|
Men are also raped in prison (by other men) and sometimes get falsely accused by women. However in most cases when it's his words against her words the woman wins. Men are also victims too you know.
|
On August 25 2012 03:05 KwarK 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. 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.
Do you understand the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"?
That "message" has absolutely no basis in what you said that you took it from.
|
On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK 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. 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?
Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America.
Scenario 1:
1.You invited a person into your house.
2. They rape you.
Scenario 2:
1. You didn't invite a person into your house
2. They did not rape you.
That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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? 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
If they have insufficient evidence to convict the rapist, ie no witnesses, no tearing and the like, then I don't see the problem with just stating that. Have the justice system inform the woman that she can proceed if she likes but they believe the case will be dismissed due to lack of evidence or whatever.
A system where lawyers stand up in court and tell the world that although the victim insists that she did not consent to the sex she actually did because of actions that she did which a free person could reasonably be expected to do and which do not include consenting to sex is really, really fucked up. It is nothing more than exploiting residual sexism (what was she doing outside of the kitchen anyway?) and slut shaming in order to blame the victim. The only thing relevant to whether or not she consented to the sex was whether or not she consented to the sex.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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. 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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant.
I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up.
|
On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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. 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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up.
But I didn't say anything about women or men 
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 25 2012 03:15 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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. 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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up. But I didn't say anything about women or men
You said that the way to avoid being raped was to allow the threat of rape to strip you of your liberties.
|
On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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. 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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant.
I don't know what this is. Are we getting a look into the mind of an actual rapist?
|
On August 25 2012 03:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:15 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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".
[quote]
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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up. But I didn't say anything about women or men You said that the way to avoid being raped was to allow the threat of rape to strip you of your liberties.
Being safe rather than sorry. Guess how many times I've been forced to penetrate (I'm male).
I won't bother with the guessing, 0! Because I don't make mistakes regarding who I associate with. Thus, I don't suffer the negative consequences. I walk home drunk by myself, regardless of how many times/people ask if they can help.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 25 2012 03:17 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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. 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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I don't know what this is. Are we getting a look into the mind of an actual rapist?
For an actual rapist see IceThorn on page 1. He genuinely tried to explain to me in a series of PMs why it is perfectly reasonable to force yourself on a woman if she has made you horny because it's an instinctive thing and nobody can argue against that.
|
On August 25 2012 03:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:17 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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. 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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I don't know what this is. Are we getting a look into the mind of an actual rapist? For an actual rapist see IceThorn on page 1. He genuinely tried to explain to me in a series of PMs why it is perfectly reasonable to force yourself on a woman if she has made you horny because it's an instinctive thing and nobody can argue against that.
Can't believe I missed that one. Fucking hell....
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 25 2012 03:19 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:17 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:15 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up. But I didn't say anything about women or men You said that the way to avoid being raped was to allow the threat of rape to strip you of your liberties. Being safe rather than sorry. Guess how many times I've been forced to penetrate (I'm male). I won't bother with the guessing, 0! Because I don't make mistakes regarding who I associate with. Thus, I don't suffer the negative consequences. I walk home drunk by myself, regardless of how many times/people ask if they can help.
So women who find themselves in any position in which they are vulnerable with a man have made a mistake? Rapists. Do. Not. Wear. Labels. Around 6% of college men will, in anonymous surveys, willingly admit to being rapists. You are advocating that women adopt a systematic policy of non interaction with men and those that don't have neglected their personal safety regarding rape. You cannot strip away the freedom of half of the population like that.
|
On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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. 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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up.
Here we completely agree. It is never the victims fault. I also agree with your point, that it should not be necessary or even considered ok to think "I can't do that, I might get raped".
But in the same way, we also need protection against false accusations and in these cases there needs to be a way to differentiate between a false and a true accusation. The more muddled and unclear something gets, the more small things matter.
|
On August 25 2012 03:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:19 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:17 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:15 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 02:58 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 02:46 Zoesan wrote:
[quote]
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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up. But I didn't say anything about women or men You said that the way to avoid being raped was to allow the threat of rape to strip you of your liberties. Being safe rather than sorry. Guess how many times I've been forced to penetrate (I'm male). I won't bother with the guessing, 0! Because I don't make mistakes regarding who I associate with. Thus, I don't suffer the negative consequences. I walk home drunk by myself, regardless of how many times/people ask if they can help. So women who find themselves in any position in which they are vulnerable with a man have made a mistake? Rapists. Do. Not. Wear. Labels. Around 6% of college men will, in anonymous surveys, willingly admit to being rapists. You are advocating that women adopt a systematic policy of non interaction with men and those that don't have neglected their personal safety regarding rape. You cannot strip away the freedom of half of the population like that.
Not half the populace, all of it. 100% of people who drive should wear seatbelts. 100% of people who are sexually active should wear condoms.
