|
On April 06 2011 01:53 fidelity wrote:
You seem to miss my point, being drunk/high/whatever is never the cause for rape. Believing that you have the right to someone elses body whatever they have to say about it is the cause . Being drunk/high/whatever is the trigger.
Don't really want to be a dick to this guy but this is rape no?
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
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?
Being drunk/high means you'll lose a lot of the mental inhibitions holding you back from doing certain acts. Of course it's not the cause, it prevents you from controlling the urge.
On April 06 2011 01:53 fidelity wrote:
Believing that you have the right to someone elses body whatever they have to say about it is the cause.
Wanna tell me how you came to this conclusion?
|
On April 06 2011 02:29 EchOne wrote:
So when people argue that dress is a risk factor in rape, they are not necessarily arguing that neglect of that risk factor suddenly shifts blame from the rapist to the victim. Some might be arguing such nonsense, but it certainly doesn't logically follow.
It logically follows when defense lawyers use these risk factors in the courtroom to reduce the apparent culpability of their clients in front of judges or juries, and when police interrogate women reporting sexual assault about these risk factors.
|
On April 06 2011 02:27 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +Way to completely miss the point. I fully acknowledge that people who commit sexual assault are horrible, awful people and should take all of the blame they can get. How does saying they exist and that we can't always control their actions take anything away from that? Maybe you can control yourself, but the fact that rape exists is literal proof that you're wrong in assuming everyone can and will. The rapists comits rape because it is his personality. Raping a stranger isn't about sex, it's about domination and control. Show nested quote +If I go out and start systematically murdering anyone who wears yellow, I am accountable, I'm a horrible murderer, and I should be executed or put away for life or wahtever, but would you fault the cops for asking you not to wear yellow until I'm caught?
That falls flat because people would not wear yellow for a short period until you are caught and there is a direct link proveable between your hatred against yellow and your crimes. You are asking all women to never wear "revealing" clothing, a phrase so loose it can mean anything from bikini's to a burqa where you can see the eyes. Rapists will continue to rape, if it gets put out there that women shouldn't wear "revealing" clothing then women will still get raped and now they will also be told that they are partly responsible for being raped. There is still not a single piece of evidence that proves that there is a link between wearing revealing clothing and being the victim of rape. This is one of those things people believe because "it sounds logical" wich is one of the worst things in the world. People accept a lot of things because it sounds logical and it's always stupid to do so. It sounds pretty logical that when you beat your kid he will listen to you, but it never turns out to be a very effective tool to raise a child. Do not accept an idea just because it's logical, require proof. There is no proof that reveals a link between the way you dress and the odds of being raped. If it was so obvious, it would exist and be shown. It's just a very nasty idea that has gotten stuck in people's mind.
The thing is, I don't think the police are actually saying the equivalent of "never dress in revealing clothing again." I think they're saying "if you dress in revealing clothing, your chances of being picked as a victim of rape increase." Is it correct? There is no proof behind it, but it isn't going to hurt anyone to not wear revealing clothing.
It is nowhere near the same case as beating your children because it doesn't inflict any harm upon anyone. If the police said "the only way to avoid being a rape target is to have large bruises on your face" it would be a different story, as it harms people. This doesn't harm people.
Here's an example of something that is actually incorrect, but people believe, and is much more similar. There was an old wives tale that going out in the cold when wet, or without sufficient clothing, would increase the odds of catching a "cold." This has been proven false - however, there has never been a case where going out in the cold dry with sufficient clothing has been more harmful then going out soaking wet and without enough clothing.
|
EDIT: never mind, kinda unrelated
|
On April 06 2011 02:37 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 02:29 EchOne wrote:
So when people argue that dress is a risk factor in rape, they are not necessarily arguing that neglect of that risk factor suddenly shifts blame from the rapist to the victim. Some might be arguing such nonsense, but it certainly doesn't logically follow. It logically follows when defense lawyers use these risk factors in the courtroom to reduce the apparent culpability of their clients in front of judges or juries, and when police interrogate women reporting sexual assault about these risk factors.
