|
On August 24 2012 03:14 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 01:43 Tao367 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:40 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 01:38 Tao367 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:29 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
NO!
YOU SAID: [quote]
which has 2 points. both of which are wrong! No. You may be misunderstanding me. I'm saying a larger % of female rape victims report their rape than the % of male rape victims. According to the Stern Review, the victim is male in around 8% of all recorded rape cases. The unrecorded figure is thought to be far higher.
The proportion of men who go on to report sexual assault is extremely low and the number of victims greater than the government or media coverage would suggest.
The British Crime Survey 2001/2 reported that while 4.2% of women and 4.2% of men said they had been victims of domestic violence in the past year, only 19% of men went on to report it compared with 81% of women.
you actually willing to admit you said All I'm saying is that in terms of being taken seriously, women have nothing to complain about compared to males. and you standing by it?  I think you have come into a conversation that was already progress, and have taken my comment to mean something without context. We were arguing about the political, social and culultral issues and expectations regarding gender in rape cases at the time. Males face double standards, and almost bullying when getting raped by a woman, whereas the women is "brave" for reporting it. That's why a lower proportion of males report it. Yes I can admit said that. Why wouldn't I? From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male. I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. ... I don't entirely agree with this. Or at least, not the last bit. The problem with prosecuting rape (when it isn't obvious that rape has occurred. No physical evidence of an attack and so forth) is that it's an act that often happens behind closed doors. Which means that only two people likely witnessed it: the alleged, and the alleger. The principle of reasonable doubt means that someone alleging that you have commited a crime cannot be sufficient evidence for a conviction. The whole thing comes down to how credible the only witness to the act is. And to deny the defense the ability to attack the credibility of the witness is... disconcerting from a standpoint of finding justice. In seeking to punish rapists, we also need to make sure that we do so via just methods. Just as for any other crime. And the principle of reasonable doubt ultimately means that we will acquit people who have committed crimes, because we believe that this is preferable to punishing the innocent. Yeah, it sucks. But the alternative is worse.
I do understand the conundrum you're putting forth, and yes, rape is one of the most difficult things to prosecute for precisely the reasons you've stated. However, if you want to attack the accuser's credibility, you should put forth a history of her (or him!) lying, not of having sex. If you can prove that she frequently makes false accusations, her credibility is on trial. If you put forth a history of her having sex, that has literally no bearing on her credibility - and the fact that people think it does is why we talk about rape culture.
A woman's sexual history has nothing to do with her propensity for lying. We are not saying that defense attorneys should not be allowed to defend their clients; only that sexual history has literally no bearing on the potential innocence or guilt of the rapist. That is why we cannot help but dismiss the whole argument as absurd.
|
On August 24 2012 03:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:22 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges?
The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values.
Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged.
So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously.
Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges?
The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values.
Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged.
So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously.
Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Consent works by the woman choosing to either affirm her consent to sex or refuse her consent to sex. She doesn't enter a promiscuity rating along with her sluttiness quota and the sexiness of her outfit into the consent-o-meter and then say yes or no based upon some arcane formula. How do you get to suggest that more men should be prosecuted because of your feeling about a potential lack of correlation between promiscuity and sex-related lawsuits? There are innocent men in jail you know, right now. its not suggesting more men should be prosecuted its suggesting rapists should be prosecuted. And by restricting the tools that defense attorneys have, you'll also prosecute men. And sure you'll probably prosecute more rapists too. But you'll also be inflicting a severe blow to the already shaky concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Failing to convict people because of a illogical nonsense argument is not a victory for justice. If they're innocent then find them innocent without bringing up something completely unrelated and then exploiting the idiocy of the jurors.
