|
On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed.
If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim. Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless. If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters.
The point is that the woman's dress is NEVER relevant. Period. A woman can be dressed in a mini and 5" heels and be walking around with the explicit purpose of getting laid, but no fucking means no.
|
On August 24 2012 23:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim. Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless. If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters. The point is that the woman's dress is NEVER relevant. Period. A woman can be dressed in a mini and 5" heels and be walking around with the explicit purpose of getting laid, but no fucking means no.
So the eyewitness that saw the woman in the mini and heels and can establish her location and state of distress will be overlooked because dress isnt relevant and we shouldnt ask about distressing subjects. Or the serial rapist who specifically targets women in unassuming drab clothing gets off scot free because police didnt have the clue they needed to connect the cases.
|
If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless.
A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job.
You're sidestepping the issue. A woman's clothing, regarding rape cases, is universally used as a benchmark in judging her promiscuity. I felt like the promiscuity argument was shot down pretty hard earlier in the thread.
|
Would her clothes not be evidence? I don't understand this argument at all sin e what she was wearing will be common knowledge to those who need it. You both have very valid points and reasoning but I think he argument is moot. Those who do need the information will get it. You can't argue it's not germane to the case. There are people who would judge the perceived promiscuity and they don't need to know.
|
"If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless. "
In a court of law maybe. In practice it might be the only lead.
"A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job."
Better to err on the side of giving police the information they think they need, in my view. Police are trained to avoid causing undue trauma, when they do so anyway THAT is when they are not doing their job.
If a person was raped they were raped. Doesn't matter what clothing they were wearing. Here we agree.
If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. People are more likely to buy and wear certain types of clothing, lingerie, etc before going out and attempting to find a partner for consensual sex. It doesn't automatically mean all sex acts afterward are consensual, but the choice of clothing, grooming, and other factors is not IRRELEVANT.
http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/164458.pdf
http://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/articles/articles/publications/211-2004-DiscoClothing.pdf
http://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdf
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/01/24/ncbi-rofl-the-effect-of-womens-suggestive-clothing-on-mens-behavior-and-judgment-a-field-study/
http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/hortonr/pubs/Drwecki, Przy, and Horton.pdf
Again, i do not mean that sexy clothes are an invitation to rape. Merely that they are related to the desire to attract members of the opposite sex, for potentially amorous purposes. Certainly not to be used as the definitive evidence for consent, but not an irrelevant and unrelated factor when we are talking about consensual sex.
|
On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:
If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely.
Implied consent is not consent. If it were, sleeping with someone drunk out of their minds would not be statutory rape.
|
On August 24 2012 05:46 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:26 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
Important thing to remember:
Whethere someone is nuked or not, wearing slutty clothes or wrapped all over, drunk or not, you DO NOT have any reason to rape her, much less have sex with her without her conscious intelligent consent. End of story. So it's rape if a girl is drunk, a guy asks to fuck, she says okay, undresses herself and sits upon the man. Then when she's sober she can say that she only said okay since she was drunk and so it's rape? Since "conscious intelligent consent" requires her to be sober? Are you implying that? to the above discussion (about women faking it), i believe it does happen a lot myself. women are treated very very easily in US courts (idk about other countries) and get off all the time on murder charges etc because they say "they were crazy, depressed, etc etc", but if a man tries that he still goes to prison.
I am not implying anything.(You sound like a 2-bit prosecutor who is trying to set a trap to build a counter argument on.) I meant is as it is. We have to establish conscious intelligent consent. There are obviously many levels of being drunk and being conscious and intelligent about your decisions. It is not my field of expertise to determine the levels of still being able to execute conscious intelligent decision under the influence of alcohol, so don't ask me how we measure it. I am stating though that this condition should be the most basic and important one in determining the dynamics whether there was consent or not.
|
On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:"If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless. " In a court of law maybe. In practice it might be the only lead. "A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job." Better to err on the side of giving police the information they think they need, in my view. Police are trained to avoid causing undue trauma, when they do so anyway THAT is when they are not doing their job. If a person was raped they were raped. Doesn't matter what clothing they were wearing. Here we agree. If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. People are more likely to buy and wear certain types of clothing, lingerie, etc before going out and attempting to find a partner for consensual sex. It doesn't automatically mean all sex acts afterward are consensual, but the choice of clothing, grooming, and other factors is not IRRELEVANT. http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/164458.pdfhttp://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/articles/articles/publications/211-2004-DiscoClothing.pdfhttp://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdfhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/01/24/ncbi-rofl-the-effect-of-womens-suggestive-clothing-on-mens-behavior-and-judgment-a-field-study/Again, i do not mean that sexy clothes are an invitation to rape. Merely that they are related to the desire to attract members of the opposite sex, for potentially amorous purposes. Certainly not to be used as the definitive evidence for consent, but not an irrelevant and unrelated factor when we are talking about consensual sex.
