|
I think I didn't make my argument clearly, no evidence of rape. There is still evidence of sex.
Depending on the justice system (hi sweden) even without explicit proof there can be severe repercussions for the accused, even if the entire story is fabricated because (european) sexual assault law is ridiculously biased toward the alleged victim.
Also, if you've ever been to a court hearing, you'd know that bad evidence doesn't get thrown out, it gets blown out of proportion. (I currently spend a stupid amount of time at court because the company that built my parents house is out of cash and blablabla. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just there for the giggles. But my point remains, in a real case everything matters.
Also the analogy to the statistics with the black person doesn't hold, because ethnicity is no choice, dressing is. If you don't think that the way a person dresses has something to do with their willingness to jump into someones bed, then you clearly haven't been out much in the past few years.
|
On August 24 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement. I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen. Show nested quote +
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
Show nested quote +PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her). He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing.
With apologies in advance to dear old Kwark, but does anyone else see the sublime irony of this testimony? This is the triumph of newspeak at its best.
What is real is unreal and what is unreal is real.
|
Canada11278 Posts
On August 25 2012 01:56 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:45 NicolBolas wrote: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? *snip Yes, it is one of them. One of the weakest ones.
That is such a ludicrous analogy. How exactly does a women dress that implies consent with absolutely any male in the vicinity? It makes it sound as if when a women dresses in something sexy, she's some animal in heat willing to do anyone in the street. Maybe she's looking to get some, but she still maintains the right to determine who she's getting it from, when and to what extent.
There's just no way a certain way of dressing implies that a woman wants to do absolutely anyone in the room, so I don't see how it can be used as implied consent.
|
On August 25 2012 01:58 JingleHell wrote: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.
The man not having been told she's a lesbian does not factor into it. Either she does consent or she does not, and it does not hinge on what the alleged perpetrator knows. And that is why no one has advocated reaching a verdict based on her clothes alone.
No, it's not completely irrelevant. It's utterly relevant until there is no longer anyone arguing that circumstantial evidence removes anyone's freedom of choice. Because she wrote those diary entries, took of her clothes, hanged the sign on her neck and shouted those words BEFORE she saw the man that had sex with her. All of those things are ALSO circumstantial, albeit much stronger.
On August 25 2012 02:05 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:56 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 01:45 NicolBolas wrote: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? *snip Yes, it is one of them. One of the weakest ones. That is such a ludicrous analogy. How exactly does a women dress that implies consent with absolutely any male in the vicinity? It makes it sound as if when a women dresses in something sexy, she's some animal in heat willing to do anyone in the street. Maybe she's looking to get some, but she still maintains the right to determine who she's getting it from, when and to what extent. There's just no way a certain way of dressing implies that a woman wants to do absolutely anyone in the room, so I don't see how it can be used as implied consent.
Yes, she still maintains the right to determine who she's getting it from and all that. Nobody has said that she doesn't. That is why I have, from the very start, said that the way she dresses is very weak evidence. But it is not completely without worth. Stop imagining what the things I write "make it sound like", and start reading what I actually do write.
|
On August 25 2012 02:05 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:56 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 01:45 NicolBolas wrote: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? *snip Yes, it is one of them. One of the weakest ones. That is such a ludicrous analogy. How exactly does a women dress that implies consent with absolutely any male in the vicinity? It makes it sound as if when a women dresses in something sexy, she's some animal in heat willing to do anyone in the street. Maybe she's looking to get some, but she still maintains the right to determine who she's getting it from, when and to what extent. There's just no way a certain way of dressing implies that a woman wants to do absolutely anyone in the room, so I don't see how it can be used as implied consent.
He did not say it implies consent. It implies potential consent, which is a fairly common-sensical statement. Subtleties, subtleties.
|
On August 25 2012 02:01 Zoesan wrote:
I think I didn't make my argument clearly, no evidence of rape. There is still evidence of sex.
