|
On April 07 2011 00:46 AbsentLover wrote:
Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever). LOL? God forbid TL prevent rapists from interacting with its members. You deserve your permaban and (hopefully) the next one on its way to your smurf account. You raped that girl regardless of what you thought entitled you to have sex with her unconscious body. The fact that she claimed to have enjoyed the abuse - I wonder who else in her life did this to her before you? - only proves what a sad and broken person she was inside. The "dynamics of the situation" was that you raped a passed-out woman's body while she was defenseless and non-consenting.
"Sexual consent isn't like a lightswitch, which can be either "on," or "off." It's not like there's this one thing called "sex" you can consent to anyhow. "Sex" is an evolving series of actions and interactions. You have to have the enthusiastic consent of your partner for all of them. And even if you have your partner's consent for a particular activity, you have to be prepared for it to change. Consent isn't a question. It's a state. If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It's not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out -- if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner."
On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
Read above, but I can hardly believe that it will stop you from being so moronic. NOT SAYING NO is a million miles away from SAYING YES. From whence comes your incredible sense of entitlement to women's bodies?
|
It's more like rich people tell poor people to eat their bootstraps, and it's actually their fault they're poor in the first place.
|
On April 07 2011 03:30 Flat Zerg wrote:
It's more like rich people tell poor people to eat their bootstraps, and it's actually their fault they're poor in the first place.
You make the worst analogies:
Lemme explain mine:
Paris Hilton gets her clothing stolen by thieves, police tell her to tighten up security, Paris gets into a hissy fit and says the police blames her for the robbery.
Now replace Paris Hilton with women, clothing stolen and robbery with raped, thieves with men.
Now lemme TRY to explain yours:
It's more like police tell women to get raped, and it's actually their fault they're getting raped in the first place.
Now read over the articles, and tell me if that is conveyed at any point.
Ok... now people are going to accuse me of equating all women with Paris Hilton.
|
Paris Hilton gets her clothing stolen by thieves, police tell her to tighten up security, Paris gets into a hissy fit and says the police blames her for the robbery.
Woman gets assaulted, men tell her to stop being a slut, and the woman points out that telling her to not be a slut is probably contributing to the problem rather than helping.
You're right.
|
On April 07 2011 04:00 Flat Zerg wrote:
Paris Hilton gets her clothing stolen by thieves, police tell her to tighten up security, Paris gets into a hissy fit and says the police blames her for the robbery.
Woman gets assaulted, men tell her to stop being a slut, and the woman points out that telling her to not be a slut is probably contributing to the problem rather than helping.
You're right.
Every analogy you make like this is going to suffer from a key flaw: You have to be a complete jackass to tell a legitimate rape victim that she should have been more careful. You do not, on the other hand, have to be a jerk to tell young women that they should be careful. It's an emotional response to the image of talking to a victim that gives your argument the 'feeling' of legitimacy, not anythin to do with whether you're right or wrong.
Edit: Found a response to this while poking around a website I linked earlier. (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/toronto-cop-in-hot-water-for-trying-to.html)
They point out that:
In fact, "NCVS data reveal that rape victims tend to be young and that rapists prefer younger, presumably more attractive victims.” The data indicates that “younger offenders may be seeking sexual gratification . . ..” L. Siegel, Criminology at 294 (2008). Moreover: ". . . the correlation between age distribution of rape victims and the age of peak female sexual attractiveness is powerful evidence" of a sexual motivation for rape. R. Thornhill, C. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion at 139. See also 180-183 (2001). That examination of rape, written by a biologist and an antropologist, debunk the politiczed social science theory that "rape is a crime of violence but not of sex."
|
On April 07 2011 03:25 god_forbids wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 00:46 AbsentLover wrote:
Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever). LOL? God forbid TL prevent rapists from interacting with its members. You deserve your permaban and (hopefully) the next one on its way to your smurf account. You raped that girl regardless of what you thought entitled you to have sex with her unconscious body. The fact that she claimed to have enjoyed the abuse - I wonder who else in her life did this to her before you? - only proves what a sad and broken person she was inside. The "dynamics of the situation" was that you raped a passed-out woman's body while she was defenseless and non-consenting. "Sexual consent isn't like a lightswitch, which can be either "on," or "off." It's not like there's this one thing called "sex" you can consent to anyhow. "Sex" is an evolving series of actions and interactions. You have to have the enthusiastic consent of your partner for all of them. And even if you have your partner's consent for a particular activity, you have to be prepared for it to change. Consent isn't a question. It's a state. If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It's not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out -- if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner."Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual. Read above, but I can hardly believe that it will stop you from being so moronic. NOT SAYING NO is a million miles away from SAYING YES. From whence comes your incredible sense of entitlement to women's bodies?
