• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:37
CEST 09:37
KST 16:37
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation5$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced4Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
i aint gon lie to u bruh... ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Earn Rewards for Every Prediction in the Game Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 640 users

What is Rape? - Page 34

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 32 33 34 35 36 56 Next
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 17:52:10
August 24 2012 17:51 GMT
#661
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:43 imallinson wrote:
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.


On August 25 2012 02:32 gedatsu wrote:
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.

The post I was replying to ^ was saying that women could cause their rape i.e. it was their fault.
Liquipedia
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42555 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 17:55:44
August 24 2012 17:54 GMT
#662
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Zoesan
Profile Joined March 2012
Switzerland141 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 17:56:31
August 24 2012 17:54 GMT
#663
Same story, sex was consensual. Woman accuses him of rape, he gets sent to jail for a long time, without doing anything wrong.

So much better, don't you think?
Suffer the pain of discipline or suffer the pain of regret
gedatsu
Profile Joined December 2011
1286 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 17:59:07
August 24 2012 17:54 GMT
#664
On August 25 2012 02:51 imallinson wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:43 imallinson wrote:
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.


Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:32 gedatsu wrote:
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.

The post I was replying to ^ was saying that women could cause their rape i.e. it was their fault.

I said no such thing. I said nobody was talking about that.

On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?

It's not telling the victim that, because what it is actually telling is that the accused party is allowed to defend himself, and that he is guilty until proven innocent, which she was not able to do. Nobody is being blamed in any way, because the people are not convinced that anything blame-able has even happened.
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
August 24 2012 17:55 GMT
#665
On August 25 2012 02:54 gedatsu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:51 imallinson wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:43 imallinson wrote:
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.


On August 25 2012 02:32 gedatsu wrote:
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.

The post I was replying to ^ was saying that women could cause their rape i.e. it was their fault.

I said no such thing. I said nobody was talking about that.

Implying it could happen which isn't the case.
Liquipedia
Zoesan
Profile Joined March 2012
Switzerland141 Posts
August 24 2012 17:57 GMT
#666
That is the wrongest implication I have ever seen.
Suffer the pain of discipline or suffer the pain of regret
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 17:57:29
August 24 2012 17:57 GMT
#667
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:43 imallinson wrote:
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.


Actually. The. Way. She. Dressed., Is.Completely. Irrelevant.. Knowing. That. She. Dressed. Provocatively. Brings. You. Exactly. Zero. Closer. To. Finding. Out. If. Consent. Was. Given.. All. It. Does. Is Give. Legitimacy. To. The. Irrational. Biases. Of. Stupid. People.
Hnnngg
Profile Joined June 2011
United States1101 Posts
August 24 2012 17:58 GMT
#668
On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?


Easy, don't get escorted home. Problem: solved.
Zoesan
Profile Joined March 2012
Switzerland141 Posts
August 24 2012 17:59 GMT
#669
So how would you try to determine what happened?
Suffer the pain of discipline or suffer the pain of regret
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42555 Posts
August 24 2012 18:00 GMT
#670
On August 25 2012 02:54 Zoesan wrote:
Same story, sex was consensual. Woman accuses him of rape, he gets sent to jail for a long time, without doing anything wrong.

So much better, don't you think?

No, I don't think anyone is arguing that sending innocent people to prison is good. That's a completely irrelevant point which opposes nothing that anyone is saying.

The point of my hypothetical is that when you use the actions of the victim to prove to a court that she consented to it, despite the fact that she did not consent, you are blaming the rape on her. It's saying that it wasn't a rape in the eyes of the law and the reason the law came to that conclusion was because of things that she did, despite her maintaining that she did not consent to the sex.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
August 24 2012 18:00 GMT
#671
On August 25 2012 02:58 Hnnngg wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?


Easy, don't get escorted home. Problem: solved.


What? Why did you post this?
gedatsu
Profile Joined December 2011
1286 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 18:04:25
August 24 2012 18:01 GMT
#672
On August 25 2012 02:55 imallinson wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:54 gedatsu wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:51 imallinson wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:43 imallinson wrote:
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.


On August 25 2012 02:32 gedatsu wrote:
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.

The post I was replying to ^ was saying that women could cause their rape i.e. it was their fault.

I said no such thing. I said nobody was talking about that.

Implying it could happen which isn't the case.

No, not implying it could happen. Not implying anything. What is it with you people and your wild conclusions? I could say "nobody is talking about a pink unicorn" - it does not imply that I believe in the possibility of a pink unicorn. It is only a statement that nobody is talking about pink unicorns.

On August 25 2012 03:00 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:54 Zoesan wrote:
Same story, sex was consensual. Woman accuses him of rape, he gets sent to jail for a long time, without doing anything wrong.