Depending on the justice system (hi sweden) even without explicit proof there can be severe repercussions for the accused, even if the entire story is fabricated because (european) sexual assault law is ridiculously biased toward the alleged victim.
Also, if you've ever been to a court hearing, you'd know that bad evidence doesn't get thrown out, it gets blown out of proportion. (I currently spend a stupid amount of time at court because the company that built my parents house is out of cash and blablabla. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just there for the giggles. But my point remains, in a real case everything matters.
I can't speak to how the legal system works outside of the US. But here, if there is truly "no evidence of rape" outside of testimony of the victim, then prosecutors generally can't prosecute.
On August 25 2012 02:01 Zoesan wrote:
Also the analogy to the statistics with the black person doesn't hold, because ethnicity is no choice, dressing is. If you don't think that the way a person dresses has something to do with their willingness to jump into someones bed, then you clearly haven't been out much in the past few years.
There's a difference between "what people think" and "what evidence should be allowed." You don't get to submit evidence because of what someone thinks.
As for the first part, you're effectively saying that dressing sexy implies that you consent to having sex with anyone. That is not acceptable.
Also, you can bring forward criminal statistics about socioeconomic classes, which are generally not a choice. We don't allow those as evidence in trials either.
On August 25 2012 02:09 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:05 Falling wrote:On August 25 2012 01:56 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 01:45 NicolBolas wrote: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? *snip Yes, it is one of them. One of the weakest ones. That is such a ludicrous analogy. How exactly does a women dress that implies consent with absolutely any male in the vicinity? It makes it sound as if when a women dresses in something sexy, she's some animal in heat willing to do anyone in the street. Maybe she's looking to get some, but she still maintains the right to determine who she's getting it from, when and to what extent. There's just no way a certain way of dressing implies that a woman wants to do absolutely anyone in the room, so I don't see how it can be used as implied consent. He did not say it implies consent. It implies potential consent, which is a fairly common-sensical statement. Subtleties, subtleties.
"potential consent"? What does that even mean?
Lots of things can imply potential X. That doesn't mean we allow them in criminal trials as evidence. Evidence is not based on "might" or "potential". Evidence is based on real facts and what is, not what could be.
|
United States41982 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement. I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen.
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her). He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing. With apologies in advance to dear old Kwark, but does anyone else see the sublime irony of this testimony? This is the triumph of newspeak at its best. What is real is unreal and what is unreal is real.
You exclusively post gibberish.
|
On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:I can't speak to how the legal system works outside of the US. But here, if there is truly "no evidence of rape" outside of testimony of the victim, then prosecutors generally can't prosecute.
Swedish courts routinely allow rape cases that amount to nothing more than he said, she said. There are guidelines to find the guy guilty if the woman's story is "believable".
"potential consent"? What does that even mean?
It means it signals they are interested in getting sex. It doesn't specify how or with whom, but the general interest in it is the first step in getting there.
|
On August 25 2012 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 24 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement. I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen.
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her). He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing. With apologies in advance to dear old Kwark, but does anyone else see the sublime irony of this testimony? This is the triumph of newspeak at its best. What is real is unreal and what is unreal is real. You exclusively post gibberish.
I would have thought that I was the kind of humanist you would have idealised. Nonetheless if you would like to request a more doctrinaire, rational and pedestrian analysis of your post, I would be happy of oblige on this rainy afternoon.
Edit: On second thought, Kwark is the kind of person who oddly defines a humanist as someone who dives into structuralist criticism, so maybe in the newspeak world he inhabits I am quite unideal.
|
On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:"potential consent"? What does that even mean?
Lots of things can imply potential X. That doesn't mean we allow them in criminal trials as evidence. Evidence is not based on "might" or "potential". Evidence is based on real facts and what is, not what could be.
