|
On April 05 2011 13:24 Zerkaszhan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:15 travis wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that a horny guy is more likely to rape someone than a guy that isn't horny.
And I think it's also pretty obvious that dressing like a slut makes most guys horny. Thats a strong statemate i disagree with Rape is about control not arousal they get off on control they dont feel it otherwise
I agree. The only evidence that rape is more likely to occur if a woman dresses revealingly is that some people think it's 'pretty obvious'. Which is, of course, not evidence at all. Nor is it logical given that, as you pointed out, the motivations for rape are not the same as the motivations for sex.
Plus people seem to be thinking of rape in terms of night time attacks by strangers, when in reality the majority of such crimes are committed by people who are known to the victim.
Bottom line is women should be able to wear what they want, there's no reason to think that dressing provacatively makes a woman more likely to be a victim of a sex crime, and finally, the officer quoted in the OP chose his words very very poorly if he did indeed intend it differently.
|
On April 05 2011 13:14 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 13:05 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 12:28 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 12:18 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 06:36 Atticus.axl wrote:On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
I believe the vast majority of police officers are total idiots, so arguing about a statement they made, whether right or wrong, is laughable.
But for the sake of argument, i'm gonna assume his statement "women shouldn't dress like such sluts and they complain about being raped" stems from his inner frustrations. His history of violence (natural from the profession he chose) coupled with his mediocre IQ and the fact that his primal animalistic brain takes priority over this intelligent side, leads me to believe he actually lusts deep down to "force his way" upon some hot, slutty girls he would normally never have acces to, being the lowly person that he is in society.
What do i think about this particular subject? While i don't approve of rape, some sluts simply have it coming for them sometimes. Let's not glorify women and say they are pure, innocent creatures who deserve only affection. I'm sure many of these girls, if they were put in a position of power and raw strength compared to men, they would abuse the hell out of us.
tl;dr skip to the story below
P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape? Yes. You raped a woman who had no way of giving consent. Were you living in the state of California, and had I personally known you had done this, I would be obligated by law to report you to the police, and I would fully support them in a court to put you behind bars for a very long time. I had a girlfriend once that smoked a lot of pot when she was younger, and had this exact rape inflicted upon her. Whenever a movie advertisement, show, or situation (like reading a post like this) reminded her of that abuse, I sat up with her late into the night as she cried herself to exhaustion. She was the strongest personally I had ever met. This also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars? I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done. Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it. I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to? Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer? Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now? I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense. The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail. And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it. In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future. Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on.
And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start.
Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on.
I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk?
What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here?
What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail?
In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape.
|
On April 05 2011 13:31 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 13:14 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 13:05 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 12:28 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 12:18 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 06:36 Atticus.axl wrote:On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
I believe the vast majority of police officers are total idiots, so arguing about a statement they made, whether right or wrong, is laughable.
But for the sake of argument, i'm gonna assume his statement "women shouldn't dress like such sluts and they complain about being raped" stems from his inner frustrations. His history of violence (natural from the profession he chose) coupled with his mediocre IQ and the fact that his primal animalistic brain takes priority over this intelligent side, leads me to believe he actually lusts deep down to "force his way" upon some hot, slutty girls he would normally never have acces to, being the lowly person that he is in society.
What do i think about this particular subject? While i don't approve of rape, some sluts simply have it coming for them sometimes. Let's not glorify women and say they are pure, innocent creatures who deserve only affection. I'm sure many of these girls, if they were put in a position of power and raw strength compared to men, they would abuse the hell out of us.
tl;dr skip to the story below
P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape? Yes. You raped a woman who had no way of giving consent. Were you living in the state of California, and had I personally known you had done this, I would be obligated by law to report you to the police, and I would fully support them in a court to put you behind bars for a very long time. I had a girlfriend once that smoked a lot of pot when she was younger, and had this exact rape inflicted upon her. Whenever a movie advertisement, show, or situation (like reading a post like this) reminded her of that abuse, I sat up with her late into the night as she cried herself to exhaustion. She was the strongest personally I had ever met. This also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars? I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done. Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it. I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to? Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer? Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now? I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense. The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail. And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it. In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future. Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on. Show nested quote +And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start. Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on. I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk? What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here? What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail? In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape.