You're a shithead.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:"If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless. " In a court of law maybe. In practice it might be the only lead. "A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job." Better to err on the side of giving police the information they think they need, in my view. Police are trained to avoid causing undue trauma, when they do so anyway THAT is when they are not doing their job. If a person was raped they were raped. Doesn't matter what clothing they were wearing. Here we agree. If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. People are more likely to buy and wear certain types of clothing, lingerie, etc before going out and attempting to find a partner for consensual sex. It doesn't automatically mean all sex acts afterward are consensual, but the choice of clothing, grooming, and other factors is not IRRELEVANT. http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/164458.pdfhttp://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/articles/articles/publications/211-2004-DiscoClothing.pdfhttp://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdfhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/01/24/ncbi-rofl-the-effect-of-womens-suggestive-clothing-on-mens-behavior-and-judgment-a-field-study/http://articles.lovingyou.com/love/singles-dating/study-confirms-clothes-make-the-man/Again, i do not mean that sexy clothes are an invitation to rape. Merely that they are related to the desire to attract members of the opposite sex, for potentially amorous purposes. Certainly not to be used as the definitive evidence for consent, but not an irrelevant and unrelated factor when we are talking about consensual sex.
Here's the problem with this logic.
If both persons agree that sexual contact happen, and what they disagree on is the question of consent, then the purpose of the trial is about determining consent.
If a woman's clothing is allowed to contributes to consent (in the minds of the jurors), then that basically means that a woman who wears something skimpy has less of a right to deny sex to the defendant. That clothing implies consent to some degree.
That's where we start getting into issues of male entitilement. By this logic, dressing provocatively means "have sex with me." Since it's an open invitation, men are owed sex from a woman dressed provocatively. Effectively, by dressing in an attractive manor, she has lost part of her right to not consent to sex.
That may not be the intent of allowing such evidence. But it is the undeniable effect of it: raising the standard for lack of consent due to what someone was wearing.
|
On August 24 2012 23:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim. Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless. If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters. The point is that the woman's dress is NEVER relevant. Period. A woman can be dressed in a mini and 5" heels and be walking around with the explicit purpose of getting laid, but no fucking means no.
Nobody is disputing that no (fucking) means no. But the woman's dress is one of the very few things that can be used to establish if there indeed was a no. It's not very good evidence, but good evidence is often hard to find in these cases and that's why we have to use the not-so-good evidence. And that's why it is relevant.
On August 25 2012 01:03 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:"If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless. " In a court of law maybe. In practice it might be the only lead. "A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job." Better to err on the side of giving police the information they think they need, in my view. Police are trained to avoid causing undue trauma, when they do so anyway THAT is when they are not doing their job. If a person was raped they were raped. Doesn't matter what clothing they were wearing. Here we agree. If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. People are more likely to buy and wear certain types of clothing, lingerie, etc before going out and attempting to find a partner for consensual sex. It doesn't automatically mean all sex acts afterward are consensual, but the choice of clothing, grooming, and other factors is not IRRELEVANT. http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/164458.pdfhttp://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/articles/articles/publications/211-2004-DiscoClothing.pdfhttp://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdfhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/01/24/ncbi-rofl-the-effect-of-womens-suggestive-clothing-on-mens-behavior-and-judgment-a-field-study/http://articles.lovingyou.com/love/singles-dating/study-confirms-clothes-make-the-man/Again, i do not mean that sexy clothes are an invitation to rape. Merely that they are related to the desire to attract members of the opposite sex, for potentially amorous purposes. Certainly not to be used as the definitive evidence for consent, but not an irrelevant and unrelated factor when we are talking about consensual sex. Here's the problem with this logic. If both persons agree that sexual contact happen, and what they disagree on is the question of consent, then the purpose of the trial is about determining consent. If a woman's clothing is allowed to contributes to consent (in the minds of the jurors), then that basically means that a woman who wears something skimpy has less of a right to deny sex to the defendant. That clothing implies consent to some degree. That's where we start getting into issues of male entitilement. By this logic, dressing provocatively means "have sex with me." Since it's an open invitation, men are owed sex from a woman dressed provocatively. Effectively, by dressing in an attractive manor, she has lost part of her right to not consent to sex. That may not be the intent of allowing such evidence. But it is the undeniable effect of it: raising the standard for lack of consent due to what someone was wearing.