Standard safety procedure stuff.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 25 2012 03:27 Zoesan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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. 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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up. Here we completely agree. It is never the victims fault. I also agree with your point, that it should not be necessary or even considered ok to think "I can't do that, I might get raped". But in the same way, we also need protection against false accusations and in these cases there needs to be a way to differentiate between a false and a true accusation. The more muddled and unclear something gets, the more small things matter.
A way to differentiate between false accusations and true accusations would be great. I'd absolutely be on board with that.
Going after clothing and actions (not including the granting of consent) on the night is not such a way.
|
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.
Dear fellows, the trick question is quite transparent and its answer is obvious. You see, Kwark here is being a fictional writer who invents a plausible scenario in order to prove his argument.
The scenario assumes omniscient knowledge, where the narrator sets himself apart from the rest of humanity.
The proper answer is: his scenario simply shows the limits of the justice system, i.e. it is run by non-omniscient beings trying to reconstruct the past from incomplete fragments of knowledge. Even if the court had not assumed certain states correlated with certain proclivities, there would still be no basis on which to accept her word over his. It would only be relevant if circumstancial evidence were employed to override evidence of a more concrete and compelling nature, such that would decisively affect the outcome by playing on unwarranted assumptions. Not to mention he leaves out the most critical part of the story: what is the defense? Is it defense one of implied consent, or of claiming some kind of positive verbal consent?
You see, in his mind, in such a scenario, proving innocence of the accused in a rape case can somehow be separated from establishing the responsibility of the defendant. Actually, that is what the defense must indeed prove: that is she was complicit in the act of sex, ergo no rape occurred. If you are not allowed to "blame the victim", you are not allowed to defend yourself at all.
So it's not only a red herring, but a badly-constructed Aesop.
|
On August 25 2012 03:27 Zoesan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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. 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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up. Here we completely agree. It is never the victims fault. I also agree with your point, that it should not be necessary or even considered ok to think "I can't do that, I might get raped". But in the same way, we also need protection against false accusations and in these cases there needs to be a way to differentiate between a false and a true accusation. The more muddled and unclear something gets, the more small things matter.
I disagree so much. If something is muddled and unclear, there should be aquittal. If it is unclear whether or not consent was given, the question if the victim wore provocative clothing should never be a factor. I would say that involving the victim's style of clothing into a trial makes things MORE unclear. It is a tactic to obscure the relevant facts, nothing more.
|
On August 25 2012 03:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:27 Zoesan wrote:On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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".
[quote]
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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up. Here we completely agree. It is never the victims fault. I also agree with your point, that it should not be necessary or even considered ok to think "I can't do that, I might get raped". But in the same way, we also need protection against false accusations and in these cases there needs to be a way to differentiate between a false and a true accusation. The more muddled and unclear something gets, the more small things matter. A way to differentiate between false accusations and true accusations would be great. I'd absolutely be on board with that. Going after clothing and actions (not including the granting of consent) on the night is not such a way.
Then what is?
Those little things might be the best lead you're going to get and the only way to increase the chance of either imprisoning a rapist or accidentally jailing an innocent person.
I don't like it but... really, we haven't got much more.
|
United States41983 Posts
Moltke, that scenario, actually not fictional.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On August 25 2012 03:29 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:19 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:17 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:15 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 02:58 Hnnngg wrote:On August 25 2012 02:54 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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? Stop thinking in black and white. There is no solution. It's like trying to find a solution to the drug "problem" in America. Scenario 1: 1.You invited a person into your house. 2. They rape you. Scenario 2: 1. You didn't invite a person into your house 2. They did not rape you. That's just standard cause-and-effect science. Of course you could possibly invite someone in and they don't rape you, or you don't invite them and they do rape you, but that's not exactly relevant. I know a girl who was acquaintance raped, you probably do too to be honest, it's really, really common but people tend not to talk about it due to exactly your response. Rapists don't wear labels and a world view based around forcing women to choose between the same freedoms that men enjoy and being raped (and being told their desire for freedom caused their rape) is fucked up. But I didn't say anything about women or men You said that the way to avoid being raped was to allow the threat of rape to strip you of your liberties. Being safe rather than sorry. Guess how many times I've been forced to penetrate (I'm male). I won't bother with the guessing, 0! Because I don't make mistakes regarding who I associate with. Thus, I don't suffer the negative consequences. I walk home drunk by myself, regardless of how many times/people ask if they can help. So women who find themselves in any position in which they are vulnerable with a man have made a mistake? Rapists. Do. Not. Wear. Labels. Around 6% of college men will, in anonymous surveys, willingly admit to being rapists. You are advocating that women adopt a systematic policy of non interaction with men and those that don't have neglected their personal safety regarding rape. You cannot strip away the freedom of half of the population like that. Not half the populace, all of it. 100% of people who drive should wear seatbelts. 100% of people who are sexually active should wear condoms. Standard safety procedure stuff.
And 100% of the population should not interact with the other sex? That seems like a pretty bad solution to the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