Look I don't know what to say to you people. You want more rapists prosecuted, my retort is that you'll also get more innocent prosecuted.
|
On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 01:43 Tao367 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:40 ComaDose wrote:[quote] you actually willing to admit you said [quote] and you standing by it? I think you have come into a conversation that was already progress, and have taken my comment to mean something without context. We were arguing about the political, social and culultral issues and expectations regarding gender in rape cases at the time. Males face double standards, and almost bullying when getting raped by a woman, whereas the women is "brave" for reporting it. That's why a lower proportion of males report it. Yes I can admit said that. Why wouldn't I? From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male. I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 01:43 Tao367 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:40 ComaDose wrote:[quote] you actually willing to admit you said [quote] and you standing by it? I think you have come into a conversation that was already progress, and have taken my comment to mean something without context. We were arguing about the political, social and culultral issues and expectations regarding gender in rape cases at the time. Males face double standards, and almost bullying when getting raped by a woman, whereas the women is "brave" for reporting it. That's why a lower proportion of males report it. Yes I can admit said that. Why wouldn't I? From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male. I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Show nested quote +Consent works by the woman choosing to either affirm her consent to sex or refuse her consent to sex. She doesn't enter a promiscuity rating along with her sluttiness quota and the sexiness of her outfit into the consent-o-meter and then say yes or no based upon some arcane formula. How do you get to suggest that more men should be prosecuted because of your feeling about a potential lack of correlation between promiscuity and sex-related lawsuits? There are innocent men in jail you know, right now.
If the statement is - promiscuous women are more likely to submit a frivolous rape report, then there must be evidence to PROVE that statement. You can't ask for evidence disproving it - what evidence would there be? The lack of frivolous rape reports from promiscuous women?
"Show me proof that lemmings jump off cliffs"
"Well, show me proof that lemmings don't jump off cliffs"
"Well, there hasn't been a documented case of a lemming that purposely jumps off cliffs"
"That's not proof that they don't, they just haven't documented it yet"
|
On August 24 2012 03:22 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.
I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.
I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Consent works by the woman choosing to either affirm her consent to sex or refuse her consent to sex. She doesn't enter a promiscuity rating along with her sluttiness quota and the sexiness of her outfit into the consent-o-meter and then say yes or no based upon some arcane formula. How do you get to suggest that more men should be prosecuted because of your feeling about a potential lack of correlation between promiscuity and sex-related lawsuits? There are innocent men in jail you know, right now. its not suggesting more men should be prosecuted its suggesting rapists should be prosecuted. And by restricting the tools that defense attorneys have, you'll also prosecute men. And sure you'll probably prosecute more rapists too. But you'll also be inflicting a severe blow to the already shaky concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:21 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.
I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.
I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Burden of proof. When you can't demonstrate that something is relevant, it should be deemed irrelevant. Circumstantial evidence. Girl is known to have more consensual sex, therefore she's more likely to have consensual sex.
That isn't enough. You would need to demonstrate that people who have lots of consensual sex are more likely to lie about being raped.
|
Cases of rape in court are extremely "pointless" (for lack of a better word) because at the end of the day, nobody knows what went on that night except for the two people, who were likely to be drunk anyway. It's one person's word against another. How you can convict someone or not based on that alone, I'll never know, but people do. Any "evidence" of rape is also acquired from consensual sex. Correct me if I'm wrong, but circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to convict someone as far as I know.
|
On August 24 2012 03:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 01:43 Tao367 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:40 ComaDose wrote:[quote] you actually willing to admit you said [quote] and you standing by it? I think you have come into a conversation that was already progress, and have taken my comment to mean something without context. We were arguing about the political, social and culultral issues and expectations regarding gender in rape cases at the time. Males face double standards, and almost bullying when getting raped by a woman, whereas the women is "brave" for reporting it. That's why a lower proportion of males report it. Yes I can admit said that. Why wouldn't I? From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male. I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 01:43 Tao367 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:40 ComaDose wrote:[quote] you actually willing to admit you said [quote] and you standing by it? I think you have come into a conversation that was already progress, and have taken my comment to mean something without context. We were arguing about the political, social and culultral issues and expectations regarding gender in rape cases at the time. Males face double standards, and almost bullying when getting raped by a woman, whereas the women is "brave" for reporting it. That's why a lower proportion of males report it. Yes I can admit said that. Why wouldn't I? From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male. I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night? Consent works by the woman choosing to either affirm her consent to sex or refuse her consent to sex. She doesn't enter a promiscuity rating along with her sluttiness quota and the sexiness of her outfit into the consent-o-meter and then say yes or no based upon some arcane formula. The argument is based upon the premise that a woman who is promiscuous is more likely to make a false rape report. There is no evidence to this. I could equally argue (and with more logic behind it) that a woman who is promiscuous is more likely to be familiar with how consent works (you say yes if you do want sex and no if you don't want sex) than a woman who is new to it and may be rusty with exactly how the mechanics of consent work. Ok, so let us imagine that a case is brought before an American court in which a woman alleges rape against a man she knows. In the woman's past is a history of casual sex, substance abuse, and domestic violence. In the man's past is a relatively sterling record of 0 criminal activity, a "normal" sex life, and no indication that he is prone to dishonesty. Suppose that the man is innocent, how is a defense to go about formulating their case?