He already stated the reason he did it was because he felt horny. In no instance did he indicate that he thought she'd be okay with it, nor would he have any reason to. A vibe? A slutty vibe, perhaps? My, aren't we getting close to the "she deserved it" thing again. You're using the evidence from after the fact to make up justifications a priori.
As to your questions: If you're already in a sexual relationship, rape is typically harder to prove. I would say if you've already slept with her consensually, future intercourse is probably acceptable unless there was some sort of break up or circumstance that would make the sex not justifiable.
If you were both 90% out of it, legally speaking you raped her. Morally speaking, neither of you were capable of taking advantage of the other, as you were both in the same state. I wouldn't call that rape. I am curious how two people would successfully fornicate while 90% unconscious, though.
|
On April 05 2011 13:43 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 13:31 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 13:14 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 13:05 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 12:28 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 12:18 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 06:36 Atticus.axl wrote:On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
I believe the vast majority of police officers are total idiots, so arguing about a statement they made, whether right or wrong, is laughable.
But for the sake of argument, i'm gonna assume his statement "women shouldn't dress like such sluts and they complain about being raped" stems from his inner frustrations. His history of violence (natural from the profession he chose) coupled with his mediocre IQ and the fact that his primal animalistic brain takes priority over this intelligent side, leads me to believe he actually lusts deep down to "force his way" upon some hot, slutty girls he would normally never have acces to, being the lowly person that he is in society.
What do i think about this particular subject? While i don't approve of rape, some sluts simply have it coming for them sometimes. Let's not glorify women and say they are pure, innocent creatures who deserve only affection. I'm sure many of these girls, if they were put in a position of power and raw strength compared to men, they would abuse the hell out of us.
tl;dr skip to the story below
P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape? Yes. You raped a woman who had no way of giving consent. Were you living in the state of California, and had I personally known you had done this, I would be obligated by law to report you to the police, and I would fully support them in a court to put you behind bars for a very long time. I had a girlfriend once that smoked a lot of pot when she was younger, and had this exact rape inflicted upon her. Whenever a movie advertisement, show, or situation (like reading a post like this) reminded her of that abuse, I sat up with her late into the night as she cried herself to exhaustion. She was the strongest personally I had ever met. This also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars? I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done. Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it. I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to? Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer? Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now? I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense. The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail. And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it. In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future. Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on. And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start. Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on. I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk? What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here? What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail? In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape. He already stated the reason he did it was because he felt horny. In no instance did he indicate that he thought she'd be okay with it, nor would he have any reason to. A vibe? A slutty vibe, perhaps? My, aren't we getting close to the "she deserved it" thing again. You're using the evidence from after the fact to make up justifications a priori. As to your questions: If you're already in a sexual relationship, rape is typically harder to prove. I would say if you've already slept with her consensually, future intercourse is probably acceptable unless there was some sort of break up or circumstance that would make the sex not justifiable. If you were both 90% out of it, legally speaking you raped her. Morally speaking, neither of you were capable of taking advantage of the other, as you were both in the same state. I wouldn't call that rape. I am curious how two people would successfully fornicate while 90% unconscious, though.
I think you're going a little far with the "he raped her" thing. She consented after the fact, thanking him for the intercourse; therefore, it was not rape. It could have been rape if she didn't want it, but she did so she obviously consented rite? That's just how I look at it. Though I'm not saying you can just have sex with a girl without consent and hope she says she likes it afterwards, cuz if she doesn't well have fun with the rape charges.
|
On April 05 2011 13:43 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 13:31 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 13:14 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 13:05 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 12:28 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 12:18 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 06:36 Atticus.axl wrote:On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
I believe the vast majority of police officers are total idiots, so arguing about a statement they made, whether right or wrong, is laughable.
But for the sake of argument, i'm gonna assume his statement "women shouldn't dress like such sluts and they complain about being raped" stems from his inner frustrations. His history of violence (natural from the profession he chose) coupled with his mediocre IQ and the fact that his primal animalistic brain takes priority over this intelligent side, leads me to believe he actually lusts deep down to "force his way" upon some hot, slutty girls he would normally never have acces to, being the lowly person that he is in society.
