court immediately. If this is indeed about convicted rapists, I get the feeling such lawsuits would get exactly that treatment.
The third and final problem is with what you are saying. Having the possibility to sue does not mean rape is normalized. If you really think so, then clearly you don't know what the word normalized means. Here, let me help you: http://onelook.com/?w=normalize&ls=a
To be honest though, even the fact they are allowed is pretty sad.
This was posted after I started writing the above, but I can chip in here as well. A father who pays child support should absolutely have visitation rights. Since he was convicted, I would assume she was granted damages for the rape. It would also be reasonable to make the rapist pay for the abortion, if she chose to have one. But she didn't. She just tried to milk him for an even greater legal punishment than the one he actually got when he stood trial for his crime.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime.
On November 08 2013 01:22 gedatsu wrote: The third and final problem is with what you are saying. Having the possibility to sue does not mean rape is normalized. If you really think so, then clearly you don't know what the word normalized means. Here, let me help you: http://onelook.com/?w=normalize&ls=a
There are a lot of factors that come together to normalize rape.
Also, no, stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child is in no way "milking" for further punishment. A little common sense, a man who has caused huge damage to you mentally and physically, should not be given a right to spend time with your family, causing the women a huge amount more grief.
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore?
Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime.
Nothing violent about a crime that rarely results in violence. If rape is a violent crime, laundering money is a violent crime by your logic.
I don't think you understand how the law works, but if you fancy reading the link, that would be just fabulous. Rape is a violent crime. That is a /fact/
On November 08 2013 00:33 heliusx wrote: Oh so random stories about police departments failing to do their jobs means rape culture? Its not just rape. Its robberies, assaults, etc. Unless you have some actual evidence of rape culture you're wasting your time googling random articles to "support" your argument.
You also convinently ignore points that don't suit you. In 31 states the rapist can sue for rights to see the child of the raped women. Can you understand that only in a culture where rape is normalized, that men who rape a women are able to sue the women so that he can take custody of the child?
So yea. They can ask for rights to their child, a Judge will probably just say something like, "You're admitting to the rape? Then that's new evidence. As such you can go back to court and I'm denying your right to custody of the kid." That is completely dependent on the judge. I doubt a sane one would give rights to the rapist.
On November 08 2013 01:22 gedatsu wrote: The third and final problem is with what you are saying. Having the possibility to sue does not mean rape is normalized. If you really think so, then clearly you don't know what the word normalized means. Here, let me help you: http://onelook.com/?w=normalize&ls=a
There are a lot of factors that come together to normalize rape.
But rape isn't normalized in any publicly visible setting, except prisons.
Also, no, stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child is in no way "milking" for further punishment. A little common sense, a man who has caused huge damage to you mentally and physically, should not be given a right to spend time with your family, causing the women a huge amount more grief.
I didn't say that "stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child" was milking them for further punishment. I said that forcing him to pay child support was.
On November 08 2013 01:22 gedatsu wrote: The third and final problem is with what you are saying. Having the possibility to sue does not mean rape is normalized. If you really think so, then clearly you don't know what the word normalized means. Here, let me help you: http://onelook.com/?w=normalize&ls=a
There are a lot of factors that come together to normalize rape.
But rape isn't normalized in any publicly visible setting, except prisons.
Also, no, stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child is in no way "milking" for further punishment. A little common sense, a man who has caused huge damage to you mentally and physically, should not be given a right to spend time with your family, causing the women a huge amount more grief.
I didn't say that "stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child" was milking them for further punishment. I said that forcing him to pay child support was.
How is not joking and talking about it as if it is nothing not normalizing it?
On November 08 2013 01:53 Zealos wrote: How is not joking and talking about it as if it is nothing not normalizing it?
Disregarding rape in prison settings, very few people do that. Usually they are the rapist, an accessory to the rape, or a close relative or friend to the rapist. These are, on the large scale of things, only a handful of people. By far the majority of people strongly condemn rape. Convicted rapists often require special protection in prison, because the other inmates will consider them the scum of the earth.
Or perhaps you are talking about jokes made about people you've never met and never will meet. I myself have told jokes about the Fritzl case, for example, because there's a clever pun about it that can be made in Swedish. "Har du släckt i källaren" means "did you turn off the lights in the basement", while "har du släkt i källaren" means "do you have family (members) in the basement". That doesn't mean I don't think it was a horrible crime. It's no different than making jokes about Hitler or slavery or Mao.
Anyway. The point is that you can joke about anything, without supporting the crime or disaster behind it. Very few people would laugh in the face of the victim.
On November 08 2013 01:53 Zealos wrote: How is not joking and talking about it as if it is nothing not normalizing it?
Disregarding rape in prison settings, very few people do that. Usually they are the rapist, an accessory to the rape, or a close relative or friend to the rapist. These are, on the large scale of things, only a handful of people. By far the majority of people strongly condemn rape. Convicted rapists often require special protection in prison, because the other inmates will consider them the scum of the earth.
Or perhaps you are talking about jokes made about people you've never met and never will meet. I myself have told jokes about the Fritzl case, for example, because there's a clever pun about it that can be made in Swedish. "Har du släckt i källaren" means "did you turn off the lights in the basement", while "har du släkt i källaren" means "do you have family (members) in the basement". That doesn't mean I don't think it was a horrible crime. It's no different than making jokes about Hitler or slavery or Mao.
Anyway. The point is that you can joke about anything, without supporting the crime or disaster behind it. Very few people would laugh in the face of the victim.
Most people also don't realize that they have performed acts of rape already since to them it isn't rape if they don't hit the other person or if the person doesn't black out.
Such as picking up drunk girls Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc...
Well anything that helps I guess. If some women want that stuff and feel safer this way, so be it. But it's sad something like this has to be produced.
On November 08 2013 02:44 Musicus wrote: Well anything that helps I guess. If some women want that stuff and feel safer this way, so be it. But it's sad something like this has to be produced.
The theory is that they hope it gives them more time in order to increase the chances of help coming. If it takes longer for the rape to happen, then maybe someone will pass by and help. No different than a locked door doesn't actually stop break ins, it just slows them down longer.
On November 08 2013 02:44 Musicus wrote: Well anything that helps I guess. If some women want that stuff and feel safer this way, so be it. But it's sad something like this has to be produced.
The theory is that they hope it gives them more time in order to increase the chances of help coming. If it takes longer for the rape to happen, then maybe someone will pass by and help. No different than a locked door doesn't actually stop break ins, it just slows them down longer.
Yeah definitely not a bad thing. Still it arouses mixed feelings. You can't really hope it is successful, since that would mean many women feel insecure and the product is needed. Well better safe than sorry.
On November 08 2013 02:44 Musicus wrote: Well anything that helps I guess. If some women want that stuff and feel safer this way, so be it. But it's sad something like this has to be produced.
The theory is that they hope it gives them more time in order to increase the chances of help coming. If it takes longer for the rape to happen, then maybe someone will pass by and help. No different than a locked door doesn't actually stop break ins, it just slows them down longer.
Yeah definitely not a bad thing. Still it arouses mixed feelings. You can't really hope it is successful, since that would mean many women feel insecure and the product is needed. Well better safe than sorry.
When women keep getting blamed for rape because they wear clothing the like, its natural that a product like this will come about because of the constant blame being directed at women for rape.
On November 08 2013 02:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc...
How is that an act of rape? Is your girlfriend some kind of pathetic subhuman pet incapable of deciding for herself whether she wants to fuck?
how is that not rape?
Because both parties consent.
If friends tell me they reaaallly want me to go hang out with them, and I don't want to but I go anyway, that's not a kidnapping. It's my choice.
Do you enjoy yourself when you are forced out with them? Do you ever regret it? Wish you hadn't gone? Been in a bad mood after and during? It isn't kidnapping but it is making you do something against your will.
Isn't this video a satire? I saw this video on reddit about a week ago and all I could think is the video wasn't actually selling the pants (if they were it would be like placebo because the video mentions that the clothing strengthens women etc.), but rather trying to convey a message. But I looked at the reddit thread and everyone was discussing the product as an actual possibility for rape prevention much like the thread here and I saw no top comment debating the video as social commentary or the pants as being a placebo.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It's like my brother who when he was 15 said that forced attendance of family dinners were an infringement on his human rights and that the inability to choose your family was a cosmic injustice.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It's like my brother who when he was 15 said that forced attendance of family dinners were an infringement on his human rights and that the inability to choose your family was a cosmic injustice.
It depends when legal adulthood is in the country in question.
Forced family attendance when your 18 in the US is an absolute violation of a person's rights. Cosmetic injustice happens all the time as well, hence why Germany has now allowed for "neither" as a sex label for people born with both genitalia in order for that person to not be forced into one cosmetic form or another.
if it'll end up in such a way that i'll have to get a judge/psychologist approval prior to having sex with my wife/gf/significant other, i'll just fuck dudes.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
Far to the contrary! I'm saying it is a human's choice to agree or reject propositions; it is a woman's choice whether she agrees to sex requested by her partner, or rejects it. Women, as adult human beings, are capable of making this decision for themselves. If you refuse her the right to make her own choices, you are treating her as a pathetic subhuman pet.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
If your significant other is a scary violent person who might hurt you if you refuse to abide by their requests, that is the problem.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
I tell my girlfriend that I want to have sex. She says no. I say that if she won't have sex with me, I'll break up with her. She says ok. We have sex.
Rape?
nope cause she has the option to not do it and break up with you
But she does not want to break up with you, and she does not want to have sex with you. You are forcing her to choose between two things she does not want. Therefore it is rape.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
I tell my girlfriend that I want to have sex. She says no. I say that if she won't have sex with me, I'll break up with her. She says ok. We have sex.
Rape?
Not rape as she said 'ok', but an unfair situation to put someone in. If someone can propose that, or use it as a means to make someone do something then they are a shitty individual. Just saying.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
Far to the contrary! I'm saying it is a human's choice to agree or reject propositions; it is a woman's choice whether she agrees to sex requested by her partner, or rejects it. Women, as adult human beings, are capable of making this decision for themselves. If you refuse her the right to make her own choices, you are treating her as a pathetic subhuman pet.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
If your significant other is a scary violent person who might hurt you if you refuse to abide by their requests, that is the problem.
You don't have to hit someone for that someone to be aware of and careful of the overall milieu of their life as a woman on earth.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
On November 08 2013 02:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc...
How is that an act of rape? Is your girlfriend some kind of pathetic subhuman pet incapable of deciding for herself whether she wants to fuck?
Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition.
Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured.
But coercing her into having sex with you is rape.
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
This feels like a lot of word play. 90%(BS made up number)of men or women are not going to consider "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc..." as rape. That kind of interpretation of rape is dangerous and is part of what creates the victim blaming, when individuals view a victim as claiming something along the lines of what you said, rather than the commonly accepted version of rape.
On November 08 2013 02:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc...
How is that an act of rape? Is your girlfriend some kind of pathetic subhuman pet incapable of deciding for herself whether she wants to fuck?
Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition.
Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured.
But coercing her into having sex with you is rape.
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
This feels like a lot of word play. 90%(BS made up number)of men or women are not going to consider "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc..." as rape. That kind of interpretation of rape is dangerous and is part of what creates the victim blaming, when individuals view a victim as claiming something along the lines of what you said, rather than the commonly accepted version of rape.
Wait, you think a woman being made to do what she doesn't want to do being classified as rape is the cause of victim blaming and not the actual act of victim blaming that happens when women try to speak up about rape?
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:32 Severedevil wrote: [quote] How is that an act of rape? Is your girlfriend some kind of pathetic subhuman pet incapable of deciding for herself whether she wants to fuck?
Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition.
Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured.
But coercing her into having sex with you is rape.
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position?
On November 08 2013 02:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc...
How is that an act of rape? Is your girlfriend some kind of pathetic subhuman pet incapable of deciding for herself whether she wants to fuck?
Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition.
Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured.
But coercing her into having sex with you is rape.
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
This feels like a lot of word play. 90%(BS made up number)of men or women are not going to consider "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc..." as rape. That kind of interpretation of rape is dangerous and is part of what creates the victim blaming, when individuals view a victim as claiming something along the lines of what you said, rather than the commonly accepted version of rape.
OH BOY I CAN POST AGAIN
the commonly accepted version of rape is highly problematic. People complain that its unnecessary to focus on "rape culture", but most guys don't realize that if you were to say, get a girl fall down drunk and have sex with her, that's rape. Not only are these practices relatively accepted, they are actively promoted on college campuses by various groups. Using the "commonly accepted version of rape" is a terrible standard.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:41 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition.
Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured.
But coercing her into having sex with you is rape.
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position?
The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote: [quote] You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it, [quote] there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position?
The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem.
That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position?
The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem.
That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape.
No, I believe that the mindset that a woman saying no is just invitation for you to pursue her is what causes not only rape culture, victim blaming, and unintentional violent sexual assault acts--but is also a side effect of a society who so deeply ingrains the concept that a woman's body is not under her control that they teach men AND women to believe that saying no as foreplay is normal.
On November 08 2013 01:53 Zealos wrote: How is not joking and talking about it as if it is nothing not normalizing it?
Disregarding rape in prison settings, very few people do that. Usually they are the rapist, an accessory to the rape, or a close relative or friend to the rapist. These are, on the large scale of things, only a handful of people. By far the majority of people strongly condemn rape. Convicted rapists often require special protection in prison, because the other inmates will consider them the scum of the earth.
Or perhaps you are talking about jokes made about people you've never met and never will meet. I myself have told jokes about the Fritzl case, for example, because there's a clever pun about it that can be made in Swedish. "Har du släckt i källaren" means "did you turn off the lights in the basement", while "har du släkt i källaren" means "do you have family (members) in the basement". That doesn't mean I don't think it was a horrible crime. It's no different than making jokes about Hitler or slavery or Mao.
Anyway. The point is that you can joke about anything, without supporting the crime or disaster behind it. Very few people would laugh in the face of the victim.
You don't have to laugh in the face of a victim. If you make a joke about it on fb, for example, on average you're reminding around 5 women of the worst moment of their life.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote: [quote] co·er·cion kōˈərZHən,-SHən/ noun noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position?
The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem.
That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape.
No, I believe that the mindset that a woman saying no is just invitation for you to pursue her is what causes not only rape culture, victim blaming, and unintentional violent sexual assault acts--but is also a side effect of a society who so deeply ingrains the concept that a woman's body is not under her control that they teach men AND women to believe that saying no as foreplay is normal.
I'm more inclined to follow the standard of law which holds that consent is much stronger than your extreme view suggests. It really is an infantalizing view, at that. In law force or threat can vitiate consent, not asking someone the same question twice in a row.
"Initial reluctance" implies that the person subsequently wants to. In the situation we're describing, the woman in question does not want to engage in sex, but agrees to even though she does not at any point want to. That's not the same as her partner winning her over to the idea, so that she wants to do it before they start.
Of course, it's not unusual for people to choose of their own free will to do things that they do not want to do, often at others' behest. ("Honey, would you load the dishwasher?") Jobs routinely make demands that the worker does not want to fulfill. This is usually not considered criminal in any way, shape, or form.
On November 08 2013 02:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc...
How is that an act of rape? Is your girlfriend some kind of pathetic subhuman pet incapable of deciding for herself whether she wants to fuck?
Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition.
Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured.
But coercing her into having sex with you is rape.
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
This feels like a lot of word play. 90%(BS made up number)of men or women are not going to consider "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc..." as rape. That kind of interpretation of rape is dangerous and is part of what creates the victim blaming, when individuals view a victim as claiming something along the lines of what you said, rather than the commonly accepted version of rape.
OH BOY I CAN POST AGAIN
the commonly accepted version of rape is highly problematic. People complain that its unnecessary to focus on "rape culture", but most guys don't realize that if you were to say, get a girl fall down drunk and have sex with her, that's rape. Not only are these practices relatively accepted, they are actively promoted on college campuses by various groups. Using the "commonly accepted version of rape" is a terrible standard.
The issue of intoxication is a separate one with its own complexities.
A no means back off, go away, imo. Honestly, unless you can be 100% sure that it's some kind of weird inviting no, which are fairly rare, you should stay far away.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position?