You, just like others in the thread need to get your boot of the rage pedal and your finger of the judge button.
While I certainly agree with some of your points, calling people moronic is, as you're well aware, a very easy way get you banned (also it makes you look shitty at debating).
On the topic of consent I feel your view is a bit too black and white. I fear it's not that simple.
While I agree that not saying "no" does not equal a green light, your water analogy holds, hah, no water with me. I certainly have had sex while not really in the mood. Maybe I changed my mind during the act but I'm still sure my girlfriend wasn't raping me for the first part of it, even though I wasn't "enthusiasticly consenting" the entire time.
This is what can make rape cases so damn difficult to judge at times- sex while drunk or on drugs, "rape" in relationships etc. Are there even legal definitions of "consent" ?
Also, in the case of relationships that "sense of entitlement" to your partners body (and feelings) is, while certainly debateable, part of what makes a relationship (and the foundation for marriage rape I assume  ) for a lot of people.
|
Edit: Found a response to this while poking around a website I linked earlier. (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/toronto-cop-in-hot-water-for-trying-to.html)
They point out that:
I think that is an excellent link the sums up one of the positions. Basically it goes that sexual attractiveness of the victim does play a certain role in a rape and therefore enchancing attractiveness through clothing can be potentially dangerous, so it is a good thing to bring that to people's attention.
The other position is that sexual attractiveness is NOT, or at least a very minor factor in a rape and therefore clothing isn't relevant. So saying otherwise is obviously false and has the potential to make people insecure and afraid of the way they should dress.
bonifaceviii already put this is some better words I think:
I believe the argument goes like this (and any social scientists can correct me if I'm misrepresenting):
Be it established that sex is not the primary motivating factor behind rape, the "advice" of not appearing sexily to men to avoid being raped reinforces the mistaken belief that it is.
This reinforced belief is damaging in the fact that it carries with it the assumption that rape can occur as a result of someone being "too horny" or "caught up in the moment", which is similar to a "temporary insanity" defense (after a certain amount of stimulation a man cannot control himself; at which point watch out honey!)
Now one could counter that the assumption does not necessarily follow, but the amount of posts in this thread that repeat that same tired belief shows that it follows enough for society to have a tainted impression of rape (and especially date-rape) situations. Defense lawyers wouldn't ask victims how many men they've slept with and what they were wearing if it didn't work to reduce the sentences of their clients, and police wouldn't ask victims reporting assault what they were wearing if they didn't assume this had something to do with why it happened.
My opinion:
I think attractiveness might figure into this, but it is a minor factor amongst many many others. So I would not say that the way you dress has any significant impact on the chances of being victim of a rape and that's what I would tell other people.
|
Canada13389 Posts
I seriously think this thread needs to be closed as all it does is create bans and perpetuates this terrible myth that women scantily dressed = at fault for rape.
Look, if a woman doesnt have the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to a person having sex with them then sex that occurs is rape. Thats it. Simple as that It doesnt matter how a person is dressed, or how they were acting if they don't consent to sex then they shouldn't be having sex and if sex is forced on them its rape. Period.
|
On April 06 2011 17:57 Mahina wrote:
What bothers me is the notion that by avoiding certain things women could prevent being raped, you're placing the responsibility with the (possible) victims.
On April 06 2011 16:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
On April 06 2011 22:34 buhhy wrote:
People are somehow associating honest advice with placing blame on the victim. Blame isn't mentioned anywhere, neither are women's rights. People are getting up in arms over nothing, seriously.
On April 07 2011 02:15 JiYan wrote:
to clarify, dressing revealingly increases the chance only of spontaneous rape rather than premeditated rape. However, there is also a chance that a consistency of continuous 'slutiness' could eventually lead to a tipping point.
+ Show Spoiler +Poll: (1) Victims share no fault. (2) But 'mindful attire' is important.I agree. (6) 67% I disagree. Adding "but ..." equals blaming victims. (3) 33% I don't know. (0) 0% 9 total votes Your vote: (1) Victims share no fault. (2) But 'mindful attire' is important. (Vote): I agree.