It doesn't matter for the defense whether the man is innocent. The defense argues the evidence.
Rape cases like this, with minimal physical evidence, comes down to credibility: hers vs. his. They have to put the defendant on the stand and have him argue his version of what happened that night. The defendant has to put on a good show to demonstrate his innocence for the jury. The defendant has to be properly prepped as a witness for any harsh cross-examination by the prosecution.
Given minimal physical evidence, the question comes down to who the Jury believes. You don't have to tear one side down to make your side better.
|
On August 24 2012 03:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:22 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting.
They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting.
They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Consent works by the woman choosing to either affirm her consent to sex or refuse her consent to sex. She doesn't enter a promiscuity rating along with her sluttiness quota and the sexiness of her outfit into the consent-o-meter and then say yes or no based upon some arcane formula. How do you get to suggest that more men should be prosecuted because of your feeling about a potential lack of correlation between promiscuity and sex-related lawsuits? There are innocent men in jail you know, right now. its not suggesting more men should be prosecuted its suggesting rapists should be prosecuted. And by restricting the tools that defense attorneys have, you'll also prosecute men. And sure you'll probably prosecute more rapists too. But you'll also be inflicting a severe blow to the already shaky concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Failing to convict people because of a illogical nonsense argument is not a victory for justice. If they're innocent then find them innocent without bringing up something completely unrelated and then exploiting the idiocy of the jurors. Look I don't know what to say to you people. You want more rapists prosecuted, my retort is that you'll also get more innocent prosecuted.
Are you seriously saying that you don't understand why someone having lots of consensual sex does not make them more likely to lie about having consensual sex?
|
On August 24 2012 03:28 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:26 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:22 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult?
If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult?
If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Consent works by the woman choosing to either affirm her consent to sex or refuse her consent to sex. She doesn't enter a promiscuity rating along with her sluttiness quota and the sexiness of her outfit into the consent-o-meter and then say yes or no based upon some arcane formula. How do you get to suggest that more men should be prosecuted because of your feeling about a potential lack of correlation between promiscuity and sex-related lawsuits? There are innocent men in jail you know, right now. its not suggesting more men should be prosecuted its suggesting rapists should be prosecuted. And by restricting the tools that defense attorneys have, you'll also prosecute men. And sure you'll probably prosecute more rapists too. But you'll also be inflicting a severe blow to the already shaky concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Failing to convict people because of a illogical nonsense argument is not a victory for justice. If they're innocent then find them innocent without bringing up something completely unrelated and then exploiting the idiocy of the jurors. Look I don't know what to say to you people. You want more rapists prosecuted, my retort is that you'll also get more innocent prosecuted. Are you seriously saying that you don't understand why someone having more sex does not make them more likely to lie about having consensual sex?
Are you seriously saying that you know that to be a fact? Jeez, maybe you should bestow that definitely sourced knowledge upon every lawyer who hasn't used that one to prosecute a rapist.
|
United States41983 Posts
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.
|
On August 24 2012 03:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:08 Blurry wrote:Man: Hello, I'd like to report a mugging.
Officer: A mugging, eh? Where did it take place?
Man: I was walking by 21st and Dundritch Street and a man pulled out a gun and said, "Give me all your money."
Officer: And did you?
Man: Yes, I co-operated.
Officer: So you willingly gave the man your money without fighting back, calling for help or trying to escape?
Man: Well, yes, but I was terrified. I thought he was going to kill me!
Officer: Mmm. But you did co-operate with him. And I've been informed that you're quite a philanthropist, too.
Man: I give to charity, yes.
Officer: So you like to give money away. You make a habit of giving money away.
