|
United States41982 Posts
On August 24 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 07:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 06:59 Blurry wrote:
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for. yeah the double standards in society are so hard against men............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I don't like how everyone is pussyfooting around this one. Should the law favor women over men in these "gray rape" cases or not? Haven't seen anyone come out and say they believe it should, but the silence on this issue is defeaning.
No, innocent until proven guilty. That's one of the reasons we need more services that offer immediate post-rape care without pressure or judgement, to increase the standard of evidence so it's not just a case of one person's word against another.
|
On August 24 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 07:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 06:59 Blurry wrote:
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for. yeah the double standards in society are so hard against men............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I don't like how everyone is pussyfooting around this one. Should the law favor women over men in these "gray rape" cases or not? Haven't seen anyone come out and say they believe it should, but the silence on this issue is defeaning. Edit: for the record, I believe in equality under the law.
What do you mean with law "favoring" women over men ? How would that even work ?
|
United States41982 Posts
On August 24 2012 08:43 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 07:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 06:59 Blurry wrote:
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for. yeah the double standards in society are so hard against men............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I don't like how everyone is pussyfooting around this one. Should the law favor women over men in these "gray rape" cases or not? Haven't seen anyone come out and say they believe it should, but the silence on this issue is defeaning. Edit: for the record, I believe in equality under the law. What do you mean with law "favoring" women over men ? How would that even work ?
There's a myth that courts spend all their time locking up innocent men because a crying woman claimed rape. It's not true and that's a good thing. Evidence is needed, as always.
|
On August 24 2012 08:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 08:43 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 07:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 06:59 Blurry wrote:
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for. yeah the double standards in society are so hard against men............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I don't like how everyone is pussyfooting around this one. Should the law favor women over men in these "gray rape" cases or not? Haven't seen anyone come out and say they believe it should, but the silence on this issue is defeaning. Edit: for the record, I believe in equality under the law. What do you mean with law "favoring" women over men ? How would that even work ? There's a myth that courts spend all their time locking up innocent men because a crying woman claimed rape. It's not true and that's a good thing. Evidence is needed, as always.
Not only is it not true, but it's actually the reverse.
|
As someone who is unfamiliar with how courts usually deal with these cases, I'd like to ask how do you prove guilt? It's not like you can measure consent.
|
On August 24 2012 08:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 08:43 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 07:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 06:59 Blurry wrote:
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for. yeah the double standards in society are so hard against men............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I don't like how everyone is pussyfooting around this one. Should the law favor women over men in these "gray rape" cases or not? Haven't seen anyone come out and say they believe it should, but the silence on this issue is defeaning. Edit: for the record, I believe in equality under the law. What do you mean with law "favoring" women over men ? How would that even work ? There's a myth that courts spend all their time locking up innocent men because a crying woman claimed rape. It's not true and that's a good thing. Evidence is needed, as always.
It may not be extremely wide-spread, but it happens.
|
On August 24 2012 08:52 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:
As someone who is unfamiliar with how courts usually deal with these cases, I'd like to ask how do you prove guilt? It's not like you can measure consent.
Similarly like courts measure intent. This is the reason we have judges who are human and thus can understand the situation and are trained to uphold the spirit of the law instead of the letter and also to recognize appeals to emotion, incorrect arguments,... This is of course the reason I dislike juries.
|
On August 24 2012 08:56 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 08:52 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:
As someone who is unfamiliar with how courts usually deal with these cases, I'd like to ask how do you prove guilt? It's not like you can measure consent. Similarly like courts measure intent. This is the reason we have judges who are human and thus can understand the situation and are trained to uphold the spirit of the law instead of the letter and also to recognize appeals to emotion, incorrect arguments,... This is of course the reason I dislike juries.
when I say prove guilt, I mean prove guilt. I think you're mistaken prove with agree on
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law
One quick example of rape laws which only refer to men.
"Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women.
It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist.
These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this.
|
On August 24 2012 09:01 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 08:56 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 08:52 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:
As someone who is unfamiliar with how courts usually deal with these cases, I'd like to ask how do you prove guilt? It's not like you can measure consent. Similarly like courts measure intent. This is the reason we have judges who are human and thus can understand the situation and are trained to uphold the spirit of the law instead of the letter and also to recognize appeals to emotion, incorrect arguments,... This is of course the reason I dislike juries. when I say prove guilt, I mean prove guilt. I think you're mistaken prove with agree on
As I said courts also prove guilt in cases where showing intent is necessary and you can measure intent about as well as consent. Of course depends what you mean by "prove". Courts are not in business of logical proofs. Enough evidence is the required proof and what is enough and what is required varies case from case depending on the circumstances.
|
On August 24 2012 08:52 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:
As someone who is unfamiliar with how courts usually deal with these cases, I'd like to ask how do you prove guilt? It's not like you can measure consent.