It's not the undeniable effect of it. I'm denying it. There's no "male entitlement" going on here. Provocative dressing is designed to make others want to have sex with you. Usually the reason you want that effect is because you want to have sex with (some of) them. It doesn't entitle anyone to anything, it simply means that the clothes are signaling potential consent. She still has the full right to not consent, it just makes it ever so slightly less probable that she did.
On August 25 2012 00:54 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:
If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. Implied consent is not consent. If it were, sleeping with someone drunk out of their minds would not be statutory rape.
If implied consent isn't consent, then every person who has had sex without first hearing the words "I want to have sex with you right at this moment" is a rapist.
|
On August 25 2012 01:07 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 23:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes.
For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
[quote]
I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim. Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless. If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters. The point is that the woman's dress is NEVER relevant. Period. A woman can be dressed in a mini and 5" heels and be walking around with the explicit purpose of getting laid, but no fucking means no. Nobody is disputing that no (fucking) means no. But the woman's dress is one of the very few things that can be used to establish if there indeed was a no. It's not very good evidence, but good evidence is often hard to find in these cases and that's why we have to use the not-so-good evidence. And that's why it is relevant. Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:03 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:"If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless. " In a court of law maybe. In practice it might be the only lead. "A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job." Better to err on the side of giving police the information they think they need, in my view. Police are trained to avoid causing undue trauma, when they do so anyway THAT is when they are not doing their job. If a person was raped they were raped. Doesn't matter what clothing they were wearing. Here we agree. If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. People are more likely to buy and wear certain types of clothing, lingerie, etc before going out and attempting to find a partner for consensual sex. It doesn't automatically mean all sex acts afterward are consensual, but the choice of clothing, grooming, and other factors is not IRRELEVANT. http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/164458.pdfhttp://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/articles/articles/publications/211-2004-DiscoClothing.pdfhttp://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdfhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/01/24/ncbi-rofl-the-effect-of-womens-suggestive-clothing-on-mens-behavior-and-judgment-a-field-study/http://articles.lovingyou.com/love/singles-dating/study-confirms-clothes-make-the-man/Again, i do not mean that sexy clothes are an invitation to rape. Merely that they are related to the desire to attract members of the opposite sex, for potentially amorous purposes. Certainly not to be used as the definitive evidence for consent, but not an irrelevant and unrelated factor when we are talking about consensual sex. Here's the problem with this logic. If both persons agree that sexual contact happen, and what they disagree on is the question of consent, then the purpose of the trial is about determining consent. If a woman's clothing is allowed to contributes to consent (in the minds of the jurors), then that basically means that a woman who wears something skimpy has less of a right to deny sex to the defendant. That clothing implies consent to some degree. That's where we start getting into issues of male entitilement. By this logic, dressing provocatively means "have sex with me." Since it's an open invitation, men are owed sex from a woman dressed provocatively. Effectively, by dressing in an attractive manor, she has lost part of her right to not consent to sex. That may not be the intent of allowing such evidence. But it is the undeniable effect of it: raising the standard for lack of consent due to what someone was wearing. It's not the undeniable effect of it. I'm denying it. There's no "male entitlement" going on here. Provocative dressing is designed to make others want to have sex with you. Usually the reason you want that effect is because you want to have sex with (some of) them. It doesn't entitle anyone to anything, it simply means that the clothes are signaling potential consent. She still has the full right to not consent, it just makes it ever so slightly less probable that she did.
That's ridiculous. The clothing might mean she was trying to get attention and might have been willing to grant consent to people under the correct circumstances, but that does not under any circumstances, imply that any of those circumstances came into being.
What if the attractively dressed woman is a lesbian? Do the clothes she's wearing to attract other women imply consent where men are concerned as well? What about swimwear? Swimwear is frequently more revealing than clothes women wear to clubs or bars, does that mean that putting on a bikini to swim is implied consent?
Is it even possible to rape a stripper, by this logic, when it's her job to take off her clothes and turn men on?