Man: What does that have to do with this situation?
Officer: You knowingly walked down Dundritch Street in your suit when everyone knows you like to give away money, and then you didn't fight back. It sounds like you gave money to someone, but now you're having after-donation regret. Tell me, do you really want to ruin his life because of your mistake?
Man: This is ridiculous!
Officer: This is a rape analogy. This is what women face every single day when they try to bring their rapists to justice. This is a poor analogy because holding someone up at knife point is illegal no matter the circumstances. There are some rare instances where sex is not rape. You missed the point of the analogy. Giving away money isn't always mugging in the same way that sex isn't always rape. Sex is compared with giving away money, force is compared with force. The knife isn't compared with sex.
I'm sorry but now I'm totally confused with your stand on this issue. "Giving away money isn't always mugging in the same way that sex isn't always rape" are irrelevant analogies to the issue of rape. It should be "Mugging is NEVER giving away money (because it is forced from you), just as sex without consent is ALWAYS rape." Please clarify on this.
|
Holy shit you guys blew what I said out of proportion.... It's a simple fact that if you want to do dangerous shit you can get raped, just like if I walk down the same alley and get mugged that was my point... I never said she was "asking for it". This thread is full of such hero's of women... It's rather apparent this has turned from a discussion on how we define rape and what it means/fault placement to comparing fault with "gassing Jew's" as Kwark quickly pointed out.
Time to move onto another thread.
I'll take a lesson from this thread and tell my daughter (if I ever half one) that going down dark alley's is OK at night and you have nothing to worry about and it isn't her fault for being assaulted (mugged/raped etc) for doing so. We'll see how that pans out with the Mrs.
|
On August 24 2012 03:20 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:16 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 01:43 Tao367 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:40 ComaDose wrote:[quote] you actually willing to admit you said [quote] and you standing by it? I think you have come into a conversation that was already progress, and have taken my comment to mean something without context. We were arguing about the political, social and culultral issues and expectations regarding gender in rape cases at the time. Males face double standards, and almost bullying when getting raped by a woman, whereas the women is "brave" for reporting it. That's why a lower proportion of males report it. Yes I can admit said that. Why wouldn't I? From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male. I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 01:43 Tao367 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:40 ComaDose wrote:[quote] you actually willing to admit you said [quote] and you standing by it? I think you have come into a conversation that was already progress, and have taken my comment to mean something without context. We were arguing about the political, social and culultral issues and expectations regarding gender in rape cases at the time. Males face double standards, and almost bullying when getting raped by a woman, whereas the women is "brave" for reporting it. That's why a lower proportion of males report it. Yes I can admit said that. Why wouldn't I? From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male. I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Actually no. Rape cases rarely have innocent rapists, because there's such a low prosecution rate. There are few cases that are reported, those that are reported are rarely prosecuted unless they have a powerful case, and those that are prosecuted are rarely convicted. This is despite the fact that false accusations of rape are exceedingly rare and rarely go to court. So to pretend that alleged rapists are frequently innocent is incorrect. That's not how the justice system works; at least, not in the US. Assumign that the defendant is guilty simply because they're the defendant is contrary to the principle of reasonable doubt. It's against the Constitution. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. You cannot assume that the defendant is guilty.
Not once did I refer to burden or proof or imply that the defendant is guilty simply because they are the defendant. I simply am referring to statistics, and to suggest that falsely accused rapists frequently go to court is not true. That is all I said.
Burden of proof has nothing to do with this. The burden of proof is still on the accuser. Nonetheless, the question should still be leveled at the accused why he perceived consent when none was given, rather than why accuser gave such ambiguous consent to the accused.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 24 2012 03:30 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:28 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 03:26 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:22 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:
[quote]
Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?).