So much better, don't you think?

No, I don't think anyone is arguing that sending innocent people to prison is good. That's a completely irrelevant point which opposes nothing that anyone is saying.

The point of my hypothetical is that when you use the actions of the victim to prove to a court that she consented to it, despite the fact that she did not consent, you are blaming the rape on her. It's saying that it wasn't a rape in the eyes of the law and the reason the law came to that conclusion was because of things that she did, despite her maintaining that she did not consent to the sex.

The only way I can make this any clearer than I already have is by writing in bolded caps.

NOBODY IS BLAMING ANYTHING ON ANYONE.

Blaming would be this:
"we know you were raped, but since you did X, we don't care about it".

Which is different from this:
"because of X, we're not convinced that you were in fact raped".
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42555 Posts
August 24 2012 18:02 GMT
#673
On August 25 2012 02:58 Hnnngg wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?


Easy, don't get escorted home. Problem: solved.

So the solution for women to not get raped is to never put themselves in a position where they are in the same room as a rapist?
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
gaheris
Profile Joined October 2010
Ireland12 Posts
August 24 2012 18:02 GMT
#674
On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?


how about: allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly (it was reasonably possible from a third partys perspective that) she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice she may have been raped but in the eyes of justice convicting the innocent is far worse then letting the guilty go free
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
August 24 2012 18:03 GMT
#675
On August 25 2012 02:58 Hnnngg wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?


Easy, don't get escorted home. Problem: solved.


You should be able to ask for help getting home without having to worry about your acquaintance raping you. You can't blame someone for wanting some help getting home if they are that drunk.
Liquipedia
HardlyNever
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
United States1258 Posts
August 24 2012 18:03 GMT
#676
I've thought about whether I should post this story here, but the discussion seems to be stuck on this idea of what is rape in the guy's mind and what it is in the girl's mind, and this is very relevant to that. Maybe someone will learn a thing or two about sex and rape from a female perspective, because I know I did back when this happened.

Back when I was in college I dated this girl who had a pretty screwed up sexual past. Namely, she was molested at a fairly young age by someone she trusted, and raped at the age of 13 by someone else she trusted (friend of the family). Needless to say she had some sexual issues. Anyhow, when we first started dating there came a moment where she told me a story about something that had happened pretty recently to her (how recently I couldn't say exactly, it sounded like a month to 2 months prior to us dating). She had been out with her friends at the local bars (I went to a college that was generally listed in the top 10 party schools of the Princeton review) and basically picked up a guy at a bar. Who did the initiating or showing of interest first, I don't know. So she ends up bringing the guy back to her apartment. Somewhere along the way, either walking back or getting to her apt (I don't honestly know exactly when) she decides she does not want to have sex with this guy. It might have been even when they were in bed (additionally, they were both really drunk). Well at that point, the guy wasn't taking no for an answer, and raped her. Or whatever exactly happened (I never got the gruesome details), she FELT raped. Genuinely raped.

Now me being a young undergrad at the time (and not understanding the full extent to which this hurt her), did the thing most of you are probably thinking. I said it was her fault, she put herself in that situation, and basically said the guy had no way to know what you were thinking/feeling (pretty standard blame the victim). She never reported it, and she said my response/thinking was basically why (not MINE specifically, but that line of reasoning). No one would believe her, everyone would say it was her fault, etc. That said, I didn't really understand how much this hurt her until months and months later. This girl still had (and probably still does) flashbacks to that moment, which reduced her to tears. She felt raped, and in her mind she was raped. And this is from a girl that knows what "genuine (w/e that means)" rape feels like.

I learned a lot about the idea of "consent" and really being able to tell when a girl was into it and when she wasn't from being with her. I have no idea if this has any bearing on "legal" rape, but I know that women can feel raped even when an hour prior they were inviting it into their house.

I think that sort of story (which probably is pretty common across college campuses) is why rape laws are so hard to nail down.
Out there, the Kid learned to fend for himself. Learned to build. Learned to break.
Hnnngg
Profile Joined June 2011
United States1101 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 18:10:32
August 24 2012 18:03 GMT
#677
On August 25 2012 03:00 Crushinator wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:58 Hnnngg wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?


Easy, don't get escorted home. Problem: solved.


What? Why did you post this?


Because I solved the problem.

1.Don't do stupid stuff
2. Bad stuff has a higher likelihood of being avoided
3. ?????
4. Profit!

At least in the scenario, going home with an acquaintance of the opposite sex (whether you are male or female) while being intoxicated is fucking retarded. But I can do it for any scenario if you'd like .

On August 25 2012 03:03 imallinson wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:58 Hnnngg wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?