(Vote): I disagree. Adding "but ..." equals blaming victims.
(Vote): I don't know.
|
On April 07 2011 06:49 ZeromuS wrote:
I seriously think this thread needs to be closed as all it does is create bans and perpetuates this terrible myth that women scantily dressed = at fault for rape.
Look, if a woman doesnt have the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to a person having sex with them then sex that occurs is rape. Thats it. Simple as that It doesnt matter how a person is dressed, or how they were acting if they don't consent to sex then they shouldn't be having sex and if sex is forced on them its rape. Period.
I seriously doubt you have actually read the thread.
Find one post that actually implies "that women scantily dressed = at fault for rape". One.
|
On April 07 2011 06:49 ZeromuS wrote:
Look, if a woman doesnt have the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to a person having sex with them then sex that occurs is rape. Thats it. Simple as that It doesnt matter how a person is dressed, or how they were acting if they don't consent to sex then they shouldn't be having sex and if sex is forced on them its rape. Period.
That definition is actually way more lenient on men than the current leading legal one. Feminist groups who survey women to generate data on unreported rape ask if they were psychologically or physically pressured or coerced in to having sex. Furthermore, intent to rape does not need to be established in order for someone to be convicted, and saying that the accuser had the opportunity to say yes or no does not constitute a valid defense.
Either way, I won't defend anything relating to people saying that ignoring potential risk factors takes culpability away from the guilty or puts it in the hands of victims. That's been established here, and anywhere else where the argument is made. Really, though, there can be two discussions here, and not one. The question of whether or not attractiveness does increase the likelihood of being raped, and then the question of whether or not it's alright to point out whatever the answer to the first question may be.
For some reason, I'm seeing a lot of posters that will stand up and deny the first point, then go right on to arguing against the second. It confuses the issue.
|
If anything, anything, wouldn't alcohol, drugs, and behavior be more to blame then what a girl is wearing? People seem to like to group every "rape" under the same category, but it's not that cut and dry. Each case of rape isn't of a girl walking home from school -- a situation at a party is different from a 1 on 1 meeting at someone's house, a club is different from an alleyway -- some guys are the evil serial rapists and others are the cowardly guys who take advantage of vulnerable woman who are drunk/on drugs and separated from their friends.
How you can narrow an entire subject such as rape down to what person is wearing is ridiculous.
|
On April 07 2011 07:33 holdthephone wrote:
If anything, anything, wouldn't alcohol, drugs, and behavior be more to blame then what a girl is wearing? People seem to like to group every "rape" under the same category, but it's not that cut and dry. Each case of rape isn't of a girl walking home from school -- a situation at a party is different from a 1 on 1 meeting at someone's house, a club is different from an alleyway -- some guys are the evil serial rapists and others are the cowardly guys who take advantage of vulnerable woman who are drunk/on drugs and separated from their friends.
How you can narrow an entire subject such as rape down to what person is wearing is ridiculous.
We're not. A full 70% of cases are ones where the victim knew the rapist. Most people here, myself included, recognize that it's unlikely that dress had anything to do with it. That being said, it is equally ridiculous to ignore a full 30% of rape cases where it could be a factor. It's obviously not the most important one (I would rank going out in groups far, far above anything to do with dress), if at all, but it dominates this discussion because the discussion surrounds a comment made by a police officer, claiming that clothes designed to arouse members of the male sex increase the likelihood of being made a victim of a sexual assault crime.
|
Well then yeah I would agree it's probably a factor in some cases, but on the subject of the thread I don't think it's fair of the officer to blame it on attire. It's a matter of being careful, and telling someone that shouldn't be seen as blaming the victim.
If you got broadsided going through a green light it's not your fault whatsoever -- but it's always advised to look both directions before going through regardless.
So I guess the tone here shouldn't be "be more careful next time," it should be, "be careful, there are crazy people out there."
|
On April 07 2011 02:57 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 05 2011 03:52 Gnial wrote: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? It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges. She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual. By the letter of Canadian law (a country often seen as fairly progressive with feminism) this is false. Reason being, the law gives the benefit of the doubt to the person not initiating sex. This means that if you are in a situation where you coax someone in to having sex with foreplay/testing the waters/being persistent and the only form of resistence they show is not consenting, that can still be considered rape. I don't really know what to make of this, but it amounts to the fact that someone doesn't have to create a confrontation to stop sex from happening. This is why so many rape cases come from relationships. One partner (usually only ever the male) wants sex, and the other party does not want a confrontation to occur in the relationship, either out of fear or some other emotion. It becomes rape when the offending party starts the physical act of sex on the basis that the other party does not make any direct move to deny it.