The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem.
That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape.
No, I believe that the mindset that a woman saying no is just invitation for you to pursue her is what causes not only rape culture, victim blaming, and unintentional violent sexual assault acts--but is also a side effect of a society who so deeply ingrains the concept that a woman's body is not under her control that they teach men AND women to believe that saying no as foreplay is normal.
I'm more inclined to follow the standard of law which holds that consent is much stronger than your extreme view suggests. It really is an infantalizing view, at that. In law force or threat can vitiate consent, not asking someone the same question twice in a row.
Which part of it is infantilized?
The part where I feel its a side effect of rape culture or the fact that its a practice that creates confusion since women are told that both saying yes and no is giving consent.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:32 Severedevil wrote: [quote] How is that an act of rape? Is your girlfriend some kind of pathetic subhuman pet incapable of deciding for herself whether she wants to fuck?
Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition.
Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured.
But coercing her into having sex with you is rape.
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you.
Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend."
You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude.
how is that not rape? you'd be surprised how many people think they're entitled to sex because they're in a relationship with someone
Emm... pardon me but isn't that the definition of a relationship? If you hang out but don't have sex, that's called friendship (or friendzone in the vast majority of cases).
Inviting no's are not as rare as you'd think; have you never heard of the concept of "playing hard to get"? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that men approach being told no as though it is likely an invitation, but this is where women are oftentimes as complicit as men in harming gender relations.
how is that not rape? you'd be surprised how many people think they're entitled to sex because they're in a relationship with someone
Emm... pardon me but isn't that the definition of a relationship? If you hang out but don't have sex, that's called friendship (or friendzone in the vast majority of cases).
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:41 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition.
Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured.
But coercing her into having sex with you is rape.
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you.
Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend."
You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude.
How is this confusing?
Is she in the mood--no. Did you make her have sex with you--yes. Rape.
That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?)
The fact that you find it confusing when a situation is placed before you that a woman is not in the mood for sex is very telling of your stance.
On November 08 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote: Inviting no's are not as rare as you'd think; have you never heard of the concept of "playing hard to get"? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that men approach being told no as though it is likely an invitation, but this is where women are oftentimes as complicit as men in harming gender relations.
Yes, because women are in a society that tells them that that is how sexual roles are supposed to be.
"In the mood" is a very wishy washy formulation; if I were a lawyer on behalf of a rape victim, I'd strongly advise her to use different language in describing her aversion to having sex at the time of the rape. I've no doubt that much confusion stems from that phrase.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote: [quote] You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it, [quote] there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you.
Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend."
You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude.
How is this confusing?
Is she in the mood--no. Did you make her have sex with you--yes. Rape.
That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?)
The fact that you find it confusing when a situation is placed before you that a woman is not in the mood for sex is very telling of your stance.
Is it just me or does it seem like you hold the stance that women are helpless and couldn't hold up their resolve not to have sex in the face of threatless persuasion even if they wanted? Do you think women are so dependant on their lovers that they don't have an actual choice? If I was a woman I probably would be offended by the things you say.
heh magpie you get that thrown at you everytime. gotta learn to play it like a cool cat. stop making it so abrasive. it wasnt even just xmz trying to cause shit this time
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
You know what happens to most convicted rapists in prison? (At least in the UK) They get beaten to within an inch of their lives, repeatedly. Even amongst criminals, rape is seen as a big no no.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you.
Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend."
You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude.
How is this confusing?
Is she in the mood--no. Did you make her have sex with you--yes. Rape.
That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?)
The fact that you find it confusing when a situation is placed before you that a woman is not in the mood for sex is very telling of your stance.
Is it just me or does it seem like you hold the stance that women are helpless and couldn't hold up their resolve not to have sex in the face of threatless persuasion even if they wanted? Do you think women are so dependant on their lovers that they don't have an actual choice? If I was a woman I probably would be offended by the things you say.
Which part of what I said shows women as helpless?
The part where if they say no that they mean it or the part where I say that simply being a boyfriend doesn't guarantee you sex when you want it?
On November 08 2013 05:02 ComaDose wrote: heh magpie you get that thrown at you everytime. gotta learn to play it like a cool cat. stop making it so abrasive. it wasnt even just xmz trying to cause shit this time
Whats a less abrasive way of saying that when women don't want to have sex it isn't them inviting you to have sex?
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote: [quote] You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it, [quote] there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance.
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you.
Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend."
You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude.
How is this confusing?
Is she in the mood--no. Did you make her have sex with you--yes. Rape.
That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?)
I will explain one more time, "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is phrased in such a way that the agency is ambiguous. That may not be what you meant, but it's what you said, and if those two things aren't in agreement then I must be at fault as I can't read your mind. "Forcing your girlfriend to have sex" is much clearer, and it results in a very short conversation because any idiot, even me, knows that forcing someone to have sex is rape. "Getting your girlfriend to have sex" doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't her consent or her decision.
But this bit about "in the mood," I can't even speculate as to what it means - besides being a buzzword that you can change whenever you need to to win argument points - except possibly to again suggest you're saying women are slaves to biology rather than rational people, and are incapable of making their own decisions, whereas I believe otherwise because I have had sex with people when I wasn't in the mood and I don't think of myself as an automatic rape victim.
On November 08 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote: Inviting no's are not as rare as you'd think; have you never heard of the concept of "playing hard to get"? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that men approach being told no as though it is likely an invitation, but this is where women are oftentimes as complicit as men in harming gender relations.
Yes, because women are in a society that tells them that that is how sexual roles are supposed to be.
I think semantics has explained before in another thread that this amounts to a conspiracy theory.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote: [quote] By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position?
The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem.
That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape.
No, I believe that the mindset that a woman saying no is just invitation for you to pursue her is what causes not only rape culture, victim blaming, and unintentional violent sexual assault acts--but is also a side effect of a society who so deeply ingrains the concept that a woman's body is not under her control that they teach men AND women to believe that saying no as foreplay is normal.
I'm more inclined to follow the standard of law which holds that consent is much stronger than your extreme view suggests. It really is an infantalizing view, at that. In law force or threat can vitiate consent, not asking someone the same question twice in a row.
Which part of it is infantilized?
The part where I feel its a side effect of rape culture or the fact that its a practice that creates confusion since women are told that both saying yes and no is giving consent.
If your assumption is that there's no way for a person not to consent to sex, then of course it's not falsifiable whenever you invent a situation and conclude "therefore x is rape."
On November 08 2013 05:02 ComaDose wrote: heh magpie you get that thrown at you everytime. gotta learn to play it like a cool cat. stop making it so abrasive. it wasnt even just xmz trying to cause shit this time
Whats a less abrasive way of saying that when women don't want to have sex it isn't them inviting you to have sex?
Asking less sarcastic paraphrased questions. Don't give me the attitude. we are "on the same team" i just find that most threads that have this debate are harder for me after you show up.
I would go with something like: the majority of rapes are caused by scorned lovers who feel entitled to sex. often this comes around without violent action taken against the women who are "forced" to "consent" under duress. this includes unwanted physical contact and forceful convincing often leading to them "giving-in" and letting you fuck them. but this is bad, still rape, and is unfortunately due to our culture not frowned upon. There exists seduction that is not rape.
This doesn't make the less enlightened people that don't understand rape get as offended and put their backs up but hopefully they read it and understand more.
Magpie, you are actively ignoring the signal distortion that takes place in male-female interactions for the sake of holding up your hypothetical. Yes, when a woman clearly states that she does not want to have sex and yet her partner compels her to do so, that is rape. The problem is that many relationships involve nebulous exchanges of desire and many opportunities for miscommunication, and this is why your hypothetical isn't so useful. Say there was a man and a woman who are dating. The woman sees it as a mans job to chase her, and friends/family have borne witness to a host of examples in which the woman told the man no only to tell her friends yes. This is not uncommon. Given a background like that, one in which the woman's lack of certitude becomes a key component of the relationship, phrases like "I'm not in the mood" begin to look different than they did before. No should mean no, and women should learn to say it more often.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition.
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you.
Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend."
You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude.
How is this confusing?
Is she in the mood--no. Did you make her have sex with you--yes. Rape.
That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?)
I will explain one more time, "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is phrased in such a way that the agency is ambiguous. That may not be what you meant, but it's what you said, and if those two things aren't in agreement then I must be at fault as I can't read your mind. "Forcing your girlfriend to have sex" is much clearer, and it results in a very short conversation because any idiot, even me, knows that forcing someone to have sex is rape. "Getting your girlfriend to have sex" doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't her consent or her decision.
But this bit about "in the mood," I can't even speculate as to what it means - besides being a buzzword that you can change whenever you need to to win argument points - except possibly to again suggest you're saying women are slaves to biology rather than rational people, and are incapable of making their own decisions, whereas I believe otherwise because I have had sex with people when I wasn't in the mood and I don't think of myself as an automatic rape victim.
On November 08 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote: Inviting no's are not as rare as you'd think; have you never heard of the concept of "playing hard to get"? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that men approach being told no as though it is likely an invitation, but this is where women are oftentimes as complicit as men in harming gender relations.
Yes, because women are in a society that tells them that that is how sexual roles are supposed to be.
I think semantics has explained before in another thread that this amounts to a conspiracy theory.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position?
The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem.
That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape.
No, I believe that the mindset that a woman saying no is just invitation for you to pursue her is what causes not only rape culture, victim blaming, and unintentional violent sexual assault acts--but is also a side effect of a society who so deeply ingrains the concept that a woman's body is not under her control that they teach men AND women to believe that saying no as foreplay is normal.
I'm more inclined to follow the standard of law which holds that consent is much stronger than your extreme view suggests. It really is an infantalizing view, at that. In law force or threat can vitiate consent, not asking someone the same question twice in a row.
Which part of it is infantilized?
The part where I feel its a side effect of rape culture or the fact that its a practice that creates confusion since women are told that both saying yes and no is giving consent.
If your assumption is that there's no way for a person not to consent to sex, then of course it's not falsifiable whenever you invent a situation and conclude "therefore x is rape."
A.) It is only ambiguous if you believe that it is okay for a society to have word play be able to overpower a woman's agency. B.) You not wanting to believe that women are just as affected by rape culture as men is your fault not mine. C.) My assumption is that consent should always be a priority and putting women in a culture that fetishes their reluctance to sex (and they are fetishizing it as well, hence why they play "hard to get") is one of the problems with Rape Culture.
how is that not rape? you'd be surprised how many people think they're entitled to sex because they're in a relationship with someone
Emm... pardon me but isn't that the definition of a relationship? If you hang out but don't have sex, that's called friendship (or friendzone in the vast majority of cases).
Your significant other can definitely deny you sex if you are in a relationship. But being in a relationship opens you up to being very sexual with her and know how far you can go with touching her before she either says "no, not right now" or starts making out with you and grabbing you back. Both of you are just 100% more relaxed and have way less restrictions with each other.
Has your gf/bf never been mad at you and wouldn't let you have sex with them, even if it was only for like a day or two? Know I've been there and had to wait it out/make it up to them lol. If I still forced her to have sex while she was mad at me, I'd say that was rape if she was telling me to stop and saying no.
how is that not rape? you'd be surprised how many people think they're entitled to sex because they're in a relationship with someone
Emm... pardon me but isn't that the definition of a relationship? If you hang out but don't have sex, that's called friendship (or friendzone in the vast majority of cases).
Your significant other can definitely deny you sex if you are in a relationship. But being in a relationship opens you up to being very sexual with her and know how far you can go with touching her before she either says "no, not right now" or starts making out with you and grabbing you back. Both of you are just 100% more relaxed and have way less restrictions with each other.
Has your gf/bf never been mad at you and wouldn't let you have sex with them, even if it was only for like a day or two? Know I've been there and had to wait it out/make it up to them lol. If I still forced her to have sex while she was mad at me, I'd say that was rape if she was telling me to stop and saying no.
what you talking about my answer was way better. there is no logical connection between having sex and being in a relationship. you can be in a relationship and never have sex and you can have sex and never be in a relationship.
how is that not rape? you'd be surprised how many people think they're entitled to sex because they're in a relationship with someone
Emm... pardon me but isn't that the definition of a relationship? If you hang out but don't have sex, that's called friendship (or friendzone in the vast majority of cases).
Your significant other can definitely deny you sex if you are in a relationship. But being in a relationship opens you up to being very sexual with her and know how far you can go with touching her before she either says "no, not right now" or starts making out with you and grabbing you back. Both of you are just 100% more relaxed and have way less restrictions with each other.
Has your gf/bf never been mad at you and wouldn't let you have sex with them, even if it was only for like a day or two? Know I've been there and had to wait it out/make it up to them lol. If I still forced her to have sex while she was mad at me, I'd say that was rape if she was telling me to stop and saying no.
what you talking about my answer was way better. there is no logical connection between having sex and being in a relationship. you can be in a relationship and never have sex and you can have sex and never be in a relationship.
One girl I knew didn't think that. She thought getting drunk and having sex meant we were in a relationship :/ Then again she was crazy.
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.
On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote: The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him.
He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote: [quote] co·er·cion kōˈərZHən,-SHən/ noun noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions
1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening?
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy.
It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic.
A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner.
But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that.
You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you.
Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend."
You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude.
How is this confusing?
Is she in the mood--no. Did you make her have sex with you--yes. Rape.
That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?)
I will explain one more time, "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is phrased in such a way that the agency is ambiguous. That may not be what you meant, but it's what you said, and if those two things aren't in agreement then I must be at fault as I can't read your mind. "Forcing your girlfriend to have sex" is much clearer, and it results in a very short conversation because any idiot, even me, knows that forcing someone to have sex is rape. "Getting your girlfriend to have sex" doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't her consent or her decision.
But this bit about "in the mood," I can't even speculate as to what it means - besides being a buzzword that you can change whenever you need to to win argument points - except possibly to again suggest you're saying women are slaves to biology rather than rational people, and are incapable of making their own decisions, whereas I believe otherwise because I have had sex with people when I wasn't in the mood and I don't think of myself as an automatic rape victim.
On November 08 2013 04:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote: Inviting no's are not as rare as you'd think; have you never heard of the concept of "playing hard to get"? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that men approach being told no as though it is likely an invitation, but this is where women are oftentimes as complicit as men in harming gender relations.
Yes, because women are in a society that tells them that that is how sexual roles are supposed to be.
I think semantics has explained before in another thread that this amounts to a conspiracy theory.
On November 08 2013 04:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 04:43 NovaTheFeared wrote:
On November 08 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 04:36 NovaTheFeared wrote:
On November 08 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 04:32 NovaTheFeared wrote:
On November 08 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 08 2013 04:26 oBlade wrote: [quote] He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions.
[quote] You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape.
If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position?
The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem.
That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape.
No, I believe that the mindset that a woman saying no is just invitation for you to pursue her is what causes not only rape culture, victim blaming, and unintentional violent sexual assault acts--but is also a side effect of a society who so deeply ingrains the concept that a woman's body is not under her control that they teach men AND women to believe that saying no as foreplay is normal.
I'm more inclined to follow the standard of law which holds that consent is much stronger than your extreme view suggests. It really is an infantalizing view, at that. In law force or threat can vitiate consent, not asking someone the same question twice in a row.
Which part of it is infantilized?
The part where I feel its a side effect of rape culture or the fact that its a practice that creates confusion since women are told that both saying yes and no is giving consent.
If your assumption is that there's no way for a person not to consent to sex, then of course it's not falsifiable whenever you invent a situation and conclude "therefore x is rape."
A.) It is only ambiguous if you believe that it is okay for a society to have word play be able to overpower a woman's agency.
This is a complete fucking non sequitur. Your invented example was ambiguous because of linguistics, not because of society. In fact forget we have a society, just take an analogy:
"Getting my landscaper to do the lawn even if she's not in the mood" This doesn't mean my landscaper is a Soviet gulag slave. It's possible for rational people to agree to do things even if their heart isn't 100% in it to your satisfaction. Similarly,
"Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" isn't necessarily rape as you phrased it.