This is why people say it's irrelevant. The exact same logic removes the freedom of choice from women. Wearing sexy clothes is a choice, but it's not a choice to have sex. Raping a nudist or a stripper or a pornstar is still rape. Saying that their clothes meant they wanted it is just an attempt to lay the blame elsewhere.
The fact of the matter is, people who commit crimes are guilty of committing crimes. Not the victims, not the people who write the laws. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the law, it doesn't matter what your reasoning was. Unless you're of severely diminished capacity (to the point where you're not considered legally responsible for your own actions), what you do is still on you, and not on anyone else.
|
Point is that in a case without factual evidence it's all about the mights and maybes.
If there is no conclusive proof toward either story, with one person denying charges of rape and the other person accusing, then it is relevant, because there are only probabilities.
So person A says no rape and person B says rape, what's going to happen?
Well, if person B was only wearing X shaped tape over their nipples and fishnet stockings then the chance of it actually being rape are considerably smaller than if that person was wearing, for example, a pair of normal jeans and a tshirt.
Should this be the deciding factor in a perfect world? Hell no. But if you don't acknowledge those kinds of things you'd be doing more harm than good.
|
On August 25 2012 01:07 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 23:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes.
For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
[quote]
I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim. Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless. If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters. The point is that the woman's dress is NEVER relevant. Period. A woman can be dressed in a mini and 5" heels and be walking around with the explicit purpose of getting laid, but no fucking means no. Nobody is disputing that no (fucking) means no. But the woman's dress is one of the very few things that can be used to establish if there indeed was a no. It's not very good evidence, but good evidence is often hard to find in these cases and that's why we have to use the not-so-good evidence. And that's why it is relevant.
Introducing "not-so-good evidence" is "not-so-good" at achieving justice. We only allow good evidence into trials. Indeed, that's what evidence means: facts that lead directly to the conclusion.
What she was wearing does not; at best, it is far too muddled and inconclusive to mean anything with regard to consent.
On August 25 2012 01:07 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:03 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:"If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless. " In a court of law maybe. In practice it might be the only lead. "A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job." Better to err on the side of giving police the information they think they need, in my view. Police are trained to avoid causing undue trauma, when they do so anyway THAT is when they are not doing their job. If a person was raped they were raped. Doesn't matter what clothing they were wearing. Here we agree. If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. People are more likely to buy and wear certain types of clothing, lingerie, etc before going out and attempting to find a partner for consensual sex. It doesn't automatically mean all sex acts afterward are consensual, but the choice of clothing, grooming, and other factors is not IRRELEVANT. http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/164458.pdfhttp://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/articles/articles/publications/211-2004-DiscoClothing.pdfhttp://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdfhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/01/24/ncbi-rofl-the-effect-of-womens-suggestive-clothing-on-mens-behavior-and-judgment-a-field-study/http://articles.lovingyou.com/love/singles-dating/study-confirms-clothes-make-the-man/Again, i do not mean that sexy clothes are an invitation to rape. Merely that they are related to the desire to attract members of the opposite sex, for potentially amorous purposes. Certainly not to be used as the definitive evidence for consent, but not an irrelevant and unrelated factor when we are talking about consensual sex. Here's the problem with this logic. If both persons agree that sexual contact happen, and what they disagree on is the question of consent, then the purpose of the trial is about determining consent. If a woman's clothing is allowed to contributes to consent (in the minds of the jurors), then that basically means that a woman who wears something skimpy has less of a right to deny sex to the defendant. That clothing implies consent to some degree. That's where we start getting into issues of male entitilement. By this logic, dressing provocatively means "have sex with me." Since it's an open invitation, men are owed sex from a woman dressed provocatively. Effectively, by dressing in an attractive manor, she has lost part of her right to not consent to sex. That may not be the intent of allowing such evidence. But it is the undeniable effect of it: raising the standard for lack of consent due to what someone was wearing. It's not the undeniable effect of it. I'm denying it. There's no "male entitlement" going on here. Provocative dressing is designed to make others want to have sex with you. Usually the reason you want that effect is because you want to have sex with (some of) them. It doesn't entitle anyone to anything, it simply means that the clothes are signaling potential consent. She still has the full right to not consent, it just makes it ever so slightly less probable that she did.
You can deny it, but that doesn't make it not true. If you say that a rape victim dressed provocatively is more likely to have her rapist go free, then you're saying that men will be more able to rape provocatively dressed women and get away with it.