Yeah, there are 2 general principles in Canada which prevent her from consenting in that scenario.
First, silence is NOT consent.
Second, you cannot consent while under the influence of drugs/alcohol.
|
On April 07 2011 04:00 Flat Zerg wrote:
Woman gets assaulted, men tell her to stop being a slut, and the woman points out that telling her to not be a slut is probably contributing to the problem rather than helping.
No one made a retrospective statement to any rape victims. No one said "Oh well, not our job, you shouldn't have been a slut in the first place" That was not the statement made.
The statement was made for people concerned about safety. It was said, that if you are concerned for your sexual safety, one technique you can employ to keep yourself safer is to dress more modestly.
There is no data on how rape victims were dressed before they got raped, because, frankly, how the hell could you possibly ask that? "Oh, I see you got raped, you weren't by any chance showing alot of skin were you?" No one in their right mind would run a study like that, and what's more, we know that it's not the victim's fault that the rape occurred. We don't tell the guy who got hit on a crosswalk "oh, well you could have been wearing more visible clothing" either, but no one argues that if you're out walking at night it's not a good idea to wear reflectors and light colors. It still doesn't make it your fault if you are hit while legally crossing somewhere you have right of way.
What kind of clothes you wear does matter. Rapists, especially at parties and clubs/pubs will usually pick a target first. The actual rape is an issue of power, something along the lines of "This bitch is slutting it out to all the guys, yet she rejected me, I'll show her who's boss", the rape doesn't take place because of overwhelming sexual urge, but the target is still chosen well before the rapist decides to go through with a rape, and that process of targeting is virtually the same as a man asking girls out at the bar. He goes to the ones he's interested in and tries them out.
Women still have a choice to dress how ever they would like, however, this is a statistical fact that women should be aware of if they want to be more protected against being the target of illegal sexual behavior. Some girls go out looking for trouble, but alot of the girls who go out are nice girls who didn't really want any of that kind of attention at all, but they weren't so aware that the way they dress conveys a message.
|
I don't think anyone is saying that women deserve to be raped for any reason ever.
As well, NO ONE is saying that there should be more lenient sentancing for rapists of women who dress more provocatively.
What people are saying is that dressing more revealingly could result in a higher chance of being raped, and as such is not a good idea.
Its the same thing like walking around at 1am in any ghettoh while counting $10,000 in $100 bills by hand, having them fanned out. While listening to an ipod... will result in a higher chance of you being mugged and having your money stolen.
Did this guy deserve to have his money stolen? FUCK NO. Should the thief recieve a more lenient sentance? HELL NO! But does walking around in a crime ridden area of town, with no protection, not paying attention, flashing tonnes of cash increase the chance of him being robbed? HELL YES.
So... even though he is allowed to flash his money, should he do it? NO.
Even though women are allowed, and have every right to dress sluttily then get drunk and hang out with people she doesn't know in an area of town where it is easy for her to be taken off alone and then get raped... she probably shouldn't do it, dress a little more conservatively and maybe she wouldn't of been raped.
Its a lot less about someone deserving to be raped, and a lot more about taking personal responsibility and realize that the things you do have consequences.
Not wearing a seat belt in your right. Doing so increases your chance of dying in an accident. By not wearing your seat belt do you deserve to die in an accident? NO. But you should still wear it, even if you don't want to because it is safer.
Not that hard to understand... every day we do things that we don't want to in order to keep our selves safe, this is just one more thing that people have to do in order to keep safe. It sucks that it is only women that have to do this, and it is sexist, but this is the world we live in.
Everyone would love a perfect world where no one gets raped, and everyone is treated equaly... saddly this is not the case. There are rapists out there, and they will take advantage of a woman who lets her guard down at the wrong time. Its a terrible truth of the world we live in, but its just what happens...
|
On April 07 2011 04:07 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 04:00 Flat Zerg wrote:
Paris Hilton gets her clothing stolen by thieves, police tell her to tighten up security, Paris gets into a hissy fit and says the police blames her for the robbery.