It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Consent works by the woman choosing to either affirm her consent to sex or refuse her consent to sex. She doesn't enter a promiscuity rating along with her sluttiness quota and the sexiness of her outfit into the consent-o-meter and then say yes or no based upon some arcane formula. How do you get to suggest that more men should be prosecuted because of your feeling about a potential lack of correlation between promiscuity and sex-related lawsuits? There are innocent men in jail you know, right now. its not suggesting more men should be prosecuted its suggesting rapists should be prosecuted. And by restricting the tools that defense attorneys have, you'll also prosecute men. And sure you'll probably prosecute more rapists too. But you'll also be inflicting a severe blow to the already shaky concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Failing to convict people because of a illogical nonsense argument is not a victory for justice. If they're innocent then find them innocent without bringing up something completely unrelated and then exploiting the idiocy of the jurors. Look I don't know what to say to you people. You want more rapists prosecuted, my retort is that you'll also get more innocent prosecuted. Are you seriously saying that you don't understand why someone having more sex does not make them more likely to lie about having consensual sex? Are you seriously saying that you know that to be a fact? Jeez, maybe you should bestow that definitely sourced knowledge upon every lawyer who hasn't used that one to prosecute a rapist.
It's irrelevant. Cocks aren't made of a special mineral called liarium which turns people into liars. You don't become more of a liar the more cock you take. It's all completely absurd. Lying and penis have no statistical correlation and to pretend otherwise in court without evidence is damaging to the justice system.
|
On August 24 2012 03:30 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:28 Vega62a wrote:
Are you seriously saying that you don't understand why someone having more sex does not make them more likely to lie about having consensual sex? Are you seriously saying that you know that to be a fact? Jeez, maybe you should bestow that definitely sourced knowledge upon every lawyer who hasn't used that one to prosecute a rapist.
No, see - you're the one who is making an accusation against a large group of people. The burden is on you to prove that X implies Y - in this case, that having lots of consensual sex implies a propensity to lie about having consensual sex. You have offered no such proof. In the absence of such proof, your claims are bunk.
It's irrelevant. Cocks aren't made of a special mineral called liarium which turns people into liars. You don't become more of a liar the more cock you take. It's all completely absurd. Lying and penis have no statistical correlation and to pretend otherwise in court without evidence is damaging to the justice system.
Oh god...I laughed way harder than I probably should have at the section I've bolded.
|
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.
Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?
If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.
Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.
On August 24 2012 03:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:30 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:28 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 03:26 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:22 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Here's the kicker though.
If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent.
Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it.
[quote]
My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form.
What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Consent works by the woman choosing to either affirm her consent to sex or refuse her consent to sex. She doesn't enter a promiscuity rating along with her sluttiness quota and the sexiness of her outfit into the consent-o-meter and then say yes or no based upon some arcane formula. How do you get to suggest that more men should be prosecuted because of your feeling about a potential lack of correlation between promiscuity and sex-related lawsuits? There are innocent men in jail you know, right now. its not suggesting more men should be prosecuted its suggesting rapists should be prosecuted. And by restricting the tools that defense attorneys have, you'll also prosecute men. And sure you'll probably prosecute more rapists too. But you'll also be inflicting a severe blow to the already shaky concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Failing to convict people because of a illogical nonsense argument is not a victory for justice. If they're innocent then find them innocent without bringing up something completely unrelated and then exploiting the idiocy of the jurors. Look I don't know what to say to you people. You want more rapists prosecuted, my retort is that you'll also get more innocent prosecuted. Are you seriously saying that you don't understand why someone having more sex does not make them more likely to lie about having consensual sex? Are you seriously saying that you know that to be a fact? Jeez, maybe you should bestow that definitely sourced knowledge upon every lawyer who hasn't used that one to prosecute a rapist. It's irrelevant. Cocks aren't made of a special mineral called liarium which turns people into liars. You don't become more of a liar the more cock you take. It's all completely absurd. Lying and penis have no statistical correlation and to pretend otherwise in court without evidence is damaging to the justice system.
Adorable argument. I can just hear the judge's hammer - more of that and you'll be held in contempt.
|
On August 24 2012 03:22 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.
I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.
I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Consent works by the woman choosing to either affirm her consent to sex or refuse her consent to sex. She doesn't enter a promiscuity rating along with her sluttiness quota and the sexiness of her outfit into the consent-o-meter and then say yes or no based upon some arcane formula. How do you get to suggest that more men should be prosecuted because of your feeling about a potential lack of correlation between promiscuity and sex-related lawsuits? There are innocent men in jail you know, right now. its not suggesting more men should be prosecuted its suggesting rapists should be prosecuted. And by restricting the tools that defense attorneys have, you'll also prosecute men. And sure you'll probably prosecute more rapists too. But you'll also be inflicting a severe blow to the already shaky concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
Um, no.