Lawyers in such cases can only be bandying rhetoric, at least in the States, because culpability at law here is concerned only with the culprit's role in causing the materiel element of the offense.
|
On April 06 2011 01:25 fidelity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 00:11 SharkSpider wrote:On April 05 2011 23:55 fidelity wrote:The amount of ignorance in this thread is making me noxious. People are actually defending this cop? I can't believe that a country like Canada hasn't come further in women's rights than this. If rape was a crime that mostly happened to men then the debate would never sound like this. It's basicly the same logic as when people say that a gay couple deserves to get assaulted because they made out in public. It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV. WTF? so the women who feel that they can dress any way they want and still not get accused when being raped for "dressing provocative" are CREATUES? what about the guy raping women? what are they if women protesting against rape are creatures? ffs... Way to call people out for ignorance, and then display a show of it as big as anyone else in this thread. Here's how it goes. People think that dressing like a slut might make it more likely that a potential rapist will target you over someone else. To justify this position, rape is a sexual act and sex is best done when turned on, and slutty clothes are designed to turn people on. People are free to dress as they will, but the fact is that no amount of law enforcement can stop bad people from doing bad things, it can only deal with the consequences. Suggesting that people take defensive measures, well, that's arguable, but it's no reason to protest. Likewise, you can't just protest against rape. That's like protesting against murder. It's not like it's going to stop it from happening. Find me a case where a known rapist got off easy because someone was dressed provocatively, and protest that. These people give the act of protest a bad name. Still, it's good to see that people here are still naive enough to refuse to acknowledge a difference between statistics and culpability. If white people are 2x as likely to be assaulted on a certain street, nobody's going to win a court case because they assaulted a white person on that street, but would you really fault a cop for suggesting that white people don't walk around that neighborhood? Maybe it's a bit much, but I do trust that if police officers could actually prevent rape cases, they would. But the fact is that you can't be everywhere, and that sometimes there are means of prevention that law enforcement can't control. Sorry, I don't see my ignorance. I was kind of angry when I wrote the post so might be badly written. Rape isn't purely a sexual act, I can't see how you can deny that. It's first and foremost about men(mostly) proving to themself and the women that they are stronger and more powerful than them. There's never been a study that proves that wearing a "slutty" outfit makes you more likely to get raped. So there goes your "common sense" argument out the window. Then we have the fact that rape is the most under-reported violent crime in america as well as in most othere countries. Because of the shame, and because if you to trial you'll get asked what you were wearing, if you were drunk, if you sleep with many men etc. I think the protests where about more than this certain case. There's a big difference between telling a person that they shouldn't be at a certain place at a certain time because you are at a higher risk of being vulnerable to a crime and implying to someone that they deserved it because of the way they were dressed. I trust police officers in general too, I don't think that this one is a horrible person or anything like that. But to say that the women in this clip didn't have a reason to protest or that they are "creatures" is just fucked up. But the fact is that police officers(who are mostly men) have a bad rep in rape cases, just not in america or canada, but all over the world. I'm going to say this again, if rape whas something that mostly happened to men, they would NEVER have to answer to the questions women are asked in court today.
I wouldn't really say ignorance, I'd just say there's a lack of the application of reason to the whole situation. Just because there has never been a study proving something doesn't mean that it isn't true, nor does it mean that common sense doesn't dictate or at least strongly suggest it's truth in some situations. Lack of evidence is the reason I'm not citing a study instead of stating reasons for why it might be true. If you want to talk about that in particular, then sure. My reasoning behind believing that there might be some truth the idea that there might be a relationship between clothing and sexual assault is that as a man, I don't feel the desire to have sex with someone unless I either know them or find their appearance appealing. I understand that the act of rape means more than that, though. I've heard characteristics like dominance or frustration being part of it. People want what they can't have, and they want to control things that seem, by their nature, difficult to control. Nothing says hot, inaccessible and hard to control to me more than an attractive person who "puts it on display," that's how I perceive it. While I'm not an awful person, I can recognize that other people are and empathize with the types of desires that these people act on. I would like to see a study that confirmed or denied this, but there aren't any, so I'll go with what I believe is fairly reasonable: if you're going to force yourself on someone, it would probably be someone you both want and cannot have.
Anyways, I'd just like to reiterate something you said and agree completely. There's a huge difference between trying to stop people from doing things that put them at risk, and blaming people who do so anyways for crimes committed against them. The reason this case confuses the issue is because the revealing clothing is seen as immoral by some types of people regardless of its relationship to sexual assault. This means that if you follow a perfectly reasonable line of thought that might correlate it to rape cases, people will think you're one of these people and that you're trying to shift blame. That's simply not true. I'll be the first to say that I like it when people dress like that. If I'm going to hit the club, I don't want to be in a room full of girls wearing hoodies. That being said, if someone I cared about was going to a part of town where I thought wearing revealing clothes put them at risk, I wouldn't want them to do that.