Woman gets assaulted, men tell her to stop being a slut, and the woman points out that telling her to not be a slut is probably contributing to the problem rather than helping.
You're right. Every analogy you make like this is going to suffer from a key flaw: You have to be a complete jackass to tell a legitimate rape victim that she should have been more careful. You do not, on the other hand, have to be a jerk to tell young women that they should be careful. It's an emotional response to the image of talking to a victim that gives your argument the 'feeling' of legitimacy, not anythin to do with whether you're right or wrong. Edit: Found a response to this while poking around a website I linked earlier. (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/toronto-cop-in-hot-water-for-trying-to.html) They point out that: Show nested quote +
In fact, "NCVS data reveal that rape victims tend to be young and that rapists prefer younger, presumably more attractive victims.” The data indicates that “younger offenders may be seeking sexual gratification . . ..” L. Siegel, Criminology at 294 (2008). Moreover: ". . . the correlation between age distribution of rape victims and the age of peak female sexual attractiveness is powerful evidence" of a sexual motivation for rape. R. Thornhill, C. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion at 139. See also 180-183 (2001). That examination of rape, written by a biologist and an antropologist, debunk the politiczed social science theory that "rape is a crime of violence but not of sex."
Telling somebody to be more careful is completely different than telling them not to dress like a slut. The former is advice that everybody should adhere to. The latter is bad advice and displays a mentality that is the same as countries like Saudi Arabia.
Giving advice is not inherently bad. Giving bad advice that displays prejudices, especially ones carried by a police officer, is bad.
|
On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 05 2011 03:52 Gnial wrote: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? It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges. She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
bull and shit. he raped the girl. plane and simple. if she would have took him to court and if he would have told that exact same story she would have won the case without a doubt and he would be in jail.. he said it himself that t he girl was 90% unconcious and obviously had no clue to what was going on since she was only 10% awake. then he proceeds to take advantage of that and have sex with her without her knowing and without her consent? bullshit. that is a rape no matter how u look at it.
the dude is just lucky she was a slut and a dumbass to let her self get taken advantage of like that without doing anything about it..
On April 07 2011 06:04 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 03:25 god_forbids wrote:On April 07 2011 00:46 AbsentLover wrote:
Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever). LOL? God forbid TL prevent rapists from interacting with its members. You deserve your permaban and (hopefully) the next one on its way to your smurf account. You raped that girl regardless of what you thought entitled you to have sex with her unconscious body. The fact that she claimed to have enjoyed the abuse - I wonder who else in her life did this to her before you? - only proves what a sad and broken person she was inside. The "dynamics of the situation" was that you raped a passed-out woman's body while she was defenseless and non-consenting. "Sexual consent isn't like a lightswitch, which can be either "on," or "off." It's not like there's this one thing called "sex" you can consent to anyhow. "Sex" is an evolving series of actions and interactions. You have to have the enthusiastic consent of your partner for all of them. And even if you have your partner's consent for a particular activity, you have to be prepared for it to change. Consent isn't a question. It's a state. If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It's not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out -- if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner."On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual. Read above, but I can hardly believe that it will stop you from being so moronic. NOT SAYING NO is a million miles away from SAYING YES. From whence comes your incredible sense of entitlement to women's bodies? You, just like others in the thread need to get your boot of the rage pedal and your finger of the judge button. While I certainly agree with some of your points, calling people moronic is, as you're well aware, a very easy way get you banned (also it makes you look shitty at debating). On the topic of consent I feel your view is a bit too black and white. I fear it's not that simple. While I agree that not saying "no" does not equal a green light, your water analogy holds, hah, no water with me. I certainly have had sex while not really in the mood. Maybe I changed my mind during the act but I'm still sure my girlfriend wasn't raping me for the first part of it, even though I wasn't "enthusiasticly consenting" the entire time. This is what can make rape cases so damn difficult to judge at times- sex while drunk or on drugs, "rape" in relationships etc. Are there even legal definitions of "consent" ? Also, in the case of relationships that "sense of entitlement" to your partners body (and feelings) is, while certainly debateable, part of what makes a relationship (and the foundation for marriage rape I assume ) for a lot of people.
more bullshit. having sex with someone that is incapable of saying yes or no is rape, period. if someone gets so drunk or is on drugs and a rapist takes advantage of that and "fucks the shit" out of her while she is incaple of even talking, let alone trying to prevent it, its rape. even if she "enjoyed" it afterwards its STILL RAPE.