What do i think about this particular subject? While i don't approve of rape, some sluts simply have it coming for them sometimes. Let's not glorify women and say they are pure, innocent creatures who deserve only affection. I'm sure many of these girls, if they were put in a position of power and raw strength compared to men, they would abuse the hell out of us.
tl;dr skip to the story below
P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape? Yes. You raped a woman who had no way of giving consent. Were you living in the state of California, and had I personally known you had done this, I would be obligated by law to report you to the police, and I would fully support them in a court to put you behind bars for a very long time. I had a girlfriend once that smoked a lot of pot when she was younger, and had this exact rape inflicted upon her. Whenever a movie advertisement, show, or situation (like reading a post like this) reminded her of that abuse, I sat up with her late into the night as she cried herself to exhaustion. She was the strongest personally I had ever met. This also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars? I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done. Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it. I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to? Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer? Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now? I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense. The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail. And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it. In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future. Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on. And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start. Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on. I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk? What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here? What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail? In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape. He already stated the reason he did it was because he felt horny. In no instance did he indicate that he thought she'd be okay with it, nor would he have any reason to. A vibe? A slutty vibe, perhaps? My, aren't we getting close to the "she deserved it" thing again. You're using the evidence from after the fact to make up justifications a priori. No, I'm using this quote of his:
'Alright, i should mention that the vibe of that night was that it was definitely ON between us. If she hadn't passed out, we would have sex anyway.'
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=209040¤tpage=3#51
I know, I can read, a rare skill, fortunate to posses it, don't flatter me, I'm still a normal person otherwise.
As to your questions: If you're already in a sexual relationship, rape is typically harder to prove. I would say if you've already slept with her consensually, future intercourse is probably acceptable unless there was some sort of break up or circumstance that would make the sex not justifiable. I know, that's why I make the point, but where do you draw the line, second date,third date, fourth?
I take it that if someone concedes to sex with me once that doesn't give me a free ticked to do them whilst being 90% out, right?
If you were both 90% out of it, legally speaking you raped her. Legally? Accordingly what jurisdiction?
You do realize that laws are different in different countries regarding this right?
We also don't know who started the 'advances', it just started as cuddling and went from there.
And why did I rape her? Are you assuming that I'm a man, is that the reason in some jurisdictions, what if I'm not? What if it was a lesbian encounter? What happens then?
Morally speaking, neither of you were capable of taking advantage of the other, as you were both in the same state. I wouldn't call that rape. Ah, but here a contradiction comes. Because intoxication in most legal systems doesn't absolve one from the responsibility not to rape, and if having sex with an intoxicated person who can't say no is raping, then surely adding both results into two intoxicated people having sex is both raping each other?
I am curious how two people would successfully fornicate while 90% unconscious, though. Why not? If you can with one being 90% unconscious?
I mean, sex is a pretty simple thing, one of the most primary human urges. Even mental retards with an IQ of 50 have been shown to know how to do it.
|
On April 05 2011 13:52 RifleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 13:43 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 13:31 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 13:14 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 13:05 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 12:28 shinosai wrote:On April 05 2011 12:18 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 06:36 Atticus.axl wrote:On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
I believe the vast majority of police officers are total idiots, so arguing about a statement they made, whether right or wrong, is laughable.
But for the sake of argument, i'm gonna assume his statement "women shouldn't dress like such sluts and they complain about being raped" stems from his inner frustrations. His history of violence (natural from the profession he chose) coupled with his mediocre IQ and the fact that his primal animalistic brain takes priority over this intelligent side, leads me to believe he actually lusts deep down to "force his way" upon some hot, slutty girls he would normally never have acces to, being the lowly person that he is in society.