As far as legality goes, I think our justice system is bad, but knowing whether someone was drunk or high seems fairly reasonable. A lawyer representing someone who is denying culpability (I would assume this would be most people accused of sexual assault) has to fight a "he said she said" battle with the laywer representing the accuser. I can imagine that this would be excessively stressful for whichever party was in the right. If you were sexually assaulted and bombarded with questions, that would be traumatic, but if you were wrongfully accused, bombarding the accuser with questions to try to catch inconsistencies or show that they're lying might seem like the only way to prove that you're innocent. Then you get stories like this: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/03/young-man-falsely-accused-of-rape-tells.html that highlight crimes just as bad as rape going in the other direction. So do you let lawyers cross-examine rape victims or not? If you cut out the kinds of questions that let the bad cases get thrown out of court, you open the door to more wrongful accusations, but if you let them admit evidence like promiscuity, you get rapists who get away with it.
It's an awful situation, but it's not one-sided, and it's not simple. It doesn't have an answer you're going to arrive at by "going with your gut" and taking the emotional approach to every single case. So let's see a little more balanced discussion. One thing I will say with conviction, though, is that protesting is never going to give you that. It's the debate equivalent of sitting there shouting your position over and over without listening to anything anyone else has to say.
|
On April 06 2011 02:39 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 02:27 zalz wrote:Way to completely miss the point. I fully acknowledge that people who commit sexual assault are horrible, awful people and should take all of the blame they can get. How does saying they exist and that we can't always control their actions take anything away from that? Maybe you can control yourself, but the fact that rape exists is literal proof that you're wrong in assuming everyone can and will. The rapists comits rape because it is his personality. Raping a stranger isn't about sex, it's about domination and control. If I go out and start systematically murdering anyone who wears yellow, I am accountable, I'm a horrible murderer, and I should be executed or put away for life or wahtever, but would you fault the cops for asking you not to wear yellow until I'm caught?
That falls flat because people would not wear yellow for a short period until you are caught and there is a direct link proveable between your hatred against yellow and your crimes. You are asking all women to never wear "revealing" clothing, a phrase so loose it can mean anything from bikini's to a burqa where you can see the eyes. Rapists will continue to rape, if it gets put out there that women shouldn't wear "revealing" clothing then women will still get raped and now they will also be told that they are partly responsible for being raped. There is still not a single piece of evidence that proves that there is a link between wearing revealing clothing and being the victim of rape. This is one of those things people believe because "it sounds logical" wich is one of the worst things in the world. People accept a lot of things because it sounds logical and it's always stupid to do so. It sounds pretty logical that when you beat your kid he will listen to you, but it never turns out to be a very effective tool to raise a child. Do not accept an idea just because it's logical, require proof. There is no proof that reveals a link between the way you dress and the odds of being raped. If it was so obvious, it would exist and be shown. It's just a very nasty idea that has gotten stuck in people's mind. The thing is, I don't think the police are actually saying the equivalent of "never dress in revealing clothing again." I think they're saying "if you dress in revealing clothing, your chances of being picked as a victim of rape increase." Is it correct? There is no proof behind it, but it isn't going to hurt anyone to not wear revealing clothing. It is nowhere near the same case as beating your children because it doesn't inflict any harm upon anyone. If the police said "the only way to avoid being a rape target is to have large bruises on your face" it would be a different story, as it harms people. This doesn't harm people. Here's an example of something that is actually incorrect, but people believe, and is much more similar. There was an old wives tale that going out in the cold when wet, or without sufficient clothing, would increase the odds of catching a "cold." This has been proven false - however, there has never been a case where going out in the cold dry with sufficient clothing has been more harmful then going out soaking wet and without enough clothing.
Revealing clothing is in the eyes of the beholder. Anything below a complete, full-body burqa can be considered revealing. You never know what a rapist might find attractive. Even said burqa.
|
how does one dress like a slut exactly?
revealing =/= slut, since the stuff ppl wear at the beach is pretty revealing. But I don't think that would qualify as being slutty.
|
On April 06 2011 02:45 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 02:37 bonifaceviii wrote:On April 06 2011 02:29 EchOne wrote:
So when people argue that dress is a risk factor in rape, they are not necessarily arguing that neglect of that risk factor suddenly shifts blame from the rapist to the victim. Some might be arguing such nonsense, but it certainly doesn't logically follow. It logically follows when defense lawyers use these risk factors in the courtroom to reduce the apparent culpability of their clients in front of judges or juries, and when police interrogate women reporting sexual assault about these risk factors. Lawyers in such cases can only be bandying rhetoric, at least in the States, because culpability at law here is concerned only with the culprit's role in causing the materiel element of the offense.