Why should a woman refuse sex to a man in such a situation? He can just rape her and get away with it, after all. How is that not entitlement? The very act of wearing certain clothes now automatically means that anyone can do as they like with her, becuase the question of consent has become muddled by "evidence" that you yourself state is "not-so-good".
If you dress sexily, men now can ignore your consent because their lawyers can just say, "well, she dressed sexy, so there were mixed signals, so there isn't enough evidence to convict, so throw it out."
On August 25 2012 01:07 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 00:54 Nightfall.589 wrote:On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:
If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. Implied consent is not consent. If it were, sleeping with someone drunk out of their minds would not be statutory rape. If implied consent isn't consent, then every person who has had sex without first hearing the words "I want to have sex with you right at this moment" is a rapist.
There are levels of implied consent. What someone is wearing is not one of them.
|
See, you're coming at it with preconceived notions that border on being an apologist. The clothes don't say yes. The clothes don't imply consent. The clothes are a fashion choice, the clothes are not a statement of being a willing sexual partner with any person.
I notice you avoid actually responding to the points I made.
I also don't think you're even vaguely on the right track regarding the way people dress. I'd expect a person who's willing to go out to a club in bondage gear or something like that to be less likely to falsely accuse someone of rape, because odds are they're comfortable with their sexuality.
|
On August 25 2012 01:24 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:07 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 23:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence.
And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think.
I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty.
Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim. Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless. If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters. The point is that the woman's dress is NEVER relevant. Period. A woman can be dressed in a mini and 5" heels and be walking around with the explicit purpose of getting laid, but no fucking means no. Nobody is disputing that no (fucking) means no. But the woman's dress is one of the very few things that can be used to establish if there indeed was a no. It's not very good evidence, but good evidence is often hard to find in these cases and that's why we have to use the not-so-good evidence. And that's why it is relevant. On August 25 2012 01:03 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:"If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless. " In a court of law maybe. In practice it might be the only lead. "A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job." Better to err on the side of giving police the information they think they need, in my view. Police are trained to avoid causing undue trauma, when they do so anyway THAT is when they are not doing their job. If a person was raped they were raped. Doesn't matter what clothing they were wearing. Here we agree. If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. People are more likely to buy and wear certain types of clothing, lingerie, etc before going out and attempting to find a partner for consensual sex. It doesn't automatically mean all sex acts afterward are consensual, but the choice of clothing, grooming, and other factors is not IRRELEVANT. http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/164458.pdfhttp://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/articles/articles/publications/211-2004-DiscoClothing.pdfhttp://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdfhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/01/24/ncbi-rofl-the-effect-of-womens-suggestive-clothing-on-mens-behavior-and-judgment-a-field-study/http://articles.lovingyou.com/love/singles-dating/study-confirms-clothes-make-the-man/Again, i do not mean that sexy clothes are an invitation to rape. Merely that they are related to the desire to attract members of the opposite sex, for potentially amorous purposes. Certainly not to be used as the definitive evidence for consent, but not an irrelevant and unrelated factor when we are talking about consensual sex. Here's the problem with this logic. If both persons agree that sexual contact happen, and what they disagree on is the question of consent, then the purpose of the trial is about determining consent. If a woman's clothing is allowed to contributes to consent (in the minds of the jurors), then that basically means that a woman who wears something skimpy has less of a right to deny sex to the defendant. That clothing implies consent to some degree. That's where we start getting into issues of male entitilement. By this logic, dressing provocatively means "have sex with me." Since it's an open invitation, men are owed sex from a woman dressed provocatively. Effectively, by dressing in an attractive manor, she has lost part of her right to not consent to sex. That may not be the intent of allowing such evidence. But it is the undeniable effect of it: raising the standard for lack of consent due to what someone was wearing. It's not the undeniable effect of it. I'm denying it. There's no "male entitlement" going on here. Provocative dressing is designed to make others want to have sex with you. Usually the reason you want that effect is because you want to have sex with (some of) them. It doesn't entitle anyone to anything, it simply means that the clothes are signaling potential consent. She still has the full right to not consent, it just makes it ever so slightly less probable that she did. That's ridiculous. The clothing might mean she was trying to get attention and might have been willing to grant consent to people under the correct circumstances, but that does not under any circumstances, imply that any of those circumstances came into being. What if the attractively dressed woman is a lesbian? Do the clothes she's wearing to attract other women imply consent where men are concerned as well? What about swimwear? Swimwear is frequently more revealing than clothes women wear to clubs or bars, does that mean that putting on a bikini to swim is implied consent?