B.) You not wanting to believe that women are just as affected by rape culture as men is your fault not mine.
I don't know what this means or how you concluded it but I'll make a side bet that it's completely irrelevant anyways.
C.) My assumption is that consent should always be a priority and putting women in a culture that fetishes their reluctance to sex (and they are fetishizing it as well, hence why they play "hard to get") is one of the problems with Rape Culture.
So to summarize your idea, you think women and men get off on women playing hard to get, but they can't actually consent to sex because the women are playing hard to get, insert petitio principii buzz word (rape culture), Q.E.D. what, exactly?
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.
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.
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'm not convinced. I can't speak for American girls, obviously, but I think you can tell if a girl /really/ wants something, kinda wants something, is willing to do something, and is outright against it. EDIT: Though, granted, the sluttiness issue is a really big problem too
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.
That is certainly a problem. (The disdain for 'sluttiness' is also an issue. If a person is honest, and reasonably cautious about STD prevention and contraception, there is nothing wrong with being a 'slut.')
However, even were that problem solved, the lack of enthusiasm in consent does not invalidate consent. I don't see the appeal to sex with someone who doesn't really want to have sex, but people have every right to do things they don't want to.
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.
That is certainly a problem. (The disdain for 'sluttiness' is also an issue. If a person is honest, and reasonably cautious about STD prevention and contraception, there is nothing wrong with being a 'slut.')
However, even were that problem solved, the lack of enthusiasm in consent does not invalidate consent. I don't see the appeal to sex with someone who doesn't really want to have sex, but people have every right to do things they don't want to.
I think it certainly puts it into a grey zone. It would be a great deal simpler if people just got it on when they both wanted to, instead of these weird situations.
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
Of course not, but it does complicate the notion that men who act on nebulous exchanges in forcing the issue of sex are necessarily rapists as a rule.
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
Of course not, but it does complicate the notion that men who act on nebulous exchanges in forcing the issue of sex are necessarily rapists as a rule.
true... not to mention how nice it would be for us guys to have women be more comfortable being forward
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.
That is certainly a problem. (The disdain for 'sluttiness' is also an issue. If a person is honest, and reasonably cautious about STD prevention and contraception, there is nothing wrong with being a 'slut.')
However, even were that problem solved, the lack of enthusiasm in consent does not invalidate consent. I don't see the appeal to sex with someone who doesn't really want to have sex, but people have every right to do things they don't want to.
I think it certainly puts it into a grey zone. It would be a great deal simpler if people just got it on when they both wanted to, instead of these weird situations.
It's a scenario to avoid. But rape is determined by consent, not desire. To see that it's not a grey area, consider the opposite scenario, which I will spoiler because triggers:
Suppose a woman desperately wants to have sex with a man, but absolutely refuses when he propositions her, and subsequently refuses his advances every step along the way. Now suppose the man in question physically overpowers her and penetrates her despite her continued vocal objections.
Is this a grey area? Isn't this obviously rape? I don't see how a person's desires are relevant to the issue of rape; sure, a person is much more likely to consent to sex if they desire it, that's a no-brainer... but the critical determiner of what is rape vs. what is consensual sex is the consent.
On November 08 2013 06:37 ComaDose wrote: If only we could convince people to stop hating on women for having sex.
Tell me about it, I'd absolutely love to live in a world in which women approached men as much as the converse. Alas, that seems rather far off, particular in light of rape proof underwear
Magpie, that's nonsense. Being a prude is not nearly as lambasted as being a slut. And if you are still harping on your bad hypothetical, that's too bad. It's a very poor working example.
Most people don't realize that rapists are in away victims themselves because they have been sexually abused in their childhood. This makes them more likely to rape because it already seems commonplace. In all likelihood, a rapist is not going to be raised in a intact, caring family environment.
On November 08 2013 07:13 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: Most people don't realize that rapists are in away victims themselves because they have been sexually abused in their childhood. This makes them more likely to rape because it already seems commonplace. In all likelihood, a rapist is not going to be raised in a intact, caring family environment.
Are you actually writing a thesis for university? (you mentioned writing a thesis in the OP)
Because most of what you say seems shockingly opinionated.
Do you really want to be associated with that website?
That would be a logical fallacy, so I don't mind. Edit: Heh, noticed both of your responses have the same essence: "Wow, are you really daring to diverge from political correctness?"
On November 08 2013 07:13 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: Most people don't realize that rapists are in away victims themselves because they have been sexually abused in their childhood. This makes them more likely to rape because it already seems commonplace. In all likelihood, a rapist is not going to be raised in a intact, caring family environment.
Are you actually writing a thesis for university? (you mentioned writing a thesis in the OP)
Because most of what you say seems shockingly opinionated.
Do you really want to be associated with that website?
I have to write persuasive argument for my Psychology 320 class (Logic & Critical Reasoning) defending a subject that is universally condemned. Other students in my class are writing papers in defense of drunk driving, annulment of welfare, etc. I was assigned the topic of date rape and am attempting to collect feedback from users in order to adjust my my argument accordingly.
On November 08 2013 07:13 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: Most people don't realize that rapists are in away victims themselves because they have been sexually abused in their childhood. This makes them more likely to rape because it already seems commonplace. In all likelihood, a rapist is not going to be raised in a intact, caring family environment.
Are you actually writing a thesis for university? (you mentioned writing a thesis in the OP)
Because most of what you say seems shockingly opinionated.
Do you really want to be associated with that website?
I have to write persuasive argument for my Psychology 320 class (Logic & Critical Reasoning) defending a subject that is universally condemned. Other student in my class are writing papers in defense of drunk driving, annulment of welfare, etc. I was assigned the topic of date rape and am attempting to collect feedback from users in order to adjust my my argument accordingly.
...so you have to write a paper in defense of date rape? lol?
On November 08 2013 07:13 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: Most people don't realize that rapists are in away victims themselves because they have been sexually abused in their childhood. This makes them more likely to rape because it already seems commonplace. In all likelihood, a rapist is not going to be raised in a intact, caring family environment.
Are you actually writing a thesis for university? (you mentioned writing a thesis in the OP)
Because most of what you say seems shockingly opinionated.
Do you really want to be associated with that website?
I have to write persuasive argument for my Psychology 320 class (Logic & Critical Reasoning) defending a subject that is universally condemned. Other student in my class are writing papers in defense of drunk driving, annulment of welfare, etc. I was assigned the topic of date rape and am attempting to collect feedback from users in order to adjust my my argument accordingly.
...so you have to write a paper in defense of date rape? lol?
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'm not convinced. I can't speak for American girls, obviously, but I think you can tell if a girl /really/ wants something, kinda wants something, is willing to do something, and is outright against it. EDIT: Though, granted, the sluttiness issue is a really big problem too
I think its pretty risky of you to base that kind of decision off of your ability to gauge how into it she is. Human interaction is complicated and there is a lot of room for error,
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.
On November 08 2013 07:13 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: Most people don't realize that rapists are in away victims themselves because they have been sexually abused in their childhood. This makes them more likely to rape because it already seems commonplace. In all likelihood, a rapist is not going to be raised in a intact, caring family environment.
I highly doubt the percentage of perpetrators that have been sexually abused themselves is going to be very high. So I tried to find statistics. Turns out I was right and its only about 10%.
@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.
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.
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.
I don't get this at all. What are deteministic mechanisms?
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.
You don't say? Where exactly did you read about me wanting to punish the victims of crimes?
Edit: Or were you perhaps just making a general statement unrelated to what I was saying?
Deterministic mechanisms would be the dynamics by which rape occurs that are unrelated to individual agency, i.e. previous trauma leading to sadomasochistic tendencies. In other words, they serve as a sort of apologetics.
On November 08 2013 08:27 farvacola wrote: Deterministic mechanisms would be the dynamics by which rape occurs that are unrelated to individual agency, i.e. previous trauma leading to sadomasochistic tendencies. In other words, they serve as a sort of apologetics.
Thanks, makes sense. This is shaping up to be quite a sinister academic work.
Do you really want to be associated with that website?
That would be a logical fallacy, so I don't mind. Edit: Heh, noticed both of your responses have the same essence: "Wow, are you really daring to diverge from political correctness?"
thx bro, had a great laugh at the website. angry harry mustve been hurt very badly in his teens
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.
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.
On November 08 2013 09:19 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: Would you agree that before written and spoken language existed that rape was the primary source of procreation for the human species?
On November 08 2013 09:21 farvacola wrote: That has nothing to do with its moral propriety nor its place in contemporary society either way. It is a non-sequitur.
Then let's make it more relevant. Can two people who do not share a language exchange sexual consent without a translator?
On November 08 2013 09:21 farvacola wrote: That has nothing to do with its moral propriety nor its place in contemporary society either way. It is a non-sequitur.
Then let's make it more relevant. Can two people who do not share a language exchange sexual consent without a translator?
Yes obviously unless both are savants or something.
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.
On November 08 2013 09:21 farvacola wrote: That has nothing to do with its moral propriety nor its place in contemporary society either way. It is a non-sequitur.
Then let's make it more relevant. Can two people who do not share a language exchange sexual consent without a translator?
Yes, obviously.
I would imagine this exchange is non-verbal in the majority of cases anyway.
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."
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.
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."
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 figure includes physical violence, and also sexual violence that may not constitute rape, depending your definition of rape. It is also a global figure, and almost certainly varies alot across the countries/cultures. I'm pretty confident your last statement is inaccurate for me, and also for almost everyone else on TL,
Why the emphasis on clothing? I think it relates to the courtroom.
Suppose you are accused of rape, and there is clear evidence that you had sex with the alleged victim at the alleged time. How do you argue your case? Whether you are guilty or not, your only option is to argue that the alleged victim gave consent. But this sex probably happened without witnesses. So how do you demonstrate that there was consent?
Well... there's no really hard evidence. So you've gotta go circumstantial. What are things that would strongly imply rape? -Cries for help -Signs of struggle -Alleged victim dragged from public space against his/her will (asserted by witnesses)
If these things happened, it looks really bad for you. It's not proof of rape -- each of these things has a possible alternate explanation -- but it's serious evidence against you. However, if they did not happen, the absence of condemning evidence is itself weak evidence of your innocence.
What else? Well, your entire defense hinges on claiming that the alleged victim consented to sex with you. So you need to convince the jury that the alleged victim is the type of person who is likely to do a thing like that, and (ideally) that his/her public behavior leading up to the sex likewise implies likelihood of consent. This can never prove a rape did not occur, but it is weak evidence in your favor. -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?
Again, weak evidence. But when all you've got is your word against someone his/hers, you'll take all the weak evidence you can get. If the alleged victim was clearly all over you in public and you left together in obvious good spirits, your claim of consent gains a lot of credibility. (Likewise, if the (s)he plainly had no sexual interest in you and was obviously trying to avoid you, "it was consensual" becomes a tough sell.)
Lastly, you're trying to show that the accuser's testimony is false. So, if they have a history of lying (especially in related circumstances) or a strong incentive to make a spurious rape accusation, that's a big knock against their credibility. (Suppose the alleged victim is a financial dependent who might be disowned if his/her guardians found out he/she was sexually active? Or has a significant other who would leave them if they're a cheater rather than a victim? A discernible motive to lie is weak evidence against a person's testimony.)
...
Near as I can tell, this all applies whether you are guilty or innocent. An innocent man guilty of consensual sex but falsely accused of rape must convince the court that she fucked him willingly -- so, that she's the type of woman who would fuck him willingly, that she was acting in public like she would fuck him, etc. That's gross, but what else is a defendant to do? Without details like that, all the defendant has is the defendant's word against the accusers, and despite "innocent until proven guilty," good luck with only your word.
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."
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:
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?
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."
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.
Not only is there problems with your supposed statistics like others have pointed out but more importantly rape outside of already established intimate relationships do happen. Unless you're saying that the only rape that happens, or the only rape that matters, is rape that is committed by someone you already have an established intimite relationship with you have no point at all. Now if you would like to refute what I'm saying you have two options, either argue that I'm wrong on a logical basis, that is, explain why what I am saying is wrong and in what way. Or the more likely option, provide statistics as for why what I am saying doesn't matter because statistically what you wear does not matter when it comes to you as a woman being raped or not.
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.
it just looks like you are leading the conversation/thesis somewhere. it's like you try to speak for the facts and not let the facts speak for themselves. basically, one can tell you are full of shit. (or your sources/studies/logic are). never try to justify via studies/science how no = yes. it's the worst thing you could do not only because behavioral changes, in humans, due to chemical/electrical stimuli are extremely subjective (huge variations between test subjects), but also because you remove the agency before proving that it's not really there. if you strike (even at a very basic level) at free will, by removing what is perceived as (a) choice, people will instantly shun you. first focus on the changes, show that they are there, show that they influence ones behavior, then pop the question(s) but don't answer it. let your audience answer it. your only job is to make them question things; then and only then, you could go further by playing with their fears/preconceptions and trigger in them the response you want. mind controlling people is easy. also, you portraying men as some kind of masters in controlling their actions/behaviors doesn't help your cause. you have to show how they're are just as faulty as women as far as control goes. but again, ask questions don't answer them. after all, you are only exploring possibilities. you don't need justifications nor conclusions.
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.
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.
The italicized block is quite interesting. I was under the impression, from earlier, that a very significant amount of rape (the word used was "most") was rape by an otherwise consensual sexual partner. But the FBI only throws out at most 8% of cases based on the concept that the two parties had a prior sexual relationship. So either some part of the statistics are misleading, or the judging process here is highly subjective. I'm pretty sure it's the latter, leaving me a little confused in how to actually approach this issue if the statistics are so muddied (this has the potential to become an argument not of what's being said, but who's saying it).
On November 08 2013 20:06 Capped wrote: Are you in here really arguing the trivialities of rape?
Its wrong. Its bad. Anyone who even thinks seriously about it should be beaten to a pulp and never let within society again.
Oh look i just /closed the thread.
I only skimmed so i may have the wrong end of the stick here.
No, there are some sick people here who want to rationalize things that are wrong. This thread went to hell in a hand-basket. It was supposed to be about anti-rape pants, but somehow we got to talking about bullshit like "Provocative clothing" and the exact definition of "Violent crime", and what primitive humans may have done for mating, like saying "Well, primitive people must have raped to reproduce, and so it's natural, hur hur hur I'm so smart". Well, guess what? There are animals that engage in sexual cannibalism, and the female eats the male. Nature doesn't sound so appealing now, does it? We have a society now, and the justification for sexual violence is deplorable.
-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.
-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 08:17 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?
-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 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.
... 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 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."
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:
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.
-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.
-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 22:47 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 22:36 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.
-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.
-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.
-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.
-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.
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.
-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.
-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?
-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.
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.
No, it doesn't tell people that.
On November 08 2013 23:12 Zealos wrote: 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.
For now, but that is becoming less and less true.
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?
I believe a court should typically hear all evidence. Is that a radical suggestion to make?
-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.
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.
No, it doesn't tell people that.
"Hey, if she's wearing sexy clothes then it's a good defense in court" "I guess it must not be as bad if they're wearing those clothes then"
On November 08 2013 23:13 gedatsu wrote: No, it doesn't tell people that.
"Hey, if she's wearing sexy clothes then it's a good defense in court" "I guess it must not be as bad if they're wearing those clothes then"
I never said it was a good defense. I said we often don't have anything better.
I don't understand your second quote, what must not be as bad?
On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote: Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely.
Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with.
1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man).
2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin.
On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote: Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely.
Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with.
1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man).
2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin.
3. Bayes' rule.
With regards to the clothes - it is a bit presumptuous by any man to assume his attention is the one wanted by the lady wearing said clothes.
On November 08 2013 23:13 gedatsu wrote: No, it doesn't tell people that.
"Hey, if she's wearing sexy clothes then it's a good defense in court" "I guess it must not be as bad if they're wearing those clothes then"
I never said it was a good defense. I said we often don't have anything better.
I don't understand your second quote, what must not be as bad?
On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote: Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely.
Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with.
1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man).
2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin.
3. Bayes' rule.
With regards to the clothes - it is a bit presumptuous by any man to assume his attention is the one wanted by the lady wearing said clothes.