I believe by potential consent he's referring to the idea that because a woman is dressed in a more skimpy way at a particular point in time it's reasonable for someone to assume that she is promiscuous and as such a lot more willing to... you know... fuck random strangers. That's what I make out of it at least, and it makes sense in that there's a lot of people who think like this, at least unto my experience. It's not a far-fetched logic (although it is based solely on assumptions), but not even close to being a reason to rape someone.
I was initially going to stay out of this thread but since I bothered posting: KwarK if I am not mistaken you have banned a user who claimed that rape is when a girl has sex with someone and then decides it wasn't a good idea and sues him, or something along those lines (I'm paraphrasing from memory). While I agree that it's not the best response in a thread regarding such a sensible matter (and agree with the ban itself), I believe you are downplaying the fact that those cases do indeed happen simply because some women are just horrible persons like that. That said I'm not an expert on such matters and so I would greatly appreciate if you could share some insight on the topic that the aforementioned banned user brought up. Or at least a good article that discusses it.
Thanks in advance.
|
United States41982 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:20 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:I can't speak to how the legal system works outside of the US. But here, if there is truly "no evidence of rape" outside of testimony of the victim, then prosecutors generally can't prosecute. Swedish courts routinely allow rape cases that amount to nothing more than he said, she said. There are guidelines to find the guy guilty if the woman's story is "believable". It means it signals they are interested in getting sex. It doesn't specify how or with whom, but the general interest in it is the first step in getting there.
So is leaving your house. All of these things that people claim women do to cause their own rapes miss the point that they did not consent. Their only purpose is to shift blame for what happened onto the alleged victim.
|
On August 25 2012 02:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:20 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:I can't speak to how the legal system works outside of the US. But here, if there is truly "no evidence of rape" outside of testimony of the victim, then prosecutors generally can't prosecute. Swedish courts routinely allow rape cases that amount to nothing more than he said, she said. There are guidelines to find the guy guilty if the woman's story is "believable". "potential consent"? What does that even mean? It means it signals they are interested in getting sex. It doesn't specify how or with whom, but the general interest in it is the first step in getting there. So is leaving your house. All of these things that people claim women do to cause their own rapes miss the point that they did not consent. Their only purpose is to shift blame for what happened onto the alleged victim.
Please be serious. People usually leave their house for other reasons than getting sex. But usually people dress sexy for that reason.
I've not seen anyone talking about women causing their own rape. We're talking about determining whether she was in fact raped at all. No blame going either way.
|
United States41982 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:24 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
I was initially going to stay out of this thread but since I bothered posting: KwarK if I am not mistaken you have banned a user who claimed that rape is when a girl has sex with someone and then decides it wasn't a good idea and sues him, or something along those lines (I'm paraphrasing from memory). While I agree that it's not the best response in a thread regarding such a sensible matter (and agree with the ban itself), I believe you are downplaying the fact that those cases do indeed happen simply because some women are just horrible persons like that. That said I'm not an expert on such matters and so I would greatly appreciate if you could share some insight on the topic that the aforementioned banned user brought up. Or at least a good article that discusses it.
Thanks in advance.
Absolutely denying the existence of rape and calling every rape victim a liar who is out to get their abuser is grossly offensive. There have been dozens of posters who have brought up concerns with potential false accusations and the problems of evidence in those cases and they have not been banned for it. However outright denial of sexual violence and blaming the countless victims around the world whom it effects is not on. Someone who believes that can be true can go into a special room with the crazy nutjob racists and holocaust deniers while someone who understands that rape does happen but thinks it's an acceptable thing to say can fuck right off.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:20 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:I can't speak to how the legal system works outside of the US. But here, if there is truly "no evidence of rape" outside of testimony of the victim, then prosecutors generally can't prosecute. Swedish courts routinely allow rape cases that amount to nothing more than he said, she said. There are guidelines to find the guy guilty if the woman's story is "believable".