If the woman is a lesbian, that means she is not interested in having sex with men. Nobody would bring up the clothes in a trial of alleged rape against a lesbian, because everyone except you already understands my previous sentence.
Is it even possible to rape a stripper, by this logic, when it's her job to take off her clothes and turn men on?
What a dumb question. Fucking read what I wrote.
This is why people say it's irrelevant. The exact same logic removes the freedom of choice from women. Wearing sexy clothes is a choice, but it's not a choice to have sex. Raping a nudist or a stripper or a pornstar is still rape. Saying that their clothes meant they wanted it is just an attempt to lay the blame elsewhere.
No, it does not remove any freedom of choice from anyone. They still have the same freedom to choose who they want to have sex with. But their clothes might mean that they wanted it.
Consider this scenario: a woman enters a bar naked, except for a sign hanging from her neck that says "free slut for all to use". That woman has previously written very long entries, over a duration of several months, in her private diary about wanting to have sex at any cost. The last entry says explicitly that "if I don't get fucked tonight, I will kill myself". She announces via shouting to all the visitors of the bar: "I will have sex right here, right now, with any man who so chooses!". One guy takes her up on it and she doesn't object or struggle as he puts his penis in her vagina and thrusts for a good 15 minutes. Finally some policemen arrive separate the two. The woman says to the police, "that man just raped me".
Now, there is nobody who will say that the woman no longer has the right to not consent. It's very possible that she did not want to have sex with that man. But is it likely? No, not really. Because all her actions signaled that she did indeed want to have sex with him. She still fully retains her freedom to choose who she wants to sleep with, and even whether she wants to sleep with anyone at all. She can still be raped, and if she was indeed raped then it doesn't matter that she was naked or told people that she would gladly have sex with them. But her previous actions make it seem like there indeed was consent. Would you believe that she was raped?
This is the exact same logic that we are using with dressing provocatively. It's just applied to a very extreme case. The exact same logic did not remove any freedom of choice. But it is relevant when no better evidence is available.
The fact of the matter is, people who commit crimes are guilty of committing crimes. Not the victims, not the people who write the laws. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the law, it doesn't matter what your reasoning was. Unless you're of severely diminished capacity (to the point where you're not considered legally responsible for your own actions), what you do is still on you, and not on anyone else.
So?
|
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here.
The point is that it only matters when there is no other evidence.
As I've already written, in most cases it's muddled as hell anyway, so having anything to go by is better than nothing, even if it should never be used as solitary and conclusive proof.
|
On August 25 2012 01:41 Zoesan wrote:
Point is that in a case without factual evidence it's all about the mights and maybes.
If there is no conclusive proof toward either story, with one person denying charges of rape and the other person accusing, then it is relevant, because there are only probabilities.
So person A says no rape and person B says rape, what's going to happen?
If that's the only evidence, then the prosection loses due to lack of evidence. In such cases, they wouldn't even bother bringing it to trial.
On August 25 2012 01:41 Zoesan wrote:
Well, if person B was only wearing X shaped tape over their nipples and fishnet stockings then the chance of it actually being rape are considerably smaller than if that person was wearing, for example, a pair of normal jeans and a tshirt.
Says who?
There's no linkage between dressing sexy and whether she consented to sex here. Dressing sexy is not consent, implicitly or explicitly.
It is fundamentally no different from trying to introduce statistical evidence that black people are more likely to commit theft in the case of a black man being charged with stealing. We don't allow that sort of statistical arguments in trials, so why would we allow something similar in rape cases?
On August 25 2012 01:41 Zoesan wrote:
Should this be the deciding factor in a perfect world? Hell no. But if you don't acknowledge those kinds of things you'd be doing more harm than good.
Why? What are you not acknowledging? Bad evidence is bad evidence, period. You don't make the justice system better by introducing bad evidence.
|
On August 25 2012 01:48 Zoesan wrote:
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here.
The point is that it only matters when there is no other evidence.
As I've already written, in most cases it's muddled as hell anyway, so having anything to go by is better than nothing, even if it should never be used as solitary and conclusive proof.
No. Bad evidence is bad evidence. If you have nothing to go on, bad evidence is still bad evidence.