The tools for defense attorneys are restricted to rational arguments. If the defense's wants to argue that the defendant is untrustworthy, then a history of untrustworthiness is certainly admissible.
A history of promiscuity does not suggest untrustworthiness. A promiscuous woman is no more likely to lie about rape than a non-promiscuous one. Therefore, admitting it into evidence does not serve to make any rational argument about her credibility.
Remember: the argument is about the lie. Promiscuity has nothing to do with honesty. And therein lies the reason why such evidence should not be admitted: because promiscuity is often seen negatively and bringing it up would unfairly prejudice the jury.
Therefore, admitting it into evidence works against justice.
On August 24 2012 03:22 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:21 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:16 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:56 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.
I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. Why would a person's sexual history matter in a rape case? It doesn't matter if the woman had had sex with every man in a 3 mile radius; if she said no that night, she said no. Literally the only thing that actually matters is if consent was given, and if she says consent wasn't given, and nobody can prove that it was in fact given, then she wins the case. That's the only way this can work. Here's the kicker though. If she SAYS that she said no that night, she may or may not actually have said no. You know that. When the case goes to trial, both sides have to determine whether or not there was consent. The defense's best shot is to suggest that the plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is more likely to have actually given consent. Reality: It's impossible to actually know if rape actually has happened or if she's pretending that it was rape. "Innocent until proven guilty" tries to kick in, that's it. On August 24 2012 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:52 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 02:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 24 2012 01:49 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
From Wikipedia: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.
I know its been constantly been brought up that females raping males is a real problem, but I have some genuine difficulty percieving it as a problem anywhere close in magnitude to male-to-female rape My argument to that would be that Drunk driving kills more people than terrorism ever has (or will) but both should be effectively dealt with. I don't think magnitude should negate responsibility. For instance, that number is so large becasue how many men are going to say "I got so drunk last night that this girl asked me for sex and I don't even remember what happened" and go to court over rape charges? The number is skewed because of the culture we live in, "rape culture" might exist but so does a culture begging for equality while negating its fundamental principle by not creating equal rights and teaching the same values. Do I think rape is wrong? Fuck yah, I also believe some rape victims were stupid in the way they presented themselves (walking down a dark alley at 2 am) the worlds a bad place but is it their fault? Technically no, I'd never say she should not get justice but she was an idiot for doing that just like I would not feel as bad if a multi million dollar man went into the same dark alley and got mugged. So T.T you can call me a rape culture participator if that means that I can see some blame in the victims for how they present themselves or where they go. Bad people are everywhere, it's best to start acknowledging that fact and protecting yourself to it. I guess my stance is highly reflective of my high school chemistry teacher who was talking about a girl named Amber Kirwan who was raped and murdered near my house actually after a night at a club called Dooly's. He went on to say that if it was his child he would have tortured the rapist alive but felt guilty that he never taught his daughter how to protect herself in public as this girl was taken when walking down a dark alley piss loaded, he went on to allude that it was partially her fault in placing herself into the position and warned everyone in class to start taking life more seriously. Have you ever wondered why lawyers drag the sexual history of rape victims into court or bring up what they were wearing etc, even though none of that has any relevance to whether or not consent was given? It's because people like you buy into this "she didn't take appropriate steps to stop herself getting raped" bullshit and then rapists who don't even dispute it get found not guilty. Rapists evade justice because lawyers keep doing it because jurors keep accepting it because it is socially acceptable to blame women for allowing rape to happen by going outside. It's absolutely disgusting. They bring up the sexual history of the ALLEGED rape victim in court as evidence that maybe the person actually gave consent. That's the defense's job, right? To try to prove that the defendant was in fact having sex with a consenting adult? If it were up to you, I'm guessing all the rape cases would immediately go in the plaintiff's favor regardless of actual events. No, if it were up to me I wouldn't dispense of trial by jury and simply arrest everyone and send them to prison. What kind of retarded point is that. I guess if it were up to you you'd gas the Jews (for some reason?). It is a part of the hugely misogynistic system of blaming women for having sex and acting like they shouldn't have it and that those who do have it and enjoy it are sluts. The line of questioning that goes "have you had sex? do you enjoy sex? have you consented to sex in the past? then how are we supposed to believe that you didn't consent to sex this time when you admit to liking sex?" that completely ignores the obvious fact that people can consent to sex some of the time but not all of the time. It's a completely nonsense argument that only carries any weight when the starting assumption is that the recipient thinks all women who have sex are sluts who deserve to be raped. My point wasn't retarded IMO. Your post basically went against one of a defendant's big defense point, and you called the plaintiff in court a "rape victim" with no mention of the word alleged in any form. What I'm picking up is that every rape case has a rapist and a rape victim, when a lot of the time the alleged rapist is innocent. That's why the defense is allowed to bring up the alleged victim's history, in order to determine whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who are promiscuous are more likely to make a frivolous rape report? Because if not then why would the amount of sex they have in any way impact whether they gave consent that night. Do you have any evidence of the contrary though? Burden of proof. When you can't demonstrate that something is relevant, it should be deemed irrelevant. Circumstantial evidence. Girl is known to have more consensual sex, therefore she's more likely to have consensual sex.