Sure, in the general case I would agree. But if she wears those clothes out on a date with a specific person, I'd say it's pretty likely that she is trying to catch the attention of that person.
Anyway, that's not what this particular argument is about.
On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote: Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely.
Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with.
1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man).
2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin.
3. Bayes' rule.
I don't think that's appropriate. What probability are you using for the women wearing sexy clothing given that she has given consent. I only had to take engineering statistics but i remember bayes rule implying, in this situation: knowing the probability of: wearing sexy clothing, giving consent, and wearing sexy clothing given that you have given consent. we can approximate the probability of you giving consent given that you are wearing sexy clothing.
I would argue that the probability of women wearing sexy clothing given that she has given consent is very small overall.
EDIT: and obviously a much more common reason for wearing sexy clothes is too look sexy with a P(~1)
On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote: Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely.
Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with.
1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man).
2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin.
3. Bayes' rule.
I don't think that's appropriate. What probability are you using for the women wearing sexy clothing given that she has given consent. I only had to take engineering statistics but i remember bayes rule implying, in this situation: knowing the probability of: wearing sexy clothing, giving consent, and wearing sexy clothing given that you have given consent. we can approximate the probability of you giving consent given that you are wearing sexy clothing.
I would argue that the probability of women wearing sexy clothing given that she has given consent is very small overall.
I've only said that the probability increases. Haven't tried to estimate any realistic probability values, it might raise from 0.001% to 0.0011% for all I know.
If you don't disagree with point 1 or 2, then by Bayes' rule you have to agree that the probability increases.
Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1
What. (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)[/QUOTE] You're confusing a specific case with the general case. If this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes, then the probability that this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes is 1. Duh.
However, the argument is that P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). If this is generally true, then we can apply it to a specific case, and modify our expectation of the probability that did/will consent to sex based on her choice of attire.
Now, you may reject the proposed correlation between choosing to wear sexy clothes and choosing to engage in sexual intercourse. But it should be very obvious that there are detectable public behaviors that correlate strongly with the choice to engage in sexual intercourse.
Due to sexism, people have a mental block, so let's switch the situation in such a way as to avoid this mental block. Suppose a man is chatting up a woman at a bar; buying drinks for her, engaging in obvious flirtation, looking for excuses to touch her in semi-intimate ways, and repeatedly suggesting the two of them return to his hotel room and "see what happens." Has this man consented to sex with this woman? No, no he has not. Is he very likely to? Yes -- based on his actions, he is almost certainly 'down to fuck.'
(which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
You're confusing a specific case with the general case. If this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes, then the probability that this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes is 1. Duh.
However, the argument is that P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). If this is generally true, then we can apply it to a specific case, and modify our expectation of the probability that did/will consent to sex based on her choice of attire.
Now, you may reject the proposed correlation between choosing to wear sexy clothes and choosing to engage in sexual intercourse. But it should be very obvious that there are detectable public behaviors that correlate strongly with the choice to engage in sexual intercourse.
Due to sexism, people have a mental block, so let's switch the situation in such a way as to avoid this mental block. Suppose a man is chatting up a woman at a bar; buying drinks for her, engaging in obvious flirtation, looking for excuses to touch her in semi-intimate ways, and repeatedly suggesting the two of them return to his hotel room and "see what happens." Has this man consented to sex with this woman? No, no he has not. Is he very likely to? Yes -- based on his actions, he is almost certainly 'down to fuck.'
I am talking about the case where the woman is wearing sexy clothes. is that not the case you are talking about? P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). is not true given that the woman is wearing sexy clothes by the theorem you quoted right?
Lets settle that before we go on to me disproving your other unrelated example.
EDIT actually wait: given where most sex takes place do you believe P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes)?
On November 09 2013 00:47 dogmode wrote: sexy clothes does not equal consent. period. its not even a .000000000000000000011% increase in consent
Of course sexy clothes don't equal consent. And consent is a yes/no thing; there's very little possibility of gray area.
The issue comes when we (a third party who was not involved) are trying to determine after the fact whether a sex act was consensual or not. When both participants agree it was consensual, that's that -- it's consensual, go home. When both participants agree it was rape, well, obviously it was rape. (And if one person argues it was rape and the other argues that sex didn't happen, if you can prove that sex happened, you can reasonably conclude it was rape.)
Trouble comes in when one person claims rape and the other claims consensual sex. Unless there were witnesses (other than the accuser and the defendant, since they contradict each other), how do we determine which claim is true?
You could argue that, since we can't know, the defendant should always be acquitted. Innocent until proven guilty, right? It's the accuser/prosecutor's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (This is not a popular argument.)
(which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
You're confusing a specific case with the general case. If this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes, then the probability that this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes is 1. Duh.
However, the argument is that P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). If this is generally true, then we can apply it to a specific case, and modify our expectation of the probability that did/will consent to sex based on her choice of attire.
Now, you may reject the proposed correlation between choosing to wear sexy clothes and choosing to engage in sexual intercourse. But it should be very obvious that there are detectable public behaviors that correlate strongly with the choice to engage in sexual intercourse.
Due to sexism, people have a mental block, so let's switch the situation in such a way as to avoid this mental block. Suppose a man is chatting up a woman at a bar; buying drinks for her, engaging in obvious flirtation, looking for excuses to touch her in semi-intimate ways, and repeatedly suggesting the two of them return to his hotel room and "see what happens." Has this man consented to sex with this woman? No, no he has not. Is he very likely to? Yes -- based on his actions, he is almost certainly 'down to fuck.'
I am talking about the case where the woman is wearing sexy clothes. is that not the case you are talking about? P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). is not true given that the woman is wearing sexy clothes by the theorem you quoted right?
P(it is raining | it is cloudy) > P(it is raining | it is not cloudy). This should be clear.
By your argument, if we experience a single day during which it is cloudy but it is not raining, then we have contradicted the above, and instead proven that clouds decrease the chance of rain.
On November 09 2013 01:07 dogmode wrote: can't believe consent has been reduced to math... pretty sure there is no formula that can calculate consent
Comadose is trying to show that even mathematically consent and clothing is not causative.
He was initially telling them that what a woman does and wears does not automatically give consent and that trying to use the dress defense is nothing but slut shaming. His detractors commented "what other defense do we have" because he doesn't realize that a culture that supports rape also supports male/female interactions that are so similar to actual rape that most of the time the accused *has* no evidence to defend him other than attacking the accuser's person-hood. They don't realize that rape culture hurts the accused as well as the victims because the accused are told that what they're doing is okay until they realize it isn't.
So Comadose is trying to show them that even mathematically they are wrong, and not just morally and logically.
In court we are not just presented with a random case where sex has taken place and then asked to determine whether or not it was rape, we have an important bit of additional information. A person has accused the defendent of rape. What is relevant is only the probability that a sexy clothed person would have sex consentually AND then accuse the other party of rape. And if this probability is higher than for a non-sexy dresser then you have a (weak) case that it may be relevant.
Honestly it makes no sense to bring clothing into it. It isn't evidence of anything. Same for promiscuity, being promiscuous does not make you more likely to lie about being raped.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1
What.
what?
(which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
You're confusing a specific case with the general case. If this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes, then the probability that this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes is 1. Duh.
However, the argument is that P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). If this is generally true, then we can apply it to a specific case, and modify our expectation of the probability that did/will consent to sex based on her choice of attire.
Now, you may reject the proposed correlation between choosing to wear sexy clothes and choosing to engage in sexual intercourse. But it should be very obvious that there are detectable public behaviors that correlate strongly with the choice to engage in sexual intercourse.
Due to sexism, people have a mental block, so let's switch the situation in such a way as to avoid this mental block. Suppose a man is chatting up a woman at a bar; buying drinks for her, engaging in obvious flirtation, looking for excuses to touch her in semi-intimate ways, and repeatedly suggesting the two of them return to his hotel room and "see what happens." Has this man consented to sex with this woman? No, no he has not. Is he very likely to? Yes -- based on his actions, he is almost certainly 'down to fuck.'
I am talking about the case where the woman is wearing sexy clothes. is that not the case you are talking about? P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). is not true given that the woman is wearing sexy clothes by the theorem you quoted right?
P(it is raining | it is cloudy) > P(it is raining | it is not cloudy). This should be clear.
that is clear due to observation. but what does that have to do with P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes) is that as clear to you by observation? or where are you getting your data?
By your argument, if we experience a single day during which it is cloudy but it is not raining, then we have contradicted the above, and instead proven that clouds decrease the chance of rain.
I would like you to use my math to show this because i am not following you at all and you are barely acknowledging any of my comments and questions. and its not my argument i just applied the theorem gedatsu sited.
Haha, I hope that I go up against lawyers that think like Gedatsu after I finish law school. Talk about a slam dunk. Bayes rears his ugly stupid statistical head in all the wrong places.
On November 09 2013 00:47 dogmode wrote: sexy clothes does not equal consent. period. its not even a .000000000000000000011% increase in consent
Of course sexy clothes don't equal consent. And consent is a yes/no thing; there's very little possibility of gray area.
The issue comes when we (a third party who was not involved) are trying to determine after the fact whether a sex act was consensual or not. When both participants agree it was consensual, that's that -- it's consensual, go home. When both participants agree it was rape, well, obviously it was rape. (And if one person argues it was rape and the other argues that sex didn't happen, if you can prove that sex happened, you can reasonably conclude it was rape.)
Trouble comes in when one person claims rape and the other claims consensual sex. Unless there were witnesses (other than the accuser and the defendant, since they contradict each other), how do we determine which claim is true?
You could argue that, since we can't know, the defendant should always be acquitted. Innocent until proven guilty, right? It's the accuser/prosecutor's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (This is not a popular argument.)
Innocent until proven guilty is not a truism in all countries.
However, if sex happened, and one person says they did not consent, it doesn't matter if the other party consented since that victim did not consent.
If the accused felt that "she wanted it" it does not mean that she did. He does not know what she wanted and he cannot consent for her.
If you are arguing that the accuser is lying to you, then you are accusing them of slander. If you accuse someone of slander you need to have evidence that they are attempting to slander your name. FYI, them wearing a dress does not prove that they are performing slander.
Rape should be very simple.
Did sex happen? Did one or more parties not consent?
On November 09 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: a culture that supports rape
Such a culture has never existed.
Or, well, a culture that supports rape against women has never existed.
dont ignore me! or at least "Let me know which part you disagree with." -You suggested i take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up -You quoted statistics to prove your point -You got served
On November 09 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: a culture that supports rape
Such a culture has never existed.
Or, well, a culture that supports rape against women has never existed.
Certainly there are cultures where rape is permissable or excusable under the right circumstances. Rape against women has been used as a weapon of war in many conflicts of the recent past. There are several cultures in existance today where a man may rape his wife at will.
I'm sure many posters will argue for the existance of rape culture in contemporary western society as well, but I can't personally be bothered.
His point being that if a woman wanted absolutely no attention she wouldn't wear provocative clothing. A foreign woman going to a flea-market in Southern Africa, for example, would not wear a miniskirt and high heels and a top that exposes cleavage/midrift. She would wear something to avoid drawing attention. If she was going to a nightclub where she did want to attract some attention, she would be more likely to wear sexy get-up. Make-up, heels, skin baring clothing, etc.
It does not mean she is going out looking for sex, by any means. But she is looking for attention. And women are quite well aware that exposing skin causes sexual reactions. One does not dress provocatively and not expect to receive sexual interest.
On November 09 2013 01:39 draverjai wrote: His point being that if a woman wanted absolutely no attention she wouldn't wear provocative clothing. A foreign woman going to a flea-market in Southern Africa, for example, would not wear a miniskirt and high heels and a top that exposes cleavage/midrift. She would wear something to avoid drawing attention. If she was going to a nightclub where she did want to attract some attention, she would be more likely to wear sexy get-up. Make-up, heels, skin baring clothing, etc.
It does not mean she is going out looking for sex, by any means. But she is looking for attention. And women are quite well aware that exposing skin causes sexual reactions. One does not dress provocatively and not expect to receive sexual interest.
For those of you wondering what college attend, I go to UC Davis in Davis, California
I am conflicted about the statistic that only 40% of rapes get reported to Police and a small percentage of those reports turn out to be false. Rape is supposed to be the worst thing that can ever happen to a women but only about 1/3 of all assaults ever get reported to police? In other circumstances, the rape victim will bring a case to trial then choose to drop the rape charges against the defendant allowing the alleged rapist to go free (i.e. the Kobe Bryant case) I cant really grasp the psychology behind this. I mean much more than 40% of all murders get reported to police and murder trails rarely get dropped in the middle of litigation.
On November 09 2013 01:39 draverjai wrote: His point being that if a woman wanted absolutely no attention she wouldn't wear provocative clothing. A foreign woman going to a flea-market in Southern Africa, for example, would not wear a miniskirt and high heels and a top that exposes cleavage/midrift. She would wear something to avoid drawing attention. If she was going to a nightclub where she did want to attract some attention, she would be more likely to wear sexy get-up. Make-up, heels, skin baring clothing, etc.
It does not mean she is going out looking for sex, by any means. But she is looking for attention. And women are quite well aware that exposing skin causes sexual reactions. One does not dress provocatively and not expect to receive sexual interest.
i guess women only wear clothes for the sole reason of attracting attention. not because they like it or its pretty or it feels nice or its sexy. i guess when women wears clothes they wear it primarily thinking about how other people will react to it and not because of personal preference. /sarcasm
Exactly. No one is dressing to provoke rape. It wouldn't be rape if you wanted it. But if you don't want sexual attention you don't dress in a manner that attracts it. I am agreeing that if you are going to go to a dodgy area and dress like that it is unsafe.
On November 09 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: a culture that supports rape
Such a culture has never existed.
Or, well, a culture that supports rape against women has never existed.
So the west isn't a culture where men are expected to always want to fuck women and women are expected to not always mean it when they say no/"playing hard to get"?
On November 09 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: a culture that supports rape
Such a culture has never existed.
Or, well, a culture that supports rape against women has never existed.
Certainly there are cultures where rape is permissable or excusable under the right circumstances. Rape against women has been used as a weapon of war in many conflicts of the recent past. There are several cultures in existance today where a man may rape his wife at will.
I'm sure many posters will argue for the existance of rape culture in contemporary western society as well, but I can't personally be bothered.
That's like saying there are "theft cultures" because governments levy taxes against some people's wishes. A man may never legally rape his wife at will, because in those places, it is not considered rape. There are several definitions of the term and not everybody agrees with yours.
Yeah, people do horrible stuff in warzones, because in warzones there are no rules. They are not exactly operating within a culture, they are doing whatever the fuck they normally cannot do.
On November 09 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: a culture that supports rape
Such a culture has never existed.
Or, well, a culture that supports rape against women has never existed.
dont ignore me! or at least "Let me know which part you disagree with." -You suggested i take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up -You quoted statistics to prove your point -You got served
On November 09 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: a culture that supports rape
Such a culture has never existed.
Or, well, a culture that supports rape against women has never existed.
So the west isn't a culture where men are expected to always want to fuck women and women are expected to not always mean it when they say no/"playing hard to get"?
Sure. But that doesn't have anything to do with supporting rape.
On November 09 2013 01:48 draverjai wrote: Exactly. No one is dressing to provoke rape. It wouldn't be rape if you wanted it. But if you don't want sexual attention you don't dress in a manner that attracts it. I am agreeing that if you are going to go to a dodgy area and dress like that it is unsafe.
all i really want to say is rape is wrong. sex should always be consensual. a woman's dress, sexual history, appearance, etc should never be considered as implied consent to intercourse or as basis for arguments that basically states "you may say no but your ______ says yes" argument.
Lol Gedatsu, why wuss out now? Your blame the victim stupidity is already on display and it's a Friday, whaddya got to lose? I'm curious, do you have exposure to case law on rape and the success of defenses that revolve around a characterization of the victim as "wanting it" in one way or another, or are you just making this up as you go along?