Rape is always going to be very difficult to get strong evidence on and most of the time the only evidence is the testimony of the alleged victim and attacker. Sure you can prove that sex occurred but most cases don't come down to that, they come down to consent. Given that sex tends to occur in a place where there are no other witnesses there often is no other evidence besides those testimonies. Given that fact is it actually a good thing to require outside evidence? I think if it is required 99% of legitimate cases of rape will go completely unpunished which adds to the problem because it allows people to rape knowing that they won't be caught. Obviously a system that is solely on whether the victim's story is believable is also bad because then you get a lot of innocent people being convicted as rapists. You need a legal system for rape that can work without extra evidence but doesn't prioritise either the alleged victim or attacker's testimony over the other.
|
On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:
As for the first part, you're effectively saying that dressing sexy implies that you consent to having sex with anyone. That is not acceptable.
Did you even read what I wrote?
It's like talking to a goddamn brick wall. Go reread my posts and answer when you understand them. Nobody ever fucking said that clothes do what you're saying.
What I (and some others) have said that in a case where it's possible for the verdict to go either way, because no one except for the two people involved know the truth, every little thing matters.
Law is a science of probabilities to a relatively large part, so yes it fucking matters. That's why there's the german term "mit an sicherheit grenzende wahrscheinlichkeit", which means "with probability that borders on certainty".
|
On August 25 2012 02:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:24 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
I was initially going to stay out of this thread but since I bothered posting: KwarK if I am not mistaken you have banned a user who claimed that rape is when a girl has sex with someone and then decides it wasn't a good idea and sues him, or something along those lines (I'm paraphrasing from memory). While I agree that it's not the best response in a thread regarding such a sensible matter (and agree with the ban itself), I believe you are downplaying the fact that those cases do indeed happen simply because some women are just horrible persons like that. That said I'm not an expert on such matters and so I would greatly appreciate if you could share some insight on the topic that the aforementioned banned user brought up. Or at least a good article that discusses it.
Thanks in advance. Absolutely denying the existence of rape and calling every rape victim a liar who is out to get their abuser is grossly offensive. There have been dozens of posters who have brought up concerns with potential false accusations and the problems of evidence in those cases and they have not been banned for it. However outright denial of sexual violence and blaming the countless victims around the world whom it effects is not on. Someone who believes that can be true can go into a special room with the crazy nutjob racists and holocaust deniers while someone who understands that rape does happen but thinks it's an acceptable thing to say can fuck right off.
Ah alright thank you for clearing that up. I only noticed that post in particular because I searched exclusively for banned posts just to see how bad it would get.
|
United States41982 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:32 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:25 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 02:20 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:I can't speak to how the legal system works outside of the US. But here, if there is truly "no evidence of rape" outside of testimony of the victim, then prosecutors generally can't prosecute. Swedish courts routinely allow rape cases that amount to nothing more than he said, she said. There are guidelines to find the guy guilty if the woman's story is "believable". "potential consent"? What does that even mean? It means it signals they are interested in getting sex. It doesn't specify how or with whom, but the general interest in it is the first step in getting there. So is leaving your house. All of these things that people claim women do to cause their own rapes miss the point that they did not consent. Their only purpose is to shift blame for what happened onto the alleged victim. Please be serious. People usually leave their house for other reasons than getting sex. But usually people dress sexy for that reason. I've not seen anyone talking about women causing their own rape. We're talking about determining whether she was in fact raped at all. No blame going either way.
That's such an laughably men centred world view. Girls do not wear pretty clothing exclusively to look good for you, sometimes they just want to feel pretty.
All a woman ought to have to do to avoid getting raped is not consent to sex. Anything she does prior to that is irrelevant provided she did not consent. A woman who was open to the idea of sex but did not consent to sex with her rapist on that night is no less raped than a woman who was not open to the idea of sex on that night and also said no.
|
On August 25 2012 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 24 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement. I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen.
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her). He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing. With apologies in advance to dear old Kwark, but does anyone else see the sublime irony of this testimony? This is the triumph of newspeak at its best. What is real is unreal and what is unreal is real. You exclusively post gibberish.
Moltke is law!