What do i think about this particular subject? While i don't approve of rape, some sluts simply have it coming for them sometimes. Let's not glorify women and say they are pure, innocent creatures who deserve only affection. I'm sure many of these girls, if they were put in a position of power and raw strength compared to men, they would abuse the hell out of us.
tl;dr skip to the story below
P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape? Yes. You raped a woman who had no way of giving consent. Were you living in the state of California, and had I personally known you had done this, I would be obligated by law to report you to the police, and I would fully support them in a court to put you behind bars for a very long time. I had a girlfriend once that smoked a lot of pot when she was younger, and had this exact rape inflicted upon her. Whenever a movie advertisement, show, or situation (like reading a post like this) reminded her of that abuse, I sat up with her late into the night as she cried herself to exhaustion. She was the strongest personally I had ever met. This also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars? I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done. Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it. I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to? Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer? Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now? I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense. The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail. And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it. In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future. Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on. And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start. Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on. I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk? What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here? What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail? In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape. He already stated the reason he did it was because he felt horny. In no instance did he indicate that he thought she'd be okay with it, nor would he have any reason to. A vibe? A slutty vibe, perhaps? My, aren't we getting close to the "she deserved it" thing again. You're using the evidence from after the fact to make up justifications a priori. As to your questions: If you're already in a sexual relationship, rape is typically harder to prove. I would say if you've already slept with her consensually, future intercourse is probably acceptable unless there was some sort of break up or circumstance that would make the sex not justifiable. If you were both 90% out of it, legally speaking you raped her. Morally speaking, neither of you were capable of taking advantage of the other, as you were both in the same state. I wouldn't call that rape. I am curious how two people would successfully fornicate while 90% unconscious, though. I think you're going a little far with the "he raped her" thing. She consented after the fact, thanking him for the intercourse; therefore, it was not rape. It could have been rape if she didn't want it, but she did so she obviously consented rite? That's just how I look at it. Though I'm not saying you can just have sex with a girl without consent and hope she says she likes it afterwards, cuz if she doesn't well have fun with the rape charges.
Hmm, I'm heading to bed but before I go I'll drop one last nugget of opinions. I'm not really sure how one can consent to something after the fact. He did knowingly have sex with her without her consent at the time, so I would definitely consider that rape. She approved of the sex, she didn't mind the sex, but she didn't consent to the sex. Consent is something you give prior to an act, not afterward.
Why not? If you can with one being 90% unconscious?
Well, see, when there's only one person 90% unconscious, the other person is capable of doing the work. If you were both 90% unconscious I don't see how you'd be doing much other than laying there thinking about how totally plastered you are. But maybe our definitions of "90% unconscious" differ.
|
On April 05 2011 14:02 shinosai wrote:Well, see, when there's only one person 90% unconscious, the other person is capable of doing the work. If you were both 90% unconscious I don't see how you'd be doing much other than laying there thinking about how totally plastered you are. But maybe our definitions of "90% unconscious" differ. Nahhh, like I said, sex is a pretty simple thing to do, it's not like it addresses the higher functions of the brain.
Also, address the other points, I'm especially interested in why I legally raped her, in what jurisdiction, and an excerpt of the relevant law.
Also, I'd like you to get on your knees and admit that AlexDeLarge did indeed say that the vibe was going on.
|
I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint.
|
On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote:
I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint. Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape.
|
On April 05 2011 14:12 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote:
I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint. Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape.
Fair enough. Although as the current belief seems to imply such, wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? I mean, there isn't definitive proof on many things (such as evolution, gravity, etc) but we choose to believe them because they make sense to us.
Likewise, although there isn't proof that dressing in exposing clothing encourages sexual assault, it's believable. Why not take every precaution possible?
|
United States43203 Posts
On April 05 2011 14:19 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 14:12 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote:
I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint. Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape. Fair enough. Although as the current belief seems to imply such, wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? I mean, there isn't definitive proof on many things (such as evolution, gravity, etc) but we choose to believe them because they make sense to us. Likewise, although there isn't proof that dressing in exposing clothing encourages sexual assault, it's believable. Why not take every precaution possible?
Belief in gravity doesn't get rapists lighter sentences or put blame on victims, the idea that certain behaviors cause rape does.
|
On April 05 2011 14:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 14:19 Aequos wrote:On April 05 2011 14:12 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote:
I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint. Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape. Fair enough. Although as the current belief seems to imply such, wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? I mean, there isn't definitive proof on many things (such as evolution, gravity, etc) but we choose to believe them because they make sense to us. Likewise, although there isn't proof that dressing in exposing clothing encourages sexual assault, it's believable. Why not take every precaution possible? Belief in gravity doesn't get rapists lighter sentences or put blame on victims, the idea that certain behaviors cause rape does.