On November 09 2013 01:43 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: For those of you wondering what college attend, I go to UC Davis in Davis, California
I am conflicted about the statistic that only 40% of rapes get reported and a small percentage of those reports turn out to be false Rape is supposed to be the worst thing that can ever happen to a women but only about 1/3 of all assaults ever get reported to police? In other circumstances, the rape victim will bring a case to trial then choose to drop the rape charges against the defendant allowing the alleged rapist to go free (i.e. the Kobe Bryant case) I cant really grasp the psychology behind this. I mean much more than 40% of all murders get reported to police and murder trails rarely get dropped in the middle of litigation.
Well just by reading this thread you can see that many people think it is fair game to imply that the accuser is a slut who dresses like one in the courtroom. Having to relive a serious emotional trauma, first with the police, and then in courtroom, understandably isn't very appealling for many victims.
Then there is the problem that rape can be quite hard to prove, particularly when the victim didn't fight back very hard, from fear of getting hurt even more. Which would also lead to further distressing questions.
Another problem is that the rapist is often someone from the victim's social circle, and within that social circle there will perhaps be people who like to do a bit of slut shaming themselves, will chose the side of the rapist in other ways, etc etc.
These are all things a murder victim does not have to deal with, because they are dead.
On November 09 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: a culture that supports rape
Such a culture has never existed.
Or, well, a culture that supports rape against women has never existed.
dont ignore me! or at least "Let me know which part you disagree with." -You suggested i take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up -You quoted statistics to prove your point -You got served
Severedevil already dealt with you.
lol please, do you really want your response to me disproving your math to be:
P(it is raining | it is cloudy) > P(it is raining | it is not cloudy). is as obvious as P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes) and then a poorly delivered incorrect point about the implications of Bayes theorem.
by what stretch of the imagination is that dealing with me? You insulted me a lot then said
If you don't disagree with point 1 or 2, then by Bayes' rule you have to agree that the probability increases.
but you were wrong. then you just pretended it didn't happen.
On November 09 2013 01:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: Wait, you don't think a culture that tells men to go after women and that tells women that no doesn't always mean no is not rape culture?
First of all, I disagree that men and women are "told" those things. It's biological. Evolutionary psychology is a thing, you should look into it.
Secondly, with any reasonable definition of rape culture, those things absolutely do not create one. Seeking sex does not mean rape is condoned or supported. The fact that women sometimes say no when they mean yes does not mean rape is condoned or supported, although I suppose it does have the potential to increase the prevalence of rape due to confusing some men. But it remains heavily condemned.
On November 09 2013 01:54 farvacola wrote: Lol Gedatsu, why wuss out now? Your blame the victim stupidity is already on display and it's a Friday, whaddya got to lose? I'm curious, do you have exposure to case law on rape and the success of defenses that revolve around a characterization of the victim as "wanting it" in one way or another, or are you just making this up as you go along?
Wuss out? Blame the victim? What are you even talking about? Nobody is blaming anyone. Do you even understand what the word 'blame' means?
I don't have any such exposure, nor do I need it, because I haven't commented on the success of such defenses.
On November 09 2013 02:11 farvacola wrote: As confusing as bringing up Bayes when discussing the effect of provocative clothing on personal culpability I hope.
Haven't said a word about culpability. Culpability refers to someone's blameworthiness of a crime. I am talking about the process of establishing whether a crime took place at all. Surely a law student would be able to tell the difference.
On November 09 2013 02:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: So it's in mans Darwin given rights to chase after women and it's women's fault that they say no?
You're just too much.
...uh...
Yes, men have a right to chase after women. It depends on what you mean by "chase" of course; physically following them when they attempt to leave is not so legal. But men have a right to approach women and try to persuade them to agree to sex. Do you really think they don't?
And yes, it's a woman's fault when she says no. People generally have responsibility over the words they choose to say. Who else do you think should be blamed for her saying no?
To suggest that the wearing of provocative clothing mitigates the potential for a rape to be seen as a crime is a direct indictment of the culpability of the accused. And is perhaps even less salient than blaming the victim. Nice try though.
On November 09 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote: To suggest that the wearing of provocative clothing mitigates the potential for a rape to be seen as a crime is a direct indictment of the culpability of the accused. And is perhaps even less salient than blaming the victim. Nice try though.
I haven't said it mitigates the potential for a rape either. Stop trying to strawman me.
On November 09 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote: To suggest that the wearing of provocative clothing mitigates the potential for a rape to be seen as a crime is a direct indictment of the culpability of the accused. And is perhaps even less salient than blaming the victim. Nice try though.
I haven't said it mitigates the potential for a rape either. Stop trying to strawman me.
Doesn't mitigate rape in prisons, doesn't mitigate rape outside of prisons.
But since you agree it's biological for men to be sexually aggressive I guess we know your stance in the matter.
On November 09 2013 02:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: So it's in mans Darwin given rights to chase after women and it's women's fault that they say no?
You're just too much.
When you're involved in a conversation with someone, hopefully trying to arrive at a deeper understanding of something, you have some responsibility to charitably interpret what the other person is saying, even if you don't agree with them. Especially when the subject is a super complicated one, like human behavior. Strawmanning the other guy in one sentence like the entirety of what he was saying was "Darwin says rape is women's fault" like anyone in this thread, in the 21st century, thinks that, is being intentionally dense or something.
On November 09 2013 02:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: So it's in mans Darwin given rights to chase after women and it's women's fault that they say no?
You're just too much.
When you're involved in a conversation with someone, hopefully trying to arrive at a deeper understanding of something, you have some responsibility to charitably interpret what the other person is saying, even if you don't agree with them. Especially when the subject is a super complicated one, like human behavior. Strawmanning the other guy in one sentence like the entirety of what he was saying was "Darwin says rape is women's fault" like anyone in this thread, in the 21st century, thinks that, is being intentionally dense or something.
You mean the part where he says men are supposed to chase women or the part were he says that it's the woman's fault that she says no?
Maybe the part where he said it was natural due to "evolutionary psychology" which also suggests that women like shopping because they collected berries.
Maybe the fact that he brought up evolution in response to my statement that rape culture in western culture encourages men to pursue women and informs women that their no doesn't always mean no.
If he wants to sidestep direct statements by bringing up evolution then he deserves the terse responses he's getting.
On November 09 2013 02:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: So it's in mans Darwin given rights to chase after women and it's women's fault that they say no?
You're just too much.
When you're involved in a conversation with someone, hopefully trying to arrive at a deeper understanding of something, you have some responsibility to charitably interpret what the other person is saying, even if you don't agree with them. Especially when the subject is a super complicated one, like human behavior. Strawmanning the other guy in one sentence like the entirety of what he was saying was "Darwin says rape is women's fault" like anyone in this thread, in the 21st century, thinks that, is being intentionally dense or something.
You mean the part where he says men are supposed to chase women or the part were he says that it's the woman's fault that she says no?
Haven't said that anyone is supposed to do anything. I did ask you to clarify if you thought men were not allowed to do it. Also asked you to clarify whose fault it is that a woman says no.
Maybe the part where he said it was natural due to "evolutionary psychology" which also suggests that women like shopping because they collected berries.
I've never heard a serious evolutionary psychologist claim that and I don't think you have either. Either way, he will have been laughed at by the rest of that scientific community. Evolutionary psychology is a strong, well founded scientific discipline.
Maybe the fact that he brought up evolution in response to my statement that rape culture in western culture encourages men to pursue women and informs women that their no doesn't always mean no.
If he wants to sidestep direct statements by bringing up evolution then he deserves the terse responses he's getting.
You say this as if you want to ignore evolution.
Women aren't "informed" that their no doesn't always mean no. Women already know that, because they are aware when they say no without meaning no.
Seriously, it's as if you have never talked to women. Ask and they will admit to doing this.
On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote: this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset
This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place.
edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get:
p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a).
But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with:
p(a|b)=p(a)
But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b).
It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate.
Some Caveats
I No one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing.
II This isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.]
Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent.
III It doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits.
Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible.
On November 09 2013 03:01 farvacola wrote: Really? You are going to legitimize this sort of operation as a meaningful way of discussing rape and consent? I am disappointed FRD.
In a court you are trying to determine what happened. To do this, it is relevant what counts as evidence of what happened. The conditional probability of something happening given something else is relevant to whether that something else is evidence. In this sense, such conditional probabilities are obviously in principle capable of being relevant to whether something should be allowed in court. I don't see that you've said anything that shows otherwise.
In this particular case I don't think there is good reason to allow such things in court, as I thoroughly outlined in my "caveats" section, but that doesn't mean that conditional probabilities cannot even in principle be relevant to something being admissible. That seems like much too strong a principle and much good evidence (e.g., DNA evidence) seems to have become admissible precisely because that principle has not been applied.
edit:
Some people in this thread, and I don't take you to be among them, have been rather clearly confused about what the probabilities are supposed to mean. At least one poster seems to be under the impression that these probabilities represent degrees of having been raped, and so if wearing sexy clothes increases the probability that means that (regardless of your actual consent) you weren't raped as much as someone who didn't so dress.
I'm embarrassed to even have to point out that this isn't what the probabilities mean. They represent degrees of belief based on evidence available. Whether or not the person was actually raped/actually consented is another matter entirely.
Well, I tried to ignore the bullshit as long as I could but maybe we can get this thread back on track:
More Caveats
IV On an abstract level, that argument is sound. So sound, in fact, that it still works if you replace "wears clothing that exposes a lot of skin" with "wears lipstick" or "goes into the vicinity of men". Does being around men increase her absolute chance to get raped? Absolutely: She cannot rape herself all by herself. Does it matter? Absolutely not.
V (just for kicks) 1: A woman wearing sexy clothing is more likely to consent to sex than one who doesn't. 2: If everybody involved consents to it, the sexual act isn't rape. Conclusion: Wearing sexy clothing reduces a woman's chance to get raped. Corollary: Nuns are constantly living on the edge.
The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
On November 09 2013 02:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: So it's in mans Darwin given rights to chase after women and it's women's fault that they say no?
You're just too much.
When you're involved in a conversation with someone, hopefully trying to arrive at a deeper understanding of something, you have some responsibility to charitably interpret what the other person is saying, even if you don't agree with them. Especially when the subject is a super complicated one, like human behavior. Strawmanning the other guy in one sentence like the entirety of what he was saying was "Darwin says rape is women's fault" like anyone in this thread, in the 21st century, thinks that, is being intentionally dense or something.
You mean the part where he says men are supposed to chase women or the part were he says that it's the woman's fault that she says no?
Haven't said that anyone is supposed to do anything. I did ask you to clarify if you thought men were not allowed to do it. Also asked you to clarify whose fault it is that a woman says no.
Maybe the part where he said it was natural due to "evolutionary psychology" which also suggests that women like shopping because they collected berries.
I've never heard a serious evolutionary psychologist claim that and I don't think you have either. Either way, he will have been laughed at by the rest of that scientific community. Evolutionary psychology is a strong, well founded scientific discipline.
Maybe the fact that he brought up evolution in response to my statement that rape culture in western culture encourages men to pursue women and informs women that their no doesn't always mean no.
If he wants to sidestep direct statements by bringing up evolution then he deserves the terse responses he's getting.
You say this as if you want to ignore evolution.
Women aren't "informed" that their no doesn't always mean no. Women already know that, because they are aware when they say no without meaning no.
Seriously, it's as if you have never talked to women. Ask and they will admit to doing this.
On November 09 2013 02:20 farvacola wrote: It is impossible to out straw man someone who brings up Bayes in a rape thread.
Can't deal with the fact that maths prove you wrong? Suggest that maths do not apply!
Yeah, gonna ignore you now.
Actually, comadose was proving your math false then you ignored him.
Actually, he was wrong and Severedevil already demonstrated why.
Severedevil simply showed probability of rain and assumed that rain = sex. Read the discussion, sever didn't show anything.
No, he did not assume that rain = sex. Please take your own advice and reread what he wrote.
I said:
"Wait, you don't think a culture that tells men to go after women and that tells women that no doesn't always mean no is not rape culture?"
You replied:
"First of all, I disagree that men and women are "told" those things. It's biological. "
Followed by:
"Yes, men have a right to chase after women. "
And followed by:
"And yes, it's a woman's fault when she says no."
And then followed by:
"Haven't said that anyone is supposed to do anything."
And then you try to retort me by saying:
" I did ask you to clarify if you thought men were not allowed to do it"
As well as including:
"Seriously, it's as if you have never talked to women. Ask and they will admit to doing this"
Despite my statement being:
"you don't think a culture that tells men to go after women and that tells women that no doesn't always mean no "
You believe its a biological imperative for men to chase women when you say that its Biological. You believe that its women's fault that when they say no that they don't mean it enough when you say "And yes, it's a woman's fault when she says no"
So when I tell you that western culture tells men to chase after women and tells women that their no doesn't always mean no--you don't argue against it by saying "ask they will admit to doing this" because I already say they do when I say "tells women that no doesn't always mean no."
That's why its called Rape Culture. Because men feel that they have to go after girls (biological after all right??) and girls play hard to get because "no doesn't always mean no."
And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes.
That's why its called rape CULTURE Not Rape Education Not Rape Teachings Not Rape Commands Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit.
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
This might be news to you. But if p(b) = 1, then imagine that, p(b|a) is also 1.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
What if both the man and woman are intoxicated and end up having sex?
Wait, why are we saying that "sexy clothes" are a binary thing? There are outfits that are more and less sexy, and outfits that attract different people in different ways. Even outside of the victim blaming, the very concept of trying to use the sexiness of clothes as a quantifiable subject is just dumb.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
What if both the man and woman are intoxicated and end up having sex?
Then both can go to court and file rape charges or both can choose to not go to court or one can choose to go to court and file rape charges.
Those three options are present whether or not any or none of the parties involved are drunk.
In which case,
Person A accuses Person B of rape. Person B confesses to sex being involved, but asserts that he was too drunk to be responsible for his actions. And much like killing someone by drunk driving is a lesser punishment than 1st degree murder, a rape is still a rape much like a murder is still a murder.
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing?
On November 09 2013 02:58 frogrubdown wrote: I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place.
edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get:
p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a).
But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with:
p(a|b)=p(a)
But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b).
It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate.
Some Caveats
I No one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing.
II This isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.]
Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent.
III It doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits.
Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible.
oh neat thanks its been a few years since i took the one statistics course and i've been working with different math with more erm... static methods. but as it relates to the original assertion: his claim was that the probability of a woman getting raped is higher if they are wearing revealing clothing and used Bayes theorem to back it up.
so now that you have corrected me that the formula simplifies to p(a|b) = p(a) isn't he still wrong?
i.e. it simplifies to a comparison of p(a|b) and p(a)
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing?
I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them.
On November 09 2013 02:58 frogrubdown wrote: I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place.
edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get:
p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a).
But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with:
p(a|b)=p(a)
But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b).
It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate.
Some Caveats
I No one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing.
II This isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.]
Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent.
III It doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits.
Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible.
oh neat thanks its been a few years since i took the one statistics course and i've been working with different math with more erm... static methods. but as it relates to the original assertion: his claim was that the probability of a woman getting raped is higher if they are wearing revealing clothing and used Bayes theorem to back it up.
so now that you have corrected me that the formula simplifies to p(a|b) = p(a) isn't he still wrong?
Well, I think he's wrong, but it has nothing to do with p(a|b)=p(a). Because the p(a) in this equation is your new credence in a, the credence you get after you update. It's trivial that they will be equal. That doesn't say anything about whether they are equal because p(a) increased during the update or because p(a) decreased in the update, which is what is relevant to whether b is evidence of a.
On November 09 2013 02:58 frogrubdown wrote: I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place.
edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get:
p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a).
But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with:
p(a|b)=p(a)
But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b).
It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate.
Some Caveats
I No one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing.
II This isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.]
Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent.
III It doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits.
Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible.
oh neat thanks its been a few years since i took the one statistics course and i've been working with different math with more erm... static methods. but as it relates to the original assertion: his claim was that the probability of a woman getting raped is higher if they are wearing revealing clothing and used Bayes theorem to back it up.
so now that you have corrected me that the formula simplifies to p(a|b) = p(a) isn't he still wrong?
I think thats the conclusions that are made in the Caveats.
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing?
I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them.