Easy, don't get escorted home. Problem: solved.


You should be able to ask for help getting home without having to worry about your acquaintance raping you. You can't blame someone for wanting some help getting home if they are that drunk.


Keyword: should. Things should be ideal, but they are not.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42555 Posts
August 24 2012 18:05 GMT
#678
On August 25 2012 02:54 gedatsu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:51 imallinson wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:43 imallinson wrote:
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.


On August 25 2012 02:32 gedatsu wrote:
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.

The post I was replying to ^ was saying that women could cause their rape i.e. it was their fault.

I said no such thing. I said nobody was talking about that.

Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Imagine the following hypothetical.
A woman goes out clubbing, gets horribly drunk and agrees to let an acquaintance escort her home, making it clear to him that she doesn't want anything to happen.
She passes out and wakes up during the night to find him raping her. Horrified and confused, too stunned by this violation and the implications of it (this guy doesn't respect consent and he's in my house, he could do literally anything to me), she doesn't know what to do other than lie there until she passes out again. The next morning she wakes up and reports the rape to the police.

The rapist is arrested and confirms sex happens but insists it was consensual. There were no witnesses. In court it becomes a case of his word against hers and the defence lawyer uses her actions, in allowing him to escort her home and in being in the club in the first place, to successfully argue that clearly she had consented to the sex and simply regretted it. The law then declares that in the eyes of societal justice the reason that she was raped was because she consented to it in their eyes and their conclusion is based upon the fact that she went out to the club and trusted a male acquaintance.

How is this not telling the victim that this horrifying thing that happened to them wasn't wrong because of their actions, that it is their fault?

It's not telling the victim that, because what it is actually telling is that the accused party is allowed to defend himself, and that he is guilty until proven innocent, which she was not able to do. Nobody is being blamed in any way, because the people are not convinced that anything blame-able has even happened.

That's a nonsense argument. If the jury accepts the premise that the sex was consensual then they are telling the victim that in their opinion she consented to it, that it happened because of her actions. The message to take from it is that if you are a woman who dares to go out into the world and you end up getting raped then you probably had it coming. Irrelevant actions have no place in a courtroom.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
August 24 2012 18:05 GMT
#679
On August 25 2012 03:01 gedatsu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:55 imallinson wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:54 gedatsu wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:51 imallinson wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan wrote:
On August 25 2012 02:43 imallinson wrote:
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.


On August 25 2012 02:32 gedatsu wrote:
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.

The post I was replying to ^ was saying that women could cause their rape i.e. it was their fault.

I said no such thing. I said nobody was talking about that.

Implying it could happen which isn't the case.

No, not implying it could happen. Not implying anything. What is it with you people and your wild conclusions? I could say "nobody is talking about a pink unicorn" - it does not imply that I believe in the possibility of a pink unicorn. It is only a statement that nobody is talking about pink unicorns.

Ok I misunderstood you, sorry. The point that I was trying to make was that the reason no one is talking about women causing their own rape is because it can't happen.
Liquipedia
Zahir
Profile Joined March 2012
United States947 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 18:08:23
August 24 2012 18:07 GMT
#680
On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan 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.


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.

Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 02:43 imallinson wrote:
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.


Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I think circumstantial evidence gets brought in all the time in x said y said scenarios. I think laws like the one Florida has against bringing in evidence as to what a specifically female rape victim was wearing is unfair. It's a double standard that only gets applied in the very specific case of an alleged female rape victim. No protections offered to men and of course the unequal treatment under the law slides in under the radar because it's hard for people, especially in public office, to discuss lest they be branded rape apologists, as is sporadically happening in this thread.

Such laws may well do more good than harm given the state of our society, but I detest the double standard they represent.

Edit: currently searching for legal expert opinions on said law.
What is best? To crush the Zerg, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the Protoss.
Prev 1 32 33 34 35 36 56 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 23m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
JimRising 595
StarCraft: Brood War
TY 547
actioN 392
Zeus 214
PianO 174
Leta 151
Larva 127
Noble 53
sSak 46
Yoon 44
Sacsri 17
[ Show more ]
yabsab 15
Nal_rA 6
Dota 2
XaKoH 460
ODPixel263
XcaliburYe247
Fuzer 129
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K766
Other Games
shahzam1334
monkeys_forever234
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick35128
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH376
• Hupsaiya 64
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• tankgirl 1
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2129
League of Legends
• Lourlo1574
• Stunt493
• HappyZerGling100
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
2h 23m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
8h 23m
WardiTV European League
8h 23m
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
Replay Cast
16h 23m
RSL Revival
1d 2h
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
1d 5h
Replay Cast
1d 16h
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
2 days
OSC
2 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
FEL
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.