If rapists are getting lighter sentences, I'd happily throw my belief out the window. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, and I was just reading the ban list.
If a person cannot control himself or herself, he should be locked up for as long as we can manage - in that way the belief is nothing but harmful. However, if the reasoning behind the belief is only to ensure the maximum safety of every person, then it should remain.
I apologize if my posts came through as expressing sympathy for the rapist/belief they should get lighter sentences - I was not aware of this portion of the belief, and I am disgusted in myself for implying they should get any leniency in this (even through ignorance).
|
On April 05 2011 14:19 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 14:12 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote:
I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint. Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape. Fair enough. Although as the current belief seems to imply such, wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? I mean, there isn't definitive proof on many things (such as evolution, gravity, etc) but we choose to believe them because they make sense to us. Likewise, although there isn't proof that dressing in exposing clothing encourages sexual assault, it's believable. Why not take every precaution possible?
What a strange comparison you made. No one said anything about definitive proof, there isn't any proof, definitive or otherwise. Just 'common sense'.
But common sense, as much as I tire of that phrase, is wrong. It might be 'believable' but that's no reason not to give the idea proper scrutiny. As someone already brought up, rape is not about conventional arousal. It's about control and power.
Slightly off topic but still relevant; I remember watching a documentary where a girl was describing the event of her own rape (if i remember rightly, it was a BBC doc on the disproportionate level of sex crimes committed by young black males in London). She recounted that her attackers said 'We are doing this because you are uglier than your friends. If you were pretty like them this wouldn't be happening.'
Power, control, humiliation. Rape is not sex. The motivations are seperate.
|
Edit:
Wont even bother.
Next we will have people linking pornography to rape.
|
I couldn't stop grinning while reading the article...
I seriously started LOLing at the end.
I mean yeah sure, but they really could have used a different term for their protest...
|
One slip of the tongue caused all this... :/
While they were protesting I was trying to get to campus to work on a project so that I can graduate as an engineer to try to make the world a better place for these very same people.
Instead the TTC street cars were shut down and why? For a bunch of goofy-looking people with signs saying 'I LOVE SLUTS' trying to make a point that most of them didn't really understand. Just an excuse to have a Halloween party downtown in April, and to shout provocative sayings at a building... that was empty....
Seriously. The Police HQ was empty. It was Sunday.
This is feminism at its worst. The kind that makes adults shake their heads and wonder where this generation went wrong. Fighting against 'The Man' while carrying iPhones, designer brand clothing and Coach bags.
Great job, girls! You showed that one police officer. Now please never do this again.
|
On April 05 2011 03:15 travis wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that a horny guy is more likely to rape someone than a guy that isn't horny.
And I think it's also pretty obvious that dressing like a slut makes most guys horny.
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
|
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Still waiting for evidence of this claim that is repeated ad nauseum. If rape was just about power, male/male rape would be more common, and 80% of rape victims wouldn't be under 30. The word choice of immature dorks isn't exactly a compelling argument.
|
On April 05 2011 15:15 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Still waiting for evidence of this claim that is repeated ad nauseum. If rape was just about power, male/male rape would be more common, and 80% of rape victims wouldn't be under 30. The word choice of immature dorks isn't exactly a compelling argument.
There is a post a few pages back by someone who works in a battered women's shelter. He argued that it was most often a power issue, and that is why most rapes happen between people already known to each other (ie. not complete strangers).
Like I said above - there is no proof it's true, but common sense suggests it is, and it makes sense as an option.
Edit: Fixed a terrible typo that invalidated my argument by making me look like an idiot who can't type worth a damn.
|
On April 05 2011 15:15 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Still waiting for evidence of this claim that is repeated ad nauseum. If rape was just about power, male/male rape would be more common, and 80% of rape victims wouldn't be under 30. The word choice of immature dorks isn't exactly a compelling argument. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/776945.html
Posted this sucker a long time back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