On November 09 2013 02:58 frogrubdown wrote: I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place.
edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get:
p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a).
But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with:
p(a|b)=p(a)
But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b).
It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate.
Some Caveats
I No one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing.
II This isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.]
Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent.
III It doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits.
Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible.
oh neat thanks its been a few years since i took the one statistics course and i've been working with different math with more erm... static methods. but as it relates to the original assertion: his claim was that the probability of a woman getting raped is higher if they are wearing revealing clothing and used Bayes theorem to back it up.
so now that you have corrected me that the formula simplifies to p(a|b) = p(a) isn't he still wrong?
Well, I think he's wrong, but it has nothing to do with p(a|b)=p(a). Because the p(a) in this equation is your new credence in a, the credence you get after you update. It's trivial that they will be equal. That doesn't say anything about whether they are equal because p(a) increased during the update or because p(a) decreased in the update, which is what is relevant to whether b is evidence of a.
but he said it always increases tho rite? and his "evidence" doesn't show that. like i mean obviously he is wrong morally and logically but mathematically i'm still concerned with the correct math applied (sorry) it still doesn't suggest what he claimed it did.
my work would be so much easier if i could "update" variables
On November 09 2013 02:58 frogrubdown wrote: I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place.
edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get:
p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a).
But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with:
p(a|b)=p(a)
But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b).
It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate.
Some Caveats
I No one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing.
II This isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.]
Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent.
III It doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits.
Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible.
his claim was that the probability of a woman getting raped is higher if they are wearing revealing clothing and used Bayes theorem to back it up.
That was not the claim at hand. The claim at hand is that a woman dressed provocatively is more likely to engage in consensual sex than one who is not dressed provocatively -- that certain modes of dress correlate with sexual intent. Certainly people's clothing choices tend to correlate with their intentions.
Frog correctly noted that such a correlation may not carry over to the situation in which a woman claims rape. P(sex was consensual | (provocative attire & sex & rape accusation)) might not be greater than P(sex was consensual | (non-provocative attire & sex & rape accusation)).
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing?
I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them.
On November 09 2013 03:46 ComaDose wrote:
On November 09 2013 02:58 frogrubdown wrote: I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place.
edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get:
p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a).
But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with:
p(a|b)=p(a)
But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b).
It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate.
Some Caveats
I No one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing.
II This isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.]
Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent.
III It doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits.
Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible.
oh neat thanks its been a few years since i took the one statistics course and i've been working with different math with more erm... static methods. but as it relates to the original assertion: his claim was that the probability of a woman getting raped is higher if they are wearing revealing clothing and used Bayes theorem to back it up.
so now that you have corrected me that the formula simplifies to p(a|b) = p(a) isn't he still wrong?
Well, I think he's wrong, but it has nothing to do with p(a|b)=p(a). Because the p(a) in this equation is your new credence in a, the credence you get after you update. It's trivial that they will be equal. That doesn't say anything about whether they are equal because p(a) increased during the update or because p(a) decreased in the update, which is what is relevant to whether b is evidence of a.
but he said it always increases tho rite? and his "evidence" doesn't show that.
The theorem on its own definitely doesn't show that. He's assuming (based on his "attracting mates" argument or something) that p(b|a)>p(a) (with that being your pre-update probability for a).
On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes.
What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?"
That's why its called rape CULTURE Not Rape Education Not Rape Teachings Not Rape Commands Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit.
A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too?
Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it.
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing?
I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them.
I disagree. Such an argument can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that it is fundamentally irreconcilable with how the law and society recognizes the rights of the individual. If I were to wear a shirt that said something really inflammatory, say "I'm with Hitler" or something like that, I've no doubt that, in a Bayesian sense, the likelihood that I encounter violence or abuse increases, at least marginally. This should have nothing to do with whether or not my shirt is a piece of evidence in the according trial that arises as a result of my having been assaulted by a violent Jewish street gang ()
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing?
I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them.
On November 09 2013 03:46 ComaDose wrote:
On November 09 2013 02:58 frogrubdown wrote: I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place.
edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake.
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote: Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b) if p(b) = 1 and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1 then p(a|b) < p(a)
What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get:
p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a).
But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with:
p(a|b)=p(a)
But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b).
It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate.
Some Caveats
I No one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing.
II This isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.]
Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent.
III It doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits.
Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible.
oh neat thanks its been a few years since i took the one statistics course and i've been working with different math with more erm... static methods. but as it relates to the original assertion: his claim was that the probability of a woman getting raped is higher if they are wearing revealing clothing and used Bayes theorem to back it up.
so now that you have corrected me that the formula simplifies to p(a|b) = p(a) isn't he still wrong?
Well, I think he's wrong, but it has nothing to do with p(a|b)=p(a). Because the p(a) in this equation is your new credence in a, the credence you get after you update. It's trivial that they will be equal. That doesn't say anything about whether they are equal because p(a) increased during the update or because p(a) decreased in the update, which is what is relevant to whether b is evidence of a.
but he said it always increases tho rite? and his "evidence" doesn't show that.
The theorem on its own definitely doesn't show that. He's assuming (based on his "attracting mates" argument or something) that p(b|a)>p(a) (with that being your pre-update probability for a).
oh good heh few i was worried.
On November 09 2013 03:56 Severedevil wrote: certain modes of dress correlate with sexual intent
oh yeah sorry i misspoke about the claim trying to bring it back to relevancy. but you are more accurate. care to enlighten me about what modes of dress correlate with sexual intent?
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing?
I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them.
I disagree. Such an argument can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that it is fundamentally irreconcilable with how the law and society recognizes the rights of the individual. If I were to wear a shirt that said something really inflammatory, say "I'm with Hitler" or something like that, I've no doubt that, in a Bayesian sense, the likelihood that I encounter violence or abuse increases, at least marginally. This has nothing to do with whether or not my shirt is a piece of evidence in the according trial that arises as a result of my having been assaulted by a violent Jewish street gang ()
This example makes it seem like you take my position to be that it is in principle possible for the way you dress to justify being raped (because it increases the odds of it or something). I want to be as clear as possible that that is not my position. A rapist is a shitbag regardless of the dress of his or her victim.
My position is that it is in principle possible for it to be evidence that you in fact consented, though I don't take it to actually be evidence for this. At least not enough to justify inclusion in court.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes.
What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?"
That's why its called rape CULTURE Not Rape Education Not Rape Teachings Not Rape Commands Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit.
A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too?
Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it.
There are many examples in nature of females going after males and males being victims of violence for their sex acts. But if you want to pick species "close" to humans, Bonobos have female dominance in their societies, Orangutans are solitary by nature, meet at up during mating season, have sex, then leave, etc...
Males raping Females is not the norm in nature and at times the reverse is also true. To believe it is natural for males to be dominant is to be closed minded to the natural world.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing?
I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them.
I disagree. Such an argument can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that it is fundamentally irreconcilable with how the law and society recognizes the rights of the individual. If I were to wear a shirt that said something really inflammatory, say "I'm with Hitler" or something like that, I've no doubt that, in a Bayesian sense, the likelihood that I encounter violence or abuse increases, at least marginally. This should have nothing to do with whether or not my shirt is a piece of evidence in the according trial that arises as a result of my having been assaulted by a violent Jewish street gang ()
But how do you prove the shirt was the impetus of the assault? Any more than say entering their territory, random assault, attempted robbery, you saying something they disliked, etc...
At least one poster seems to be under the impression that these probabilities represent degrees of having been raped, and so if wearing sexy clothes increases the probability that means that (regardless of your actual consent) you weren't raped as much as someone who didn't so dress.
this wasn't me right? i was trying to keep things in context of probability she consented given how she was dressed.
At least one poster seems to be under the impression that these probabilities represent degrees of having been raped, and so if wearing sexy clothes increases the probability that means that (regardless of your actual consent) you weren't raped as much as someone who didn't so dress.
this wasn't me right? i was trying to keep things in context of probability she consented given how she was dressed.
No, but I didn't want to single out the poster I was actually thinking of.
On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote: The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy.
I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make.
If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established.
Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing?
I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them.
I disagree. Such an argument can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that it is fundamentally irreconcilable with how the law and society recognizes the rights of the individual. If I were to wear a shirt that said something really inflammatory, say "I'm with Hitler" or something like that, I've no doubt that, in a Bayesian sense, the likelihood that I encounter violence or abuse increases, at least marginally. This has nothing to do with whether or not my shirt is a piece of evidence in the according trial that arises as a result of my having been assaulted by a violent Jewish street gang ()
This example makes it seem like you take my position to be that it is in principle possible for the way you dress to justify being raped (because it increases the odds of it or something). I want to be as clear as possible that that is not my position. A rapist is a shitbag regardless of the dress of his or her victim.
My position is that it is in principle possible for it to be evidence that you in fact consented, though I don't take it to actually be evidence for this. At least not enough to justify inclusion in court.
No worries, I know that that isn't your position. My scenario should have included that the shirt was being dismissed as evidence not because it does not say that I was asking for violence, rather it does not say one way or another whether or not I could have partook in actions that demanded violent reprisal.
Edit: And I'm already ahead of ya froggy Got blizzcon on the tv as we speak.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
So... if two people have consensual sex in private... and one of them later tells the police it was not consensual... the accused should be convicted of rape and go to jail?
In that case, it sounds like the best defense against a rape charge is to file a counter-charge of rape. Bam! Now you either negotiate to drop charges, or you both go to jail, since it's almost impossible to prove consent. That's silly.
At least one poster seems to be under the impression that these probabilities represent degrees of having been raped, and so if wearing sexy clothes increases the probability that means that (regardless of your actual consent) you weren't raped as much as someone who didn't so dress.
this wasn't me right? i was trying to keep things in context of probability she consented given how she was dressed.
No, but I didn't want to single out the poster I was actually thinking of.
alright well thanks for the math lesson =3 i tried to solve it like i would any other equation not remembering that if we knew p(b) = 1 we knew p(b|a) = 1 too. (thanks snarky writer ) but for what its worth updating variables is less intuitive to me than deriving with laplace transforms.
On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes.
What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?"
That's why its called rape CULTURE Not Rape Education Not Rape Teachings Not Rape Commands Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit.
A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too?
Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it.
I am very familiar with, and very much appreciate, evolutionary psychology and I still am convinced that cultural elements contribute to the prevalence of rape. Acknowledging the importance of culture is not a rejection of evolutionary psychology.
Possibly our closest extant evolutionary relatives, Bonobos, are species with birth giving females and sperm producing males where males are not dominant sexually.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
So... if two people have consensual sex in private... and one of them later tells the police it was not consensual... the accused should be convicted of rape and go to jail?
In that case, it sounds like the best defense against a rape charge is to file a counter-charge of rape. Bam! Now you either negotiate to drop charges, or you both go to jail, since it's almost impossible to prove consent. That's silly.
If you are having sex with people that hate you so much that they are willing to charge you with rape for no reason but to slander you--the problem is not that they charged you with rape but the fact that you thought someone like that was fuckable to begin with.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
So... if two people have consensual sex in private... and one of them later tells the police it was not consensual... the accused should be convicted of rape and go to jail?
In that case, it sounds like the best defense against a rape charge is to file a counter-charge of rape. Bam! Now you either negotiate to drop charges, or you both go to jail, since it's almost impossible to prove consent. That's silly.
If you are having sex with people that hate you so much that they are willing to charge you with rape for no reason but to slander you--the problem is not that they charged you with rape but the fact that you thought someone like that was fuckable to begin with.
So, in cases of false rape accusation, you blame the victim?
EDIT: by similar argument, if your significant other rapes you, the problem isn't that they raped you. It's that you thought someone like that was fuckable to begin with.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
So... if two people have consensual sex in private... and one of them later tells the police it was not consensual... the accused should be convicted of rape and go to jail?
In that case, it sounds like the best defense against a rape charge is to file a counter-charge of rape. Bam! Now you either negotiate to drop charges, or you both go to jail, since it's almost impossible to prove consent. That's silly.
If you are having sex with people that hate you so much that they are willing to charge you with rape for no reason but to slander you--the problem is not that they charged you with rape but the fact that you thought someone like that was fuckable to begin with.
No, no, no, the problem is they charged you with rape.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
Interesting. I don't know much about american law, but wouldn't he have to do the same if it's treated as just one case? I mean, Person B's claim, even if it's just a single case, is that Person A consented initially then claimed otherwise afterwards in order to injure Person B in some form. I don't quite understand the difference in treating it as two cases like you say it would be best.
On a side note, there may be people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it, but there are also people who believe Person B should not be able to accuse slander at all, on account rape being a sexual crime and the woman (the rapee) requiring special attention from the law. It begs the question of which is the greatest evil: locking up an innocent or letting the guilty go free, no?
On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes.
What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?"
That's why its called rape CULTURE Not Rape Education Not Rape Teachings Not Rape Commands Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit.
A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too?
Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it.
There are many examples in nature of females going after males and males being victims of violence for their sex acts. But if you want to pick species "close" to humans, Bonobos have female dominance in their societies, Orangutans are solitary by nature, meet at up during mating season, have sex, then leave, etc...
Males raping Females is not the norm in nature and at times the reverse is also true. To believe it is natural for males to be dominant is to be closed minded to the natural world.
Again with the strawmans. Please make an effort to reply to what I have actually said.
I haven't said a word about "dominance". I said that the males typically approach the females, who then agree or disagree to have sex. This happens with bonobos and it happens with orangutans. Orangutans, like gorillas, are interesting in that the alpha male usually has a lot of females coming to him - which is the equivalent of women coming on to George Clooney but not Bob who works at the supermarket. It happens more frequently with orangutans and gorillas than with humans, which is because those species have a higher degree of sexual dimorphism than we do. The less sexual dimorphism, the more the males have to do the suiting.
And with that, Blizzcon has started and I'll be out of here for at least 12 hours.
On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: You believe its a biological imperative for men to chase women when you say that its Biological.
Imperative is stronger than perhaps he meant but I don't see what's controversial about this. Of course men pursue women, and women pursue men, that's how we still have a species, both sexes look around for good partners.
You believe that its women's fault that when they say no that they don't mean it enough when you say "And yes, it's a woman's fault when she says no"
That's what he said, but he didn't mean the things you added. You could have read the rest of the quote? He was mocking you for thinking it's anyone's "fault" whether a woman consents or not. It's her fault because it's her choice, as we all have a right to choose what to do with our own body. Here is the rest of the quote which explains:
And yes, it's a woman's fault when she says no. People generally have responsibility over the words they choose to say. Who else do you think should be blamed for her saying no?
That's why its called Rape Culture. Because men feel that they have to go after girls (biological after all right??) and girls play hard to get because "no doesn't always mean no."
Girls play hard to get because they have sexual power too, and don't have to automatically bed anyone who asks. Girls don't play hard to get because "no doesn't always mean no," "no doesn't always mean no" because women and men can change their minds.
And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes.
As far as I can tell this is a fabrication. I have been outside and it's true men alwaysoften pursue women, and sometimes women say no, and then sometimes men continue and the women agree and everybody squirts their baby ingredients together.
But the idea that women are somehow all being blamed for saying "no meaning no" instead of "no meaning yes" is just bizarre... rapes are happening and then the victims are being blamed for being raped instead of playing hard to get? Why wouldn't they just be blamed for being raped instead of being into it? Furthermore how do you know this is happening, or is it just a circular conspiracy theory?
That's why its called rape CULTURE Not Rape Education Not Rape Teachings Not Rape Commands Not Rape Orders
You can use whatever words you want, but just because you have a (buzz) word for something doesn't make it true, like calling Obama a communist doesn't change anything about the truth of whether he is a communist.