The problem at hand is that such ''risk factor in rape'' (I find these terms totally absurd but lets keep up with what has been used), like how the person was dressed, are not supposed to be considered in a rape case. Defense lawyers still bring these up because they know that even though the judge and jury are not supposed to consider them, just bringing the matter up has a certain impact on what these person think. This is the real problem.
|
If you missed this excellent post, well, here's your chance to read it:
On April 05 2011 06:36 Atticus.axl wrote:Here goes. I worked for a domestic violence shelter as an intake counselor, working directly with clients which are, quite often, victims of rape. I also worked at a women's center, providing legal services and referrals to the LGBTQ population, as well as victims of rape. Often, I would be the first person to approached by the victims for help or advice, with several occasions I can recall where the crime occurred the same day. As a result of this work, I had to know the official statistics that reached beyond the limited population I served. First, I'm happy to see the number of people in this thread that understand how victim blaming in any way (in cases of rape) not only enables rapists, but romanticizes the notion, in however small an extent, that rape is defensible or excusable in ANY way. Also, what I say here applies to male victims as well, as rape is not an issue limited by gender or sexuality, and I have had a large number of male clients. Second, I'm going to start addressing issues and posts in this thread. Obviously I can't get them all. If there is one you would like me to answer, please ask. Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:36 checo wrote:
I think this data you guys are providing are kinda missleading. Some of you say dressing doesn't matter at all because most of the rapes hapend in the house of the victim or in the house of the criminal(a trust must been there for someone to enter or let enter in their home)
But thats only the data you get from the reported rapes that are way less than what is really hapening out there, yea its all especulation, but then again how do they decide if the victim was or not dress in a revealing way? It's not speculation. The only thing underreported is the number of rapes. "Causes," or false justifications for rape, remain consistent across cases that go immediately reported and cases that don't. As stated before (statistics are available earlier in the thread), the vast majority of rapes occur in the home, and the assailant is either a friend or family member. In all my time at both the shelter and the women's center, I have had only two cases (I've had many more cases than two) where women were raped by someone they just met. Only one where a woman was raped in public at night, and even then, it was a roommate that knew where she was going. Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:35 meeyoop wrote:On April 05 2011 04:25 Torte de Lini wrote:On April 05 2011 04:23 Kamais_Ookin wrote:
In the article: "Just like sexual assault is not about appearance."
That made me lol, I'm 100% sure appearance has some relevance to it. No one is going to sexually assault a 400 pound gorilla of a women as opposed to someone more attractive. Anyways I agree with the officer, I'm not saying that it's the sole reason for rape because it isn't but, stop dressing like damn sluts, it doesn't help matters at all. That's a misconception, women are often raped based on their status, their relationship with the rapist and their position socially and/or in the workplace. It's almost never about looks and the incite such an idea is actually perpetuating the "blaming the victim" card. Often times, men who rape are attracted and aroused by the idea of submission, control and domination of the woman and not by her attire, looks or weight. They get even more excited when they resist or even eventually submit. Blaming the victim is enabling rapists. This is similar to allowing police officers to entice crimes from citizens. EVERYONE LISTEN TO THIS GUY. You have hit the nail on the head here, Torte. Whatever a rape survivor is wearing at the time has fuck all to do with the rapist's actions. To suggest otherwise is to blame the victim. Please put the focus on ending the kind of thinking that makes rapists think that they are allowed to victimize others, and not on the victims who did NOTHING AT ALL to provoke an attack. JFC, guys, this is the reason why so many rapes go unreported. Even the people who are supposed to be supporting victims the most are going to say things like "Well, what were you wearing?"  Exactly this. When the issue of clothing is brought up, I bring up this case. The school of thought that this officer, judge, and millions of people around the world adhere to allows cases like this to be judged in this way. Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:09 travis wrote:wow im not gonna bother anymore, some things are just common fucking sense. why do you even think guys rape women in the first place. On April 05 2011 03:58 Torte de Lini wrote:On April 05 2011 03:56 Gene wrote:On April 05 2011 03:55 Mastermind wrote:On April 05 2011 03:43 Zorkmid wrote: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. I don't really agree with either of these statements. 1. I can't see how any level of horniness could bring on rape. 2. A girl that dresses like a slut may get more attention, but that's about all. 1. What other reason would someone rape for? power Bingo, it's a question of power, and not sexual restraint. riiight. it might be, sometimes, but ... jesus, uthink that even accounts for the majority of rapes? wtf? Travis, throughout this thread you have been 100% dead wrong. It does, as plainly as I may state it, account for the vast majority of rapes. Also, cases where women are raped by friends or family members (which again, accounts for the vast majority of rapes,) revolve entirely around exerting power and control over someone that cannot successfully fight back. Rape has always been motivated by power and control, which are both synonymous with forced gratification. Your stance here is erroneous because it avoids the fact that regardless of circumstances, the assailant, male or female, is entirely to blame. Blaming the clothes is blaming the victim, and excuses the criminal. Furthermore, consent is not situational. A man or a woman does not even need to say no. If no consent is given, and intercourse occurs anyway, it's rape. Which brings me to this poster. Show nested quote +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 forum is not an appropriate platform for me to really say what I think of people like you. It's not a gray area. It's not ok because she dated you after. It's disgusting and horrible. To other posters, please feel free to ask questions if you have them.