... and? The defense isn't merely alleging that consensual sex happened. The defense is alleging that consensual sex happened and she lied about it.
The last part is what the defense needs to demonstrate. That she's untrustworthy. How much consensual sex she had is irrelevant to that point.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 24 2012 03:31 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Holy shit you guys blew what I said out of proportion.... It's a simple fact that if you want to do dangerous shit you can get raped, just like if I walk down the same alley and get mugged that was my point... I never said she was "asking for it". This thread is full of such hero's of women... It's rather apparent this has turned from a discussion on how we define rape and what it means/fault placement to comparing fault with "gassing Jew's" as Kwark quickly pointed out.
Time to move onto another thread.
I'll take a lesson from this thread and tell my daughter (if I ever half one) that going down dark alley's is OK at night and you have nothing to worry about and it isn't her fault for being assaulted (mugged/raped etc) for doing so. We'll see how that pans out with the Mrs.
She's unlikely to get raped in a dark alley. Her big risks for rape are acquaintances, partners, ex-partners and, I'm sorry to say, you. If you wish to tell her which situations to avoid in order to avoid exposing herself to potential rapists, I'd go with the kitchen. Keep her in the kitchen, if she leaves there then she's basically asking for it.
|
On August 24 2012 03:31 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Holy shit you guys blew what I said out of proportion.... It's a simple fact that if you want to do dangerous shit you can get raped, just like if I walk down the same alley and get mugged that was my point... I never said she was "asking for it". This thread is full of such hero's of women... It's rather apparent this has turned from a discussion on how we define rape and what it means/fault placement to comparing fault with "gassing Jew's" as Kwark quickly pointed out.
Time to move onto another thread.
I'll take a lesson from this thread and tell my daughter (if I ever half one) that going down dark alley's is OK at night and you have nothing to worry about and it isn't her fault for being assaulted (mugged/raped etc) for doing so. We'll see how that pans out with the Mrs.
It is always very annoying when people announce they are leaving the thread and then come out with a ridiculous strawman.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.
So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether they're guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?
To requote and bold the amazing parts.
"I know it is not evidence"
|
On August 24 2012 03:31 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Holy shit you guys blew what I said out of proportion.... It's a simple fact that if you want to do dangerous shit you can get raped, just like if I walk down the same alley and get mugged that was my point... I never said she was "asking for it". This thread is full of such hero's of women... It's rather apparent this has turned from a discussion on how we define rape and what it means/fault placement to comparing fault with "gassing Jew's" as Kwark quickly pointed out.
Time to move onto another thread.
I'll take a lesson from this thread and tell my daughter (if I ever half one) that going down dark alley's is OK at night and you have nothing to worry about and it isn't her fault for being assaulted (mugged/raped etc) for doing so. We'll see how that pans out with the Mrs.
No - the concept is, a person who goes down a dark alley can get stabbed, but the law states that no stabbing is allowed. Therefore, regardless of the reason why you go down a dark alley, getting stab does not void the responsibility of the stabber.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