Furthermore, if you have nothing to go on, then the trial is over and the prosecution has already lost. That's what the presumption of innocense is all about: if the state didn't make its burden, the defendant walks free.
|
Introducing "not-so-good evidence" is "not-so-good" at achieving justice. We only allow good evidence into trials. Indeed, that's what evidence means: facts that lead directly to the conclusion.
What she was wearing does not; at best, it is far too muddled and inconclusive to mean anything with regard to consent.
Not-so-good evidence is also known as circumstantial evidence. It is allowed into trials and used all the time, for good reason.
On August 25 2012 01:45 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:07 gedatsu wrote:
It's not the undeniable effect of it. I'm denying it. There's no "male entitlement" going on here. Provocative dressing is designed to make others want to have sex with you. Usually the reason you want that effect is because you want to have sex with (some of) them. It doesn't entitle anyone to anything, it simply means that the clothes are signaling potential consent. She still has the full right to not consent, it just makes it ever so slightly less probable that she did. You can deny it, but that doesn't make it not true. If you say that a rape victim dressed provocatively is more likely to have her rapist go free, then you're saying that men will be more able to rape provocatively dressed women and get away with it.
It is not true.
A robbery victim who tells people "here, take my money if you want" is more likely to have his robber go free. Does that mean we shouldn't people on trial to point out the fact that the alleged victim did say those things?
Why should a woman refuse sex to a man in such a situation? He can just rape her and get away with it, after all. How is that not entitlement? The very act of wearing certain clothes now automatically means that anyone can do as they like with her, becuase the question of consent has become muddled by "evidence" that you yourself state is "not-so-good".
If you dress sexily, men now can ignore your consent because their lawyers can just say, "well, she dressed sexy, so there were mixed signals, so there isn't enough evidence to convict, so throw it out."
What utter nonsense.
Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:07 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 00:54 Nightfall.589 wrote:On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:
If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. Implied consent is not consent. If it were, sleeping with someone drunk out of their minds would not be statutory rape. If implied consent isn't consent, then every person who has had sex without first hearing the words "I want to have sex with you right at this moment" is a rapist. There are levels of implied consent. What someone is wearing is not one of them.
Yes, it is one of them. One of the weakest ones.
|
On August 25 2012 01:48 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:24 JingleHell wrote:On August 25 2012 01:07 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 23:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter.
The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime.
It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime.
[quote]
Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital."
The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials.
[quote]
Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim. Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless. If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters. The point is that the woman's dress is NEVER relevant. Period. A woman can be dressed in a mini and 5" heels and be walking around with the explicit purpose of getting laid, but no fucking means no. Nobody is disputing that no (fucking) means no. But the woman's dress is one of the very few things that can be used to establish if there indeed was a no. It's not very good evidence, but good evidence is often hard to find in these cases and that's why we have to use the not-so-good evidence. And that's why it is relevant. On August 25 2012 01:03 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:"If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless. " In a court of law maybe. In practice it might be the only lead. "A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job." Better to err on the side of giving police the information they think they need, in my view. Police are trained to avoid causing undue trauma, when they do so anyway THAT is when they are not doing their job. If a person was raped they were raped. Doesn't matter what clothing they were wearing. Here we agree. If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. People are more likely to buy and wear certain types of clothing, lingerie, etc before going out and attempting to find a partner for consensual sex. It doesn't automatically mean all sex acts afterward are consensual, but the choice of clothing, grooming, and other factors is not IRRELEVANT. http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/164458.pdfhttp://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/articles/articles/publications/211-2004-DiscoClothing.pdfhttp://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdfhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/01/24/ncbi-rofl-the-effect-of-womens-suggestive-clothing-on-mens-behavior-and-judgment-a-field-study/http://articles.lovingyou.com/love/singles-dating/study-confirms-clothes-make-the-man/Again, i do not mean that sexy clothes are an invitation to rape. Merely that they are related to the desire to attract members of the opposite sex, for potentially amorous purposes. Certainly not to be used as the definitive evidence for consent, but not an irrelevant and unrelated factor when we are talking about consensual sex. Here's the problem with this logic. If both persons agree that sexual contact