Atticus.axl, you seem to be very knowledgeable about sex issues. Thanks for reminding everyone that this is what rape culture looks like, and TeamLiquid / the gaming community is often so blind on these issues. Why can't most of the angsty, scared, entitled cishet manchildren in this thread recognize a rapist, even one who boasts of it, as a threat to women?
This thread makes me so sad. And it highlights how we gamers fulfill the backwards thinking mouth-breather stereotype and drive any sort of reasonable, female or adult opinions out of our communities (to the great detriment of esports). For those that still have the energy to fight on, please do so ...
EDIT: I noticed that AlexDeLarge has been banned. Thank you, mods.
|
On April 05 2011 22:55 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 22:48 Kalingingsong wrote:"Just 'cause I'm a slut doesn't mean I want to be raped," said one female protester, according to CNN affiliate CTV. so what does it mean then? She's loose with her body and doesn't respect herself sexually, but at least she wants the final say on whether she has sex or not. I think it's like the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan. She likes her salad tossed, but doesn't want the cream dressing. If you know what I mean. What does it all have to do with 'respect' man?
The reason I'm a 'slut' is ridiculously simple, I don't believe it's a bad thing to be. Seriously, it's like some arbitrary stupid rule which says that you can't play that many computer games or something. No one's getting hurt (unless those who want it, hurr durr), it's like saying you don't respect yourself when you prefer to play computer games over having sex.
Also, slut doesn't mean dressing n a particular way. It's just for me that whenever the oppertunity arises I'm not going like 'Yeh ehh, I have sex with too many different people, that's bad you know, better not do it.'
On April 06 2011 00:15 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 21:07 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 20:01 PrincessLeila wrote:Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread. On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote:
Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it. I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk. So should we advice people to stay quiet in order to avoid risks ? It's called Fascism. In this context the "choose to manage your risk" argument is simply cowardice. So is taking cover if people are randomly shooting at you.
Yeah, let's be courageous, let's be defiant, let's say we aren't going to live in fear and just continue walking like usual and get a bullet in the head.
Saying one shouldn't be cowardly is as stupid a moral idiosyncrasy as saying that one can't have sex with many people.
B. Franklin once said
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Silm once said:
"Source?"
Quoting random historical figures doesn't make it true.
Restricting freedom to gain security is wrong.
"Dressing revealingly is wrong."
"Having sex with many different people is wrong."
"Women not knowing their place is wrong."
Moral dogmata, ugh.
The right answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to fight and report crime.
Let's fight the bad guys, rather than tell the others to "avoid risks". I'm going to say to you what I've said to everyone, show me some evidence or indication that this actually works as desired.
|
Banned for what? Anecdotes are not a reason to ban someone.
Anyway dressing like a hoe does increase the chance of rape. Look at the majority or rape victims and you will notice that they were young, drunk and dressed in revealing clothes.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
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?
User was banned for this post.
What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well? And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts.
|
On April 06 2011 03:15 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 02:45 EchOne wrote:On April 06 2011 02:37 bonifaceviii wrote:On April 06 2011 02:29 EchOne wrote:
So when people argue that dress is a risk factor in rape, they are not necessarily arguing that neglect of that risk factor suddenly shifts blame from the rapist to the victim. Some might be arguing such nonsense, but it certainly doesn't logically follow. It logically follows when defense lawyers use these risk factors in the courtroom to reduce the apparent culpability of their clients in front of judges or juries, and when police interrogate women reporting sexual assault about these risk factors. Lawyers in such cases can only be bandying rhetoric, at least in the States, because culpability at law here is concerned only with the culprit's role in causing the materiel element of the offense. The problem at hand is that such ''risk factor in rape'' (I find these terms totally absurd but lets keep up with what has been used), like how the person was dressed, are not supposed to be considered in a rape case. Defense lawyers still bring these up because they know that even though the judge and jury are not supposed to consider them, just bringing the matter up has a certain impact on what these person think. This is the real problem.