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Even if this were true, why does that make it rape culture? Why not reality tv culture? Why not prison industrial complex culture? It's the 21st century, we didn't get this far without realizing that rape is bad. What evidence is there that rape is so far ahead of all our other problems that you have to use this obnoxious buzzword? Is that supposed to raise awareness or just induce guilt without actually solving a problem that as far as I can tell hasn't been well-defined and or shown to exist.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
So Person A doesn't have to prove they didn't give consent? Any Person A who wants a ton of money/ill will can say yes to Person B's face, but then turn around and sue them for jail time and reparations any time they want? If that were true i wouldn't ever have sex with anyone. Why is the burden of proof that Person A wasn't giving consent put on Person B? Person A is the one bringing the case to trial the burden of proof should be on them. Is Person B culpable for having sex with someone who said yes to them? I would say no. Even if Person A was thinking no, or Person A chose to change her mind after the fact, Person B is not a mind reader and cannot see into the future. If it cannot be proven that Person A did not say yes at the time of coitus, then there is no case.
You are once again mistaking the word "Culture" with "independent action"
Independent action is an individual woman deciding to play hard to get or deciding to be sexually active.
Culture is the society thinking that men, in general, are sexually forward and that women, in general, play hard to get.
Because yes, there is prison culture--usually attributed as an extension of slavery perpetuated by a gap between the middle class and the lower class creating a systematic culture of crime dependent poor being given a criminal record preventing them from progressing up the economic food while being forced into free labor.
There are cultures that perpetuate many of the problems in western culture, Rape Culture being one of them.
On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote: To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop. I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies. In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator. There is no culture argument, just one of justice.
I guess it depends on how you see the case.
Person A reports rape.
Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened.
Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood.
In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented.
If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.
This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
So Person A doesn't have to prove they didn't give consent? Any Person A who wants a ton of money/ill will can say yes to Person B's face, but then turn around and sue them for jail time and reparations any time they want? If that were true i wouldn't ever have sex with anyone. Why is the burden of proof that Person A wasn't giving consent put on Person B? Person A is the one bringing the case to trial the burden of proof should be on them. Is Person B culpable for having sex with someone who said yes to them? I would say no. Even if Person A was thinking no, or Person A chose to change her mind after the fact, Person B is not a mind reader and cannot see into the future. If it cannot be proven that Person A did not say yes at the time of coitus, then there is no case.
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
On November 09 2013 04:56 Thieving Magpie wrote: You are once again mistaking the word "Culture" with "independent action"
Independent action is an individual woman deciding to play hard to get or deciding to be sexually active.
Culture is the society thinking that men, in general, are sexually forward and that women, in general, play hard to get.
Because yes, there is prison culture--usually attributed as an extension of slavery perpetuated by a gap between the middle class and the lower class creating a systematic culture of crime dependent poor being given a criminal record preventing them from progressing up the economic food while being forced into free labor.
There are cultures that perpetuate many of the problems in western culture, Rape Culture being one of them.
The fact that men are sexually forward and women conservative on average does have roots in biology and evolutionary psychology. Sexual contact is cheap for men and potentially very expensive for women. Though culture can have some effect, I'm afraid this simple fact will not change.
On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes.
What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?"
That's why its called rape CULTURE Not Rape Education Not Rape Teachings Not Rape Commands Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit.
A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too?
Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it.
There are many examples in nature of females going after males and males being victims of violence for their sex acts. But if you want to pick species "close" to humans, Bonobos have female dominance in their societies, Orangutans are solitary by nature, meet at up during mating season, have sex, then leave, etc...
Males raping Females is not the norm in nature and at times the reverse is also true. To believe it is natural for males to be dominant is to be closed minded to the natural world.
Again with the strawmans. Please make an effort to reply to what I have actually said.
I haven't said a word about "dominance". I said that the males typically approach the females, who then agree or disagree to have sex. This happens with bonobos and it happens with orangutans. Orangutans, like gorillas, are interesting in that the alpha male usually has a lot of females coming to him - which is the equivalent of women coming on to George Clooney but not Bob who works at the supermarket. It happens more frequently with orangutans and gorillas than with humans, which is because those species have a higher degree of sexual dimorphism than we do. The less sexual dimorphism, the more the males have to do the suiting.
And with that, Blizzcon has started and I'll be out of here for at least 12 hours.
Straw man? I copied and pasted word for word what you said. If you disagree with the conclusions what your statements lead to then stop making them.
To whoever says that are no rules in war, you are severely mistaken, there are always things to constrain your options other than the capacity to do them.
On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote: Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote: Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape.
If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation.
On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote: Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
Regardless of motive, my point is still valid. I'm not talking about cases where someone said that they didn't want to have sex before the sex act, and then another person says they did afterwards. I'm talking about a case where A says they didn't want to have sex after the sex act, and we don't know for certain what was said during the sex act. Unless A has proof they said they didn't want to have sex before the sex act, then there is no case. I'm not saying that person B has an ability to dictate A's consent, just that B shouldn't be punished for a situation that we have no knowledge of. Because there are only two testimonies and they disagree with each other, and there is no other evidence that provides definitive proof as to one side or the other, then we cannot accurately say anything about the situation. If we can't accurately say anything about the situation, there is 0 proof of a rape. Our knowledge is only limited to the facts, namely, that there was coitus.
On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote: Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape.
If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation.
This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying?
On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote: Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape.
If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation.
This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying?
We are to assume that one person consented while the other person did not.
Person A cannot dictate what person B's consent is. Which means the accused does not dictate whether or not his accuser consented or not.
If the accused believes he was a victim of a con, he can accuse the other person of setting him up to be libeled. That is a separate case from the rape charges. He then proves his accusation of malicious libel with evidence, in which case the rape charges can be reviewed after both trials finish.
On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote: Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape.
If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation.
This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying?
We are to assume that one person consented while the other person did not.
Person A cannot dictate what person B's consent is. Which means the accused does not dictate whether or not his accuser consented or not.
If the accused believes he was a victim of a con, he can accuse the other person of setting him up to be libeled. That is a separate case from the rape charges. He then proves his accusation of malicious libel with evidence, in which case the rape charges can be reviewed after both trials finish.
It is absurd to put the burden of proof on the accused. Better for a thousand guilty men to go free and all that.
On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote: Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape.
If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation.
This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying?
We are to assume that one person consented while the other person did not.
Person A cannot dictate what person B's consent is. Which means the accused does not dictate whether or not his accuser consented or not.
If the accused believes he was a victim of a con, he can accuse the other person of setting him up to be libeled. That is a separate case from the rape charges. He then proves his accusation of malicious libel with evidence, in which case the rape charges can be reviewed after both trials finish.
We are not assuming this. This is not a valid assumption. The order of events is incredibly relevant. We cannot assume that one person consented during or before the sex act if the other says otherwise.
On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote: Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape.
If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation.
This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying?
We are to assume that one person consented while the other person did not.
Person A cannot dictate what person B's consent is. Which means the accused does not dictate whether or not his accuser consented or not.
If the accused believes he was a victim of a con, he can accuse the other person of setting him up to be libeled. That is a separate case from the rape charges. He then proves his accusation of malicious libel with evidence, in which case the rape charges can be reviewed after both trials finish.
The accused is saying the accuser consented to them. What you seem to be saying is that you can't dispute whether someone you had sex with consented. And if they say it was non-consent, without any proof either way, it's assumed that it was non-consent when that's the opposite of how burden of proof works in an innocent until proven guilty system.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works based on how many rape cases are thrown out for lack of evidence. It is a real problem the lack of evidence that can be in rape cases but i believe in the current north american legal system if there is not enough evidence the charges are dropped in most cases. This is just but it is sad for the rape victims that cannot prove it. Additionally false rape claims (while a tiny number compared to unconvinced rapists) is also a problem that needs to be addressed and hopefully stopped.
However I stand firmly behind the point that a womans attire is no indication of her having given consent or not at the time in question and cannot be used as evidence to suggest she did.
On November 09 2013 06:18 Djzapz wrote: A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote: It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
This would treat rape the same way we currently treat murder and create guide lines of the gray areas.
Because at the end of the day you can't deny the empirical data presented. Two parties stating that sex occurred between them, but not all parties consent to it.
If the accused believes he was conned into having sex, then he needs the evidence for it much like the rape victim has to prove that sex happened between her and her attacker.
On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote: It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
What do you mean? Are you saying woman are capable of changing their mind or straigth up lying?????? THATS NOT TRUE
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
So what if he says he didnt give consent and she raped him? Who is guilty now?
On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote: It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
Have been incarcerated for it. Have been put on sex offender registries. Welcome to a 1000000000000000% destroyed life. You're far better off killing yourself at that point. All because of a lie someone told that apparently doesn't require evidence to back it up.
"You can sue for Libel!" That sounds sweet in theory but you don't understand what a libel lawsuit entails. By bringing up a libel lawsuit you've just opened your ENTIRE life to intense scrutiny. Every single thing you've ever done ever in your life is now going to be dragged out into the open for all to see and put under the largest magnifying glass you can imagine. Libel lawsuits aren't something you just do. The majority of the time it's not worth it. Even if you get some money from the lawsuit it's not worth the shitstorm that you just brought upon yourself.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
This would treat rape the same way we currently treat murder and create guide lines of the gray areas.
Because at the end of the day you can't deny the empirical data presented. Two parties stating that sex occurred between them, but not all parties consent to it.
If the accused believes he was conned into having sex, then he needs the evidence for it much like the rape victim has to prove that sex happened between her and her attacker.
You clearly misunderstand the innocent until proven guilty system.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point.
It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective.
On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote: It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
He doesn't acknowledge anything, period. His replies are kind of sort of directed at people, but ultimately they are always just assertions that are often completely bizarre and nonsensical. When people try to engage him on that, the process just repeats.
On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote: It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
Or perhaps some kind of temporal confusion?
Clearly, Person A gets to decide whether Person A consents to sex or not. No courtroom or intimate partner has the right to decide Person A's consent for them. However, we are talking about Person A's past decision to consent or not consent. This decision is already made; Person A decided it at the time, and cannot retroactively change Past Person A's decision to consent or not to consent. Person A is no longer the ultimate authority.
I think something that would really help would be to make post rape medical examinations more available and raise awareness about them. It is often possible to observe and document evidence of forced entry. Unfortunately this does not address the cases of rape in which there was no physical overpowering required and tragically many victims are too embarrassed and scared to seek this avenue immediately and then it is too late.
Additionally it is important to note that the number of rapists that are let off the hook for lack of evidence far exceeds the number of people whom are wrongly convicted of rape so logically one should be concerned about the larger portion of misstrials. but of course we have to keep both in mind.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
The fuck does that even mean...
I'll use an example so simple that even a child could understand the logic. Put yourself in this story so you'll understand:
Your name is Bob, you meet this girl, Liz, you two go see a movie and then you go back to your place, you two end up having sex. Both of you consent at the time, everything that happens is perfectly legal.
The next morning, Liz wakes up in your bed, and feels guilty or unhappy with the events for whatever reason. Perhaps she cheated on her boyfriend, perhaps it didn't turn out as she hoped, perhaps something else. She leaves your room, feeling bad. She "retracts" her consent after the fact. She accuses you of rape, and you get to court.
In the US, you're innocent until proven guilty. She has to prove that you raped her. She has to prove that she didn't give her consent. But she DID. If the judge were to just assume that she was saying the truth, YOU, Bob, would be prosecuted for a rape that you didn't commit, but that she accused you of.
You'd most likely do jail time for rape, despite having not raped anybody. That's why her saying that she was rape by you doesn't constitute evidence. People can say anything. And how would you defend yourself from it if she lied, Bob? How do you prove that she lied? Do you make her sign a contract, do you have a log of the events, do you film her agreeing to the terms of the exchange? You don't prove yourself to be innocent here. It has to be proven that you're guilty.
Additionally it is important to note that the number of rapists that are let off the hook for lack of evidence far exceeds the number of people whom are wrongly convicted of rape so logically one should be concerned about the larger portion of misstrials. but of course we have to keep both in mind.
Not that it doesn't happen, or even doesn't happen a lot, but doesn't the wording of that statement make it seem like any failed conviction of rape for lack of evidence is actually guilty but 'got away with it?'
Seems like a lot of slanted statements in this thread.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point.
It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective.
Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases.
he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out.
Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent.
Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no.
By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict.
If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation.
If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines.
Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent.
Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing.
If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies.
Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
The fuck does that even mean...
I'll use an example so simple that even a child could understand the logic. Put yourself in this story so you'll understand:
Your name is Bob, you meet this girl, Liz, you two go see a movie and then you go back to your place, you two end up having sex. Both of you consent at the time, everything that happens is perfectly legal.
The next morning, Liz wakes up in your bed, and feels guilty or unhappy with the events for whatever reason. Perhaps she cheated on her boyfriend, perhaps it didn't turn out as she hoped, perhaps something else. She leaves your room, feeling bad. She "retracts" her consent after the fact. She accuses you of rape, and you get to court.
In the US, you're innocent until proven guilty. She has to prove that you raped her. She has to prove that she didn't give her consent. But she DID. If the judge were to just assume that she was saying the truth, YOU, Bob, would be prosecuted for a rape that you didn't commit, but that she accused you of.
You'd most likely do jail time for rape, despite having not raped anybody. That's why her saying that she was rape by you doesn't constitute evidence. People can say anything. And how would you defend yourself from it if she lied, Bob? How do you prove that she lied? Do you make her sign a contract, do you have a log of the events, do you film her agreeing to the terms of the exchange? You don't prove yourself to be innocent here. It has to be proven that you're guilty.
We already have laws that are to be used if people lie about you--that's called libel laws. You can use it at any time. It will open up both yours and the accused lives to public scrutiny showing you the boyfriend she cheated on, the depression she's going through, etc...
If you believe that a person is slandering you with lies, we already have laws for that.
That shit about libel is ridiculous and you clearly don't understand how it works. And you cannot determine whether rape occurred based on people's statements.
Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no.
By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict.
Person A is asked if he murdered person B: He says no. By definition, murder didn't occur since we assume that people say the truth.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point.
It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective.
Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases.
he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out.
Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent.
Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no.
By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict.
If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation.
If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines.
Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent.
Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing.
If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies.
Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that.
It's like watching a master fisherman... will frogrubdown take the bait? Ouch Djzapz already caught on the line.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point.
It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective.
Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases.
he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out.
Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent.
Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no.
By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict.
If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation.
If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines.
Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent.
Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing.
If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies.
Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that.
Do you recognize how fucked up what you are saying is? How does the "paper trail" make clear who consented or not? Because the one who paid the drinks must be the rapist then. Holy shit...
Good God, I'd forgotten how much these threads about criminal law make my head hurt.
For the record, bringing a libel claim against the accuser isn't going top help the alleged rapist. The existence of the libel claim isn't admissible in the criminal proceeding. Besides, even if it was allowed into evidence, who cares? The most common defense to a libel claim is "truth." In other words, the alleged rapist would say "libel" and the accuser would says that it's not libel because it's true. Congratulations, nothing has been accomplished.
Also, before anyone asks, if the libel case is decided before the criminal case, the result from the libel case isn't binding on the criminal court.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
The fuck does that even mean...
I'll use an example so simple that even a child could understand the logic. Put yourself in this story so you'll understand:
Your name is Bob, you meet this girl, Liz, you two go see a movie and then you go back to your place, you two end up having sex. Both of you consent at the time, everything that happens is perfectly legal.
The next morning, Liz wakes up in your bed, and feels guilty or unhappy with the events for whatever reason. Perhaps she cheated on her boyfriend, perhaps it didn't turn out as she hoped, perhaps something else. She leaves your room, feeling bad. She "retracts" her consent after the fact. She accuses you of rape, and you get to court.
In the US, you're innocent until proven guilty. She has to prove that you raped her. She has to prove that she didn't give her consent. But she DID. If the judge were to just assume that she was saying the truth, YOU, Bob, would be prosecuted for a rape that you didn't commit, but that she accused you of.
You'd most likely do jail time for rape, despite having not raped anybody. That's why her saying that she was rape by you doesn't constitute evidence. People can say anything. And how would you defend yourself from it if she lied, Bob? How do you prove that she lied? Do you make her sign a contract, do you have a log of the events, do you film her agreeing to the terms of the exchange? You don't prove yourself to be innocent here. It has to be proven that you're guilty.
We already have laws that are to be used if people lie about you--that's called libel laws. You can use it at any time. It will open up both yours and the accused lives to public scrutiny showing you the boyfriend she cheated on, the depression she's going through, etc...