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:32 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:25 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 02:20 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:I can't speak to how the legal system works outside of the US. But here, if there is truly "no evidence of rape" outside of testimony of the victim, then prosecutors generally can't prosecute. Swedish courts routinely allow rape cases that amount to nothing more than he said, she said. There are guidelines to find the guy guilty if the woman's story is "believable". "potential consent"? What does that even mean? It means it signals they are interested in getting sex. It doesn't specify how or with whom, but the general interest in it is the first step in getting there. So is leaving your house. All of these things that people claim women do to cause their own rapes miss the point that they did not consent. Their only purpose is to shift blame for what happened onto the alleged victim. Please be serious. People usually leave their house for other reasons than getting sex. But usually people dress sexy for that reason. I've not seen anyone talking about women causing their own rape. We're talking about determining whether she was in fact raped at all. No blame going either way.
Even if a woman goes out looking for sex it doesn't automatically make them free pickings for any man.
How exactly would a woman go about causing her rape? Either a woman consents to the sex or not, the only thing that a woman (or man) causes is anything they initiate which is giving consent and therefore not rape. If the woman initiates sex it's her causing it but by definition it is not rape. If the man initiates sex without the woman's consent then it is rape but it was caused by the man. The reason no one is talking about it is because it is impossible.
|
On August 25 2012 02:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:20 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:I can't speak to how the legal system works outside of the US. But here, if there is truly "no evidence of rape" outside of testimony of the victim, then prosecutors generally can't prosecute. Swedish courts routinely allow rape cases that amount to nothing more than he said, she said. There are guidelines to find the guy guilty if the woman's story is "believable". "potential consent"? What does that even mean? It means it signals they are interested in getting sex. It doesn't specify how or with whom, but the general interest in it is the first step in getting there. So is leaving your house. All of these things that people claim women do to cause their own rapes miss the point that they did not consent. Their only purpose is to shift blame for what happened onto the alleged victim.
I'm sorry, but this is not the case.
The point the reasonable people here are trying to make, is to establish IF rape happened in a muddled case. Then the small things are relevant, even if you don't like it.
Dressing sexy doesn't entitle a male to anything and it sure as hell doesn't shift the blame to the woman. But it may be a helpful tool to tell a golddigger from a woman who was actually raped... And in that case it would help every real rape victim by making the lane between the two clearer.
On August 25 2012 02:43 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:32 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 02:25 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 02:20 gedatsu wrote:On August 25 2012 02:13 NicolBolas wrote:I can't speak to how the legal system works outside of the US. But here, if there is truly "no evidence of rape" outside of testimony of the victim, then prosecutors generally can't prosecute. Swedish courts routinely allow rape cases that amount to nothing more than he said, she said. There are guidelines to find the guy guilty if the woman's story is "believable". "potential consent"? What does that even mean? It means it signals they are interested in getting sex. It doesn't specify how or with whom, but the general interest in it is the first step in getting there. So is leaving your house. All of these things that people claim women do to cause their own rapes miss the point that they did not consent. Their only purpose is to shift blame for what happened onto the alleged victim. Please be serious. People usually leave their house for other reasons than getting sex. But usually people dress sexy for that reason. I've not seen anyone talking about women causing their own rape. We're talking about determining whether she was in fact raped at all. No blame going either way. Even if a woman goes out looking for sex it doesn't automatically make them free pickings for any man. How exactly would a woman go about causing her rape? Either a woman consents to the sex or not, the only thing that a woman (or man) causes is anything they initiate which is giving consent and therefore not rape. If the woman initiates sex it's her causing it but by definition it is not rape. If the man initiates sex without the woman's consent then it is rape but it was caused by the man. The reason no one is talking about it is because it is impossible.
But. The. Law. Doesn't. Know. If. It. Was. Consensual. Or. Not. That's. Why. It. Matters.
how is this so hard to understand. No one is trying to blame the woman for her rape. People are just trying to find out if it actually was rape in a case where it isn't clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