I think it tends to get used because lawyers want to make a case that the accuser was going out looking for sex, with the expectation that this will need to raise the bar to prove that the defendant was committing sexual assault and not just pulling a one-nighter with a complete stranger after getting drunk and partying. The key problem with the justice system is that in many cases, a verdict is passed on half-truth, ie, "well, we believe that it wasn't consentual but you were drunk and looking for sex so it's only half-rape." Imagine how difficult it would be to tell the difference between drunk consentual sex and rape, if you're talking about drunk people who had just been out clubbing or something, and compare that to a situation without alcohol, and where "looking for sex" isn't one of the primary activities. I'm really curious as to what else you'd ask, if you were trying to judge a case where the only evidence is statements from both parties. Yes, in most cases they use physical evidence to make sure the statements about what happened line up (ie, you can prove, medically, who put what where) but that's about it.
|
On April 06 2011 03:31 Dismantlethethroat wrote:
Banned for what? Anecdotes are not a reason to ban someone.
Anyway dressing like a hoe does increase the chance of rape. Look at the majority or rape victims and you will notice that they were young, drunk and dressed in revealing clothes.
Um, have you not understood or absorbed anything discussed in this thread? Get me a source on that bold statement of yours.
|
On April 06 2011 03:38 Arnstein wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
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?
User was banned for this post. What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well? Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts. No, it indicated that she liked it, stop thinking other people must have the same moral view as you have.
|
On April 06 2011 03:43 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 03:38 Arnstein wrote:On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
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?
User was banned for this post. What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well? Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it: What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape? Show nested quote +And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts. No, it indicated that she liked it, stop thinking other people must have the same moral view as you have.
Moral view? It obviously indicates that ADL is a psycho in a more general scope, even disregarding the sex aspect of it. ;/
(given that he did that despite the obvious potential repercussions)
edit -- there's a funny Louis CK skit about this...
|
On April 06 2011 03:43 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 03:38 Arnstein wrote:On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
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?
User was banned for this post. What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well? Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it: What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape? Show nested quote +And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts. No, it indicated that she liked it, stop thinking other people must have the same moral view as you have.
In that case I'd say it's mutual consent.
Plus the fact that you took all those drugs/alcoohol, you are somewhat responsible for shit that happens to you under that state.
But as for what the OP was asking, well I think that assuming that dressing provocatively increases the chance of rape, people should still be allowed to dress like they want and will just have to assume the increased risks, just like going out at night in a harder part of town. If dressing like that is so important to you then assume the advantages and disadvantages.
Also : http://www.explosm.net/comics/519/
|
I just read the op so bear with me if the discussion has progressed to a point where my ramblings are irrelevant.
On the one hand it is obviously quite terrible that women, let's be frank here, rape of males is hardly an issue, have to be afraid of assault/rape when they cross the street. The way they dress has nothing to do with that. To be frank they could go completely naked and sex without consent would still be rape.
On the other hand however, stating that "dressing like a slut" increases the chance of getting raped (or vice versa) does not seem wrong to me at all. Yes, you should be able to park your Maybach in Brooklyn (is that still the classic example of a "criminal part of town" ? ), but it's probably not a good idea and the chance of a crime happening is significantly higher.
I have not read the original inflamatory statement, but if the spokesman meant it that way then I agree and see nothing wrong with the statement itself.
|
On April 06 2011 03:52 GeneticToss wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 03:43 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 03:38 Arnstein wrote:On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
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?
User was banned for this post. What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well? Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it: What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape? And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts. No, it indicated that she liked it, stop thinking other people must have the same moral view as you have. In that case I'd say it's mutual consent. How does that spin together? Surely someone who is out for 90% can't consent? If it's mutual consent, then the girl could consent to his doing her while she was out for 90%.
At max you can say that both parties have not consented, but because both were out, both were not responsible for their own actions.
But in that case,you can extend this to saying that people who are out for 90% are no longer, or much less so, responsible for their own actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