If you believe that a person is slandering you with lies, we already have laws for that.
That's not how people deal with rape accusations. The libel thing would have to be handled by another tribunal and would likely be dismissed. You'd be asked to use the tribunal where you're accused to deal with whether the rape did occur and the libel suit would follow in the event that you were judged not guilty for you to potentially get reparation for having been wrongfully accused.
Additionally it is important to note that the number of rapists that are let off the hook for lack of evidence far exceeds the number of people whom are wrongly convicted of rape so logically one should be concerned about the larger portion of misstrials. but of course we have to keep both in mind.
Not that it doesn't happen, or even doesn't happen a lot, but doesn't the wording of that statement make it seem like any failed conviction of rape for lack of evidence is actually guilty but 'got away with it?'
Seems like a lot of slanted statements in this thread.
what? maybe if i said the number of cases that are dismissed for lack of evidence somehow equals the number of rapists that get away with it. but i just said the number of rapists that are let off the hook for lack of evidence. that's not really biased
you could just as easily assume I'm insinuating that every successful conviction is an innocent person getting imprisoned for rape. but im not implying either i ment what i said.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point.
It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective.
Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent.
Ok, you are that confused.
No one is claiming that person A can consent for person B. People are claiming that person A can know whether or not person B consented. You seem to think that the inability of person A to consent for person B makes what person A says about whether person B consented completely irrelevant. This does not follow. So long as person A can know whether person B consented, his or her statements about person B's consent are just as relevant as person B's.
Maybe you think this is false. Maybe you think that nobody in world but person B can possibly know whether person B consented. This would be unfortunate because then the only way to know you aren't a rapist is to never have sex. It would also completely defeat the purpose of asking for consent.
Dude, Libel cases are strapping yourself to a nuclear device. There is no winner, it's mutually assured destruction. I'm going to prove you're lying at the cost of letting the entire world see everything I've ever done. Every silly thing, every embarrassing thing, every dumb ass move, every failure in my entire fucking life, just to prove you're lying. Libel cases are not to be taken lightly. Using a libel case is the last resort you should EVER take in your entire life. This isn't just some cute little trick up your sleeve, some trump card to countering a false allegation of rape that is backed by nothing but your word that should have been thrown out of court the second it came up.
Also who pursued who has nothing to do with consent at all. Spending money on someone doesn't prove a rape ever happened it only proves money was spent. It doesn't get any deeper than that, it answers not a single question.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point.
It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective.
Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases.
he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out.
Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent.
Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no.
By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict.
If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation.
If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines.
Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent.
Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing.
If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies.
Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that.
Do you recognize how fucked up what you are saying is? How does the "paper trail" make clear who consented or not? Because the one who paid the drinks must be the rapist then. Holy shit...
If both parties accuse the other of rape, then you have a situation where statements conflict. Since the statements are in direct conflict with one another, an investigation is needed.
In a situation where both parties state that they did not pursue or want sex, but sex happened anyway, one must be lying. If there is physical proof that one was pursuing the other--then that person was lying about not wanting to have sex. That physical proof would be the paper trail created by expenditures and the geographic placement of the events.
If one party says that he consented to sex and the other states that he did not consent to sex--there is no conflict in their statements. One person wanted to fuck, the other did not. Fucking happened anyway, hence rape. No conflict in statements, no reason to believe there is lying involved.
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote: So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point.
It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective.
Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases.
he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out.
Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent.
Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no.
By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict.
If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation.
If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines.
Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent.
Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing.
If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies.
Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that.
Do you recognize how fucked up what you are saying is? How does the "paper trail" make clear who consented or not? Because the one who paid the drinks must be the rapist then. Holy shit...
If both parties accuse the other of rape, then you have a situation where statements conflict. Since the statements are in direct conflict with one another, an investigation is needed.
In a situation where both parties state that they did not pursue or want sex, but sex happened anyway, one must be lying. If there is physical proof that one was pursuing the other--then that person was lying about not wanting to have sex. That physical proof would be the paper trail created by expenditures and the geographic placement of the events.
If one party says that he consented to sex and the other states that he did not consent to sex--there is no conflict in their statements. One person wanted to fuck, the other did not. Fucking happened anyway, hence rape. No conflict in statements, no reason to believe there is lying involved.
What is difficult about that?
The difficulty about that is that then everyone would defend oneself with being the one who didnt consent. And then you only got the "who paid the drinks?" argument.
Let us assume a rapist knows this, he lets the girl pay the drinks and says they have to go to her place, he rapes her. The next day he claims he got raped because he didnt consent. Now the raped girl also gets thrown into prison. Congratulations.
On November 09 2013 07:17 Sokrates wrote: Detective magpie: " One last question, who paid the drink?" "Hmm i did, why?" "We got our rapist."
Where did they fuck? Her dad's place. He must have done it... Creeper dad.
Look, a guy who got shot can't decide to pull the trigger for the shooter. Therefore, the gunshot victim can only affirm that he didn't shoot anyone, he can't say that the shooter shot him. If the shooter says that he didn't shoot the victim, the victim will have to sue him for libel.
On November 09 2013 07:17 Sokrates wrote: Detective magpie: " One last question, who paid the drink?" "Hmm i did, why?" "We got our rapist."
Where did they fuck? Her dad's place. He must have done it... Creeper dad.
Look, a guy who got shot can't decide to pull the trigger for the shooter. Therefore, the gunshot victim can only affirm that he didn't shoot anyone, he can't say that the shooter shot him. If the shooter says that he didn't shoot the victim, the victim will have to sue him for libel.
What if he puts the gun into the shooter's hand and then pulls the trigger on himself!?
On November 09 2013 07:17 Sokrates wrote: Detective magpie: " One last question, who paid the drink?" "Hmm i did, why?" "We got our rapist."
Where did they fuck? Her dad's place. He must have done it... Creeper dad.
Look, a guy who got shot can't decide to pull the trigger for the shooter. Therefore, the gunshot victim can only affirm that he didn't shoot anyone, he can't say that the shooter shot him. If the shooter says that he didn't shoot the victim, the victim will have to sue him for libel.
What if he puts the gun into the shooter's hand and then pulls the trigger on himself!?
I'll have to go ahead and not work out the rape analogy on that one...
To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote: To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion.
On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote: To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion.
I'm not that bad. I went after the crazy dissidence!
On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote: To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion.
I'm not that bad. I went after the crazy dissidence!
Well, you did enter the discussion with this:
On November 09 2013 06:18 Djzapz wrote: A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic.
And I don't think anyone wants to throw innocent people into prison. I'm not a man-hater and I acknowledge that there are false reports of rape. I think any rational person would want justice for those who have been sexually assaulted, men and women alike.
What I object to is the false assumption that the victim may bare some of the responsibility for being raped. What many people don't understand is that submitting to attacker is not the same as consenting to sex. I shouldn't have to explain what the difference is, because as soon as I do, some idiot will play Devil's Advocate and "Well, what if this happens?". So what if that happens? Is the law perfect? Hell no. By the same legal system that imprisons innocent people for being wrongly-accused, sex-offenders are set free. Both of those things upset me, but I am absolutely for anything that can prevent sexual assault from happening.
Also, that whole probabilities thing (posted earlier by ComaDose) was absolute bullshit. If "provocative clothing" is a factor to a rapist, why do unattractive women get raped? Why do men get raped? Why do children get raped? Because rapists do not choose their victims based on appearance, but because of the potential victims perceived vulnerability, accessibility, and the attackers' belief that they will not be punished and will get away with the act if they choose to engage in it.
On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote: To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion.
I'm not that bad. I went after the crazy dissidence!
On November 09 2013 06:18 Djzapz wrote: A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic.
And I don't think anyone wants to throw innocent people into prison. I'm not a man-hater and I acknowledge that there are false reports of rape. I think any rational person would want justice for those who have been sexually assaulted, men and women alike.
What I object to is the false assumption that the victim may bare some of the responsibility for being raped. What many people don't understand is that submitting to attacker is not the same as consenting to sex. I shouldn't have to explain what the difference is, because as soon as I do, some idiot will play Devil's Advocate and "Well, what if this happens?". So what if that happens? Is the law perfect? Hell no. By the same legal system that imprisons innocent people for being wrongly-accused, sex-offenders are set free. Both of those things upset me, but I am absolutely for anything that can prevent sexual assault from happening.
Also, that whole probabilities thing (posted earlier by ComaDose) was absolute bullshit. If "provocative clothing" is a factor to a rapist, why do unattractive women get raped? Why do men get raped? Why do children get raped? Because rapists do not choose their victims based on appearance, but because of the potential victims perceived vulnerability, accessibility, and the attackers' belief that they will not be punished and will get away with the act if they choose to engage in it.
No one said anything about the victim baring some of the responsibility. However, certain actions increase your chance of being raped. Whether you choose to live pragmatically or strive for ideological purity is up to you, but there will always be bad people out there and there's nothing wrong with pointing out some actions will increase your chance of something bad happening to you.
The fact that unattractive women get raped does not in any way show that "provocative clothing" is a not a factor to a rapist. Everything in that paragraph in a personal belief, and should not said as if it's an obvious fact.
On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote: To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion.
I'm not that bad. I went after the crazy dissidence!
On November 09 2013 06:18 Djzapz wrote: A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic.
And I don't think anyone wants to throw innocent people into prison. I'm not a man-hater and I acknowledge that there are false reports of rape. I think any rational person would want justice for those who have been sexually assaulted, men and women alike.
What I object to is the false assumption that the victim may bare some of the responsibility for being raped. What many people don't understand is that submitting to attacker is not the same as consenting to sex. I shouldn't have to explain what the difference is, because as soon as I do, some idiot will play Devil's Advocate and "Well, what if this happens?". So what if that happens? Is the law perfect? Hell no. By the same legal system that imprisons innocent people for being wrongly-accused, sex-offenders are set free. Both of those things upset me, but I am absolutely for anything that can prevent sexual assault from happening.
You need PROOF without any reasonable doubt before you can lock up someone for decades and destroying someones life. Just an accusation is not PROOF it is an accusation. Based on thievingmagpies infantile logic anyone should be thrown into prison by a simple accusation of another person that doesnt have a monetary gain of the other person being locked up. This is basically saying guilty until proven innocent. I think everyone agrees that the legal system isnt perfect but throwning people into jail without any proof is fucking ridicolous.
On November 09 2013 12:42 Bswhunter wrote: This thread is fucking awful
I think that sums up this entire discussion, surprised this wasn't closed 10pages ago due to how off-topic it is from the original post.
It's evolved into whether or not the victim should bare any blame for getting raped, which is just fucking absurd to even consider (as long as she's not walking around naked, in the middle of the ghetto, at night, and handing out free rubbers)
On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote: To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion.
I'm not that bad. I went after the crazy dissidence!
Well, you did enter the discussion with this:
On November 09 2013 06:18 Djzapz wrote: A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic.
And I don't think anyone wants to throw innocent people into prison. I'm not a man-hater and I acknowledge that there are false reports of rape. I think any rational person would want justice for those who have been sexually assaulted, men and women alike.
What I object to is the false assumption that the victim may bare some of the responsibility for being raped. What many people don't understand is that submitting to attacker is not the same as consenting to sex. I shouldn't have to explain what the difference is, because as soon as I do, some idiot will play Devil's Advocate and "Well, what if this happens?". So what if that happens? Is the law perfect? Hell no. By the same legal system that imprisons innocent people for being wrongly-accused, sex-offenders are set free. Both of those things upset me, but I am absolutely for anything that can prevent sexual assault from happening.
Also, that whole probabilities thing (posted earlier by ComaDose) was absolute bullshit. If "provocative clothing" is a factor to a rapist, why do unattractive women get raped? Why do men get raped? Why do children get raped? Because rapists do not choose their victims based on appearance, but because of the potential victims perceived vulnerability, accessibility, and the attackers' belief that they will not be punished and will get away with the act if they choose to engage in it.
No one said anything about the victim baring some of the responsibility. However, certain actions increase your chance of being raped. Whether you choose to live pragmatically or strive for ideological purity is up to you, but there will always be bad people out there and there's nothing wrong with pointing out some actions will increase your chance of something bad happening to you.
The fact that unattractive women get raped does not in any way show that "provocative clothing" is a not a factor to a rapist. Everything in that paragraph in a personal belief, and should not said as if it's an obvious fact.
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.
@ "No one said anything about the victim baring some of the responsibility.":
On November 07 2013 08:23 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is how much should we blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped and how much should we let that affect our sympathy for the victim. Just to let my opinion be known on this one, I don't believe clothes choice should affect how we allocate blame. It doesn't make any particular sense to do that, it's mainly just vindictiveness, envy and this other emotion that is equally inane but I don't know the word for.
On November 07 2013 08:23 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:48 ComaDose wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:46 Mothra wrote:
On November 07 2013 06:41 ComaDose wrote: "Wearing provocative clothing ... just as valid to label contributing causes of rape"
seeee there is rape culture everywhere you just need to know how to spot it.
Are you going to share the reason it is not valid, or is your reason just rape culture full stop? If you can explain in plain English I'll be happy to listen.
Because wearing provocative clothing is not at all a contributing factor to rape and to suggest so shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim. almost as obvious of a case i can think of. i.e. telling women they can't dress a certain way or they risk getting raped is not okay.
Wearing provocative clothing makes you look prettier. Looking prettier makes you more likely to get raped. Basic logic. The point of contention isn't whether or not provocative clothing makes you more likely to be raped, that isn't even slightly contestable, the point of contention here is how much should we blame women for getting raped for doing things that increase their likelihood of getting raped and how much should we let that affect our sympathy for the victim. Just to let my opinion be known on this one, I don't believe clothes choice should affect how we allocate blame. It doesn't make any particular sense to do that, it's mainly just vindictiveness, envy and this other emotion that is equally inane but I don't know the word for.
What I had in mind was more that the prevalence of people objectifying themselves as sexual objects leads to increased animosity, frustration and lust, and decreased respect for others and self. Those lead to more rapes. Not so much that looking pretty on a particular night increases chances of being raped.
I think we have to all have to take responsibility for it as a society instead of just blaming either victim or rapist and then washing our hands of it. Rape culture is a vague and meaningless phrase to me, whereas the violence and hypersexualization of society I can understand and believe perpetuates rape. I do believe that dressing in a sexually provocative manner is a part of the problem, but it doesn't mean I blame people for being raped or feel anyone deserves to be.
So, yeah, it's been said. I feel like you just walked into this thread and went "Oh boy, an argument!" and went to the last page of the thread, looked at the last post and decided to disagree with it.
On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote: To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion.
I'm not that bad. I went after the crazy dissidence!
Well, you did enter the discussion with this:
On November 09 2013 06:18 Djzapz wrote: A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic.
And I don't think anyone wants to throw innocent people into prison. I'm not a man-hater and I acknowledge that there are false reports of rape. I think any rational person would want justice for those who have been sexually assaulted, men and women alike.
What I object to is the false assumption that the victim may bare some of the responsibility for being raped. What many people don't understand is that submitting to attacker is not the same as consenting to sex. I shouldn't have to explain what the difference is, because as soon as I do, some idiot will play Devil's Advocate and "Well, what if this happens?". So what if that happens? Is the law perfect? Hell no. By the same legal system that imprisons innocent people for being wrongly-accused, sex-offenders are set free. Both of those things upset me, but I am absolutely for anything that can prevent sexual assault from happening.
You need PROOF without any reasonable doubt before you can lock up someone for decades and destroying someones life. Just an accusation is not PROOF it is an accusation. Based on thievingmagpies infantile logic anyone should be thrown into prison by a simple accusation of another person that doesnt have a monetary gain of the other person being locked up. This is basically saying guilty until proven innocent. I think everyone agrees that the legal system isnt perfect but throwning people into jail without any proof is fucking ridicolous.
Ask ThievingMagpie if he wants innocent people to be thrown in prison. I bet you, like, 100 dollars he will say no, unless he reads this and makes a pact with you to say "yes", so you can split the money with him.
EPT
)