happen, and what they disagree on is the question of consent, then the purpose of the trial is about determining consent. If a woman's clothing is allowed to contributes to consent (in the minds of the jurors), then that basically means that a woman who wears something skimpy has less of a right to deny sex to the defendant. That clothing implies consent to some degree. That's where we start getting into issues of male entitilement. By this logic, dressing provocatively means "have sex with me." Since it's an open invitation, men are owed sex from a woman dressed provocatively. Effectively, by dressing in an attractive manor, she has lost part of her right to not consent to sex. That may not be the intent of allowing such evidence. But it is the undeniable effect of it: raising the standard for lack of consent due to what someone was wearing. It's not the undeniable effect of it. I'm denying it. There's no "male entitlement" going on here. Provocative dressing is designed to make others want to have sex with you. Usually the reason you want that effect is because you want to have sex with (some of) them. It doesn't entitle anyone to anything, it simply means that the clothes are signaling potential consent. She still has the full right to not consent, it just makes it ever so slightly less probable that she did. That's ridiculous. The clothing might mean she was trying to get attention and might have been willing to grant consent to people under the correct circumstances, but that does not under any circumstances, imply that any of those circumstances came into being. What if the attractively dressed woman is a lesbian? Do the clothes she's wearing to attract other women imply consent where men are concerned as well? What about swimwear? Swimwear is frequently more revealing than clothes women wear to clubs or bars, does that mean that putting on a bikini to swim is implied consent? If the woman is a lesbian, that means she is not interested in having sex with men. Nobody would bring up the clothes in a trial of alleged rape against a lesbian, because everyone except you already understands my previous sentence. Show nested quote +Is it even possible to rape a stripper, by this logic, when it's her job to take off her clothes and turn men on? What a dumb question. Fucking read what I wrote. Show nested quote +This is why people say it's irrelevant. The exact same logic removes the freedom of choice from women. Wearing sexy clothes is a choice, but it's not a choice to have sex. Raping a nudist or a stripper or a pornstar is still rape. Saying that their clothes meant they wanted it is just an attempt to lay the blame elsewhere. No, it does not remove any freedom of choice from anyone. They still have the same freedom to choose who they want to have sex with. But their clothes might mean that they wanted it. Consider this scenario: a woman enters a bar naked, except for a sign hanging from her neck that says "free slut for all to use". That woman has previously written very long entries, over a duration of several months, in her private diary about wanting to have sex at any cost. The last entry says explicitly that "if I don't get fucked tonight, I will kill myself". She announces via shouting to all the visitors of the bar: "I will have sex right here, right now, with any man who so chooses!". One guy takes her up on it and she doesn't object or struggle as he puts his penis in her vagina and thrusts for a good 15 minutes. Finally some policemen arrive separate the two. The woman says to the police, "that man just raped me". Now, there is nobody who will say that the woman no longer has the right to not consent. It's very possible that she did not want to have sex with that man. But is it likely? No, not really. Because all her actions signaled that she did indeed want to have sex with him. She still fully retains her freedom to choose who she wants to sleep with, and even whether she wants to sleep with anyone at all. She can still be raped, and if she was indeed raped then it doesn't matter that she was naked or told people that she would gladly have sex with them. But her previous actions make it seem like there indeed was consent. Would you believe that she was raped? This is the exact same logic that we are using with dressing provocatively. It's just applied to a very extreme case. The exact same logic did not remove any freedom of choice. But it is relevant when no better evidence is available. Show nested quote +The fact of the matter is, people who commit crimes are guilty of committing crimes. Not the victims, not the people who write the laws. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the law, it doesn't matter what your reasoning was. Unless you're of severely diminished capacity (to the point where you're not considered legally responsible for your own actions), what you do is still on you, and not on anyone else. So?
You should avoid ad hominem attacks.
Also, if being dressed provocatively doesn't imply consent where a lesbian being raped by a man is concerned, why does it imply consent where a straight woman raped by a man is concerned? If the clothes truly imply a level of consent to the person committing the rape, then why does sexual preference come into play at all? If it's a lesbian who gets raped, and the man hasn't been told she's a lesbian at the time, the clothes could still imply consent, if they were capable of doing so, yes?
That's why there's a problem with "implied consent". As soon as you judge a person's interest by the way they were dressed, it removes an amount of their ability to choose their sexual partners.
And your bizarre hypothetical about the "suicidal slut" is completely irrelevant, because you're talking about a case with evidence to make a point about your hypothetical cases that have no evidence besides dress. That's people witnessing consent, versus "implied" consent via clothing.
It's completely absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