also some women do not fight back when there getting raped because that is something to protect there own lives. fighting back can lead to the rapist being more aggressive and dangerous and the women could end up seriously hurt or dead. so sometimes it is best for the women to not fight back against rapists. if a women is forced into rape with a knife/gun to her head or the threat of her life being in danger then yes, the women will "allow" the man to rape her because she would end up dead otherwise in a case like that. that is why his comment was infact moronic.
|
On April 09 2011 01:09 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 05 2011 03:52 Gnial wrote: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? It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges. She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual. bull and shit. he raped the girl. plane and simple. if she would have took him to court and if he would have told that exact same story she would have won the case without a doubt and he would be in jail.. he said it himself that t he girl was 90% concious and obviously had no clue to what was going on since she was only 10% awake. then he proceeds to take advantage of that and have sex with her without her knowing and without her consent? bullshit. that is a rape no matter how u look at it. the dude is just lucky she was a slut and a dumbass to let her self get taken advantage of like that without doing anything about it.. Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 06:04 Monsen wrote:On April 07 2011 03:25 god_forbids wrote:On April 07 2011 00:46 AbsentLover wrote:
Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever). LOL? God forbid TL prevent rapists from interacting with its members. You deserve your permaban and (hopefully) the next one on its way to your smurf account. You raped that girl regardless of what you thought entitled you to have sex with her unconscious body. The fact that she claimed to have enjoyed the abuse - I wonder who else in her life did this to her before you? - only proves what a sad and broken person she was inside. The "dynamics of the situation" was that you raped a passed-out woman's body while she was defenseless and non-consenting. "Sexual consent isn't like a lightswitch, which can be either "on," or "off." It's not like there's this one thing called "sex" you can consent to anyhow. "Sex" is an evolving series of actions and interactions. You have to have the enthusiastic consent of your partner for all of them. And even if you have your partner's consent for a particular activity, you have to be prepared for it to change. Consent isn't a question. It's a state. If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It's not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out -- if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner."On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual. Read above, but I can hardly believe that it will stop you from being so moronic. NOT SAYING NO is a million miles away from SAYING YES. From whence comes your incredible sense of entitlement to women's bodies? You, just like others in the thread need to get your boot of the rage pedal and your finger of the judge button. While I certainly agree with some of your points, calling people moronic is, as you're well aware, a very easy way get you banned (also it makes you look shitty at debating). On the topic of consent I feel your view is a bit too black and white. I fear it's not that simple. While I agree that not saying "no" does not equal a green light, your water analogy holds, hah, no water with me. I certainly have had sex while not really in the mood. Maybe I changed my mind during the act but I'm still sure my girlfriend wasn't raping me for the first part of it, even though I wasn't "enthusiasticly consenting" the entire time. This is what can make rape cases so damn difficult to judge at times- sex while drunk or on drugs, "rape" in relationships etc. Are there even legal definitions of "consent" ? Also, in the case of relationships that "sense of entitlement" to your partners body (and feelings) is, while certainly debateable, part of what makes a relationship (and the foundation for marriage rape I assume ) for a lot of people. more bullshit. having sex with someone that is incapable of saying yes or no is rape, period. if someone gets so drunk or is on drugs and a rapist takes advantage of that and "fucks the shit" out of her while she is incaple of even talking, let alone trying to prevent it, its rape. even if she "enjoyed" it afterwards its STILL RAPE. also some women do not fight back when there getting raped because that is something to protect there own lives. not fighting back can lead to the rapist being more aggressive and dangerous and the women could end up seriously hurt or dead. so sometimes it is best for the women to not fight back against rapists, which is why his comment was infact moronic.
I assume you mean 90% unconscious?
people really need to take a chill pill by the way, hwo on earth can we have a mature discussion if people keep overreacting to what others are saying, putting words in their mouths and such. It's like this thread is filled with people that want to say "It was not the girls fault she gets raped but there are means to keep unnecessary sexual attention at a minimum when you go out because some guys are really douchebags', while the other half goes"OMG you are saying she asked for it LALALALALALALA *fingers in ears*". Listen to each other for gods sake, and if you are unsure about their meaning ask them. And forget about the trolposters, which are rather obvious. I'll admit, I make these mistakes myself as well, it can be difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