You can make a judgment on the level of consent based on the evidence that are presented like you can do with any other crime. What exactly are you asking? I get the sense you are talking about cases where it's just word against word? If it comes down to that and there aren't anything to back up either ones, there won't be a conviction (it would be weird if it even went to trial).
|
On August 24 2012 09:20 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 09:01 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:On August 24 2012 08:56 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 08:52 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:
As someone who is unfamiliar with how courts usually deal with these cases, I'd like to ask how do you prove guilt? It's not like you can measure consent. Similarly like courts measure intent. This is the reason we have judges who are human and thus can understand the situation and are trained to uphold the spirit of the law instead of the letter and also to recognize appeals to emotion, incorrect arguments,... This is of course the reason I dislike juries. when I say prove guilt, I mean prove guilt. I think you're mistaken prove with agree on As I said courts also prove guilt in cases where showing intent is necessary and you can measure intent about as well as consent. Of course depends what you mean by "prove". Courts are not in business of logical proofs. Enough evidence is the required proof and what is enough and what is required varies case from case depending on the circumstances.
Sounds like legal terminology is misleading.
|
On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this.
Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds.
|
On August 24 2012 08:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 08:46 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 08:43 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 07:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 06:59 Blurry wrote:
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for. yeah the double standards in society are so hard against men............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I don't like how everyone is pussyfooting around this one. Should the law favor women over men in these "gray rape" cases or not? Haven't seen anyone come out and say they believe it should, but the silence on this issue is defeaning. Edit: for the record, I believe in equality under the law. What do you mean with law "favoring" women over men ? How would that even work ? There's a myth that courts spend all their time locking up innocent men because a crying woman claimed rape. It's not true and that's a good thing. Evidence is needed, as always. It may not be extremely wide-spread, but it happens.
The thing is, men raping women and getting away with it scot-free IS something that is widespread. So outside of a few very specific contexts, it makes sense to look on somehow who is vociferous about the problem of false rape allegations with skepticism, to say the least.
|
On August 24 2012 09:22 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 09:20 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 09:01 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:On August 24 2012 08:56 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 08:52 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:
As someone who is unfamiliar with how courts usually deal with these cases, I'd like to ask how do you prove guilt? It's not like you can measure consent. Similarly like courts measure intent. This is the reason we have judges who are human and thus can understand the situation and are trained to uphold the spirit of the law instead of the letter and also to recognize appeals to emotion, incorrect arguments,... This is of course the reason I dislike juries. when I say prove guilt, I mean prove guilt. I think you're mistaken prove with agree on As I said courts also prove guilt in cases where showing intent is necessary and you can measure intent about as well as consent. Of course depends what you mean by "prove". Courts are not in business of logical proofs. Enough evidence is the required proof and what is enough and what is required varies case from case depending on the circumstances. Sounds like legal terminology is misleading.
Can you actually explain what you mean by that one-liner, I am not a mind-reader.
|
On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this.
Outdated laws which should be fixed. Of course if they are not already de facto fixed by courts extending the purpose of the law in practice.
|
On August 24 2012 09:25 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 09:22 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:On August 24 2012 09:20 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 09:01 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:On August 24 2012 08:56 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 08:52 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote:
As someone who is unfamiliar with how courts usually deal with these cases, I'd like to ask how do you prove guilt? It's not like you can measure consent. Similarly like courts measure intent. This is the reason we have judges who are human and thus can understand the situation and are trained to uphold the spirit of the law instead of the letter and also to recognize appeals to emotion, incorrect arguments,... This is of course the reason I dislike juries. when I say prove guilt, I mean prove guilt. I think you're mistaken prove with agree on As I said courts also prove guilt in cases where showing intent is necessary and you can measure intent about as well as consent. Of course depends what you mean by "prove". Courts are not in business of logical proofs. Enough evidence is the required proof and what is enough and what is required varies case from case depending on the circumstances. Sounds like legal terminology is misleading. Can you actually explain what you mean by that one-liner, I am not a mind-reader.
What's to explain? My statement was pretty clear and straight forward. But please tell me what you are confused about, then I can maybe help you understand.
|
On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds.
If I told you the vast majority of money launderers are and historically have been white and showed you an entire legal code which defines money laundering as an act committed by a white dude you would probably not be so happy yes? You would probably be able to draw some negative inferences about the opinions and biases of the people who support bias in law such as that yes?
|
On August 24 2012 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 08:54 Mohdoo wrote:On August 24 2012 08:46 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 08:43 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 07:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 24 2012 06:59 Blurry wrote:
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for. yeah the double standards in society are so hard against men............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I don't like how everyone is pussyfooting around this one. Should the law favor women over men in these "gray rape" cases or not? Haven't seen anyone come out and say they believe it should, but the silence on this issue is defeaning. Edit: for the record, I believe in equality under the law. What do you mean with law "favoring" women over men ? How would that even work ? There's a myth that courts spend all their time locking up innocent men because a crying woman claimed rape. It's not true and that's a good thing. Evidence is needed, as always. It may not be extremely wide-spread, but it happens. The thing is, men raping women and getting away with it scot-free IS something that is widespread. So outside of a few very specific contexts, it makes sense to look on somehow who is vociferous about the problem of false rape allegations with skepticism, to say the least.
So because it only happens a little bit (to males), it's fine.
Right, gotcha.
|
If you rape a prostitute, would it be shoplifting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
