• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:58
CEST 10:58
KST 17:58
  • 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
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments0[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch0Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues29
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy SpeCial on The Tasteless Podcast Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments
Tourneys
Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
ASL TICKET LIVE help! :D NaDa's Body Soulkey on ASL S20 BW General Discussion A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group D [ASL20] Ro16 Group C [Megathread] Daily Proleagues BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile Borderlands 3 General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
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
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1595 users

What is Rape? - Page 38

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 36 37 38 39 40 56 Next
TheKefka
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Croatia11752 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 19:29:43
August 24 2012 19:26 GMT
#741
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.
The way you act in it has a bigger relevance sure,but still.
Cackle™
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42973 Posts
August 24 2012 19:29 GMT
#742
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.

If these meatheads are so easily confused that they might, in their confusion, have sex with someone who has explicitly denied them consent to sex then they need to be behind bars for the protection of society because they are rapists.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Zahir
Profile Joined March 2012
United States947 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 19:31:42
August 24 2012 19:30 GMT
#743
Edit; apologies, double.
What is best? To crush the Zerg, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the Protoss.
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
August 24 2012 19:30 GMT
#744
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.


So,

In a courtroom, one of these meatheads offers as his defense that ''well she dressed like a whore, I thought she was up for it.''. And you think this is a relevant, and valid, legal argument?
TheKefka
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Croatia11752 Posts
August 24 2012 19:33 GMT
#745
On August 25 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.

If these meatheads are so easily confused that they might, in their confusion, have sex with someone who has explicitly denied them consent to sex then they need to be behind bars for the protection of society because they are rapists.

What's your point to lock people up before they do something lol?
I'm just stating that I agree with the guy who's point is that the world has it's dark side and,while you can't always be safe against something,there are certainly way's to not get into a situation where you will get hurt.


Cackle™
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
August 24 2012 19:34 GMT
#746
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.
The way you act in it has a bigger relevance sure,but still.

The point isn't whether a woman's clothes attract a certain type of man. It's that no matter what the woman wears she still has the right to say no to a man wanting sex and if the man disregards that it's rape and he should be prosecuted for it.
Liquipedia
TheKefka
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Croatia11752 Posts
August 24 2012 19:35 GMT
#747
On August 25 2012 04:30 Crushinator wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.


So,

In a courtroom, one of these meatheads offers as his defense that ''well she dressed like a whore, I thought she was up for it.''. And you think this is a relevant, and valid, legal argument?

No.....my point had nothing to do with the law and the courtroom.
Cackle™
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 19:42:17
August 24 2012 19:35 GMT
#748
On August 25 2012 04:33 TheKefka wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.

If these meatheads are so easily confused that they might, in their confusion, have sex with someone who has explicitly denied them consent to sex then they need to be behind bars for the protection of society because they are rapists.

What's your point to lock people up before they do something lol?
I'm just stating that I agree with the guy who's point is that the world has it's dark side and,while you can't always be safe against something,there are certainly way's to not get into a situation where you will get hurt.




We were discussing the validity of bringing sexual history and dress style into a courtroom as a legal argument.

Edit: I would also like to add that I personally feel that we should defend a woman's right, and ability, to dress as she pleases within the obvious limits of the law.
TheKefka
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Croatia11752 Posts
August 24 2012 19:37 GMT
#749
zzz sorry I was reading one guys post maybe I replied to the wrong comment.
Misquoted..
Cackle™
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42973 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 19:42:21
August 24 2012 19:40 GMT
#750
On August 25 2012 04:33 TheKefka wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.

If these meatheads are so easily confused that they might, in their confusion, have sex with someone who has explicitly denied them consent to sex then they need to be behind bars for the protection of society because they are rapists.

What's your point to lock people up before they do something lol?
I'm just stating that I agree with the guy who's point is that the world has it's dark side and,while you can't always be safe against something,there are certainly way's to not get into a situation where you will get hurt.



You're buying into the stranger in a dark alley rape myth. You're way more likely to be raped by an acquaintance, partner, ex-partner or even family member. You generally get no indication that the person is a rapist because they look and act much like everyone else up until the rape. If you buy into the "don't give anyone the opportunity" bullshit then, once you understand the facts of rape, you must strip women of all liberties or blame them for rape when they enjoy the same freedoms that men do. The idea that you can simply avoid rapists when 6% of college aged men will, when asked anonymously, admit to being rapists, is absurd.
Source for that 6% claim
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18832 Posts
August 24 2012 19:50 GMT
#751
On August 25 2012 04:40 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:33 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.

If these meatheads are so easily confused that they might, in their confusion, have sex with someone who has explicitly denied them consent to sex then they need to be behind bars for the protection of society because they are rapists.

What's your point to lock people up before they do something lol?
I'm just stating that I agree with the guy who's point is that the world has it's dark side and,while you can't always be safe against something,there are certainly way's to not get into a situation where you will get hurt.



You're buying into the stranger in a dark alley rape myth. You're way more likely to be raped by an acquaintance, partner, ex-partner or even family member. You generally get no indication that the person is a rapist because they look and act much like everyone else up until the rape. If you buy into the "don't give anyone the opportunity" bullshit then, once you understand the facts of rape, you must strip women of all liberties or blame them for rape when they enjoy the same freedoms that men do. The idea that you can simply avoid rapists when 6% of college aged men will, when asked anonymously, admit to being rapists, is absurd.
Source for that 6% claim
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

Can you substantiate this claim a bit more? I only ask because in my experience potential rapists tend to hold certain beliefs in regards to women and their status as human beings. Having gone through an undergraduate college education at a major state school, I came into contact with a few men who ended up being convicted of rape, and all of them maintained a particular brand of female objectification very much in line with the ideology of PUA and movements such as that. What I am getting at is that perhaps there is work to be done in terms of our societal ideation of what constitutes an inappropriate consideration of females. I simply do not buy that a potential rapist is undetectable.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
HULKAMANIA
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
United States1219 Posts
August 24 2012 19:51 GMT
#752
On August 25 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.

People keep repeating that I apparently want to see a courtroom where men are immediately locked up on nothing more than the testimony of their accuser. I do not and at no point have I expressed that view.

I will. The things you're railing against are standard courtroom procedure. What you want to replace them with is admittedly a little nebulous, but I won't fault you for that. It's hard to imagine how your particular dogmas would incarnate in jurisprudence.
If it were not so, I would have told you.
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
August 24 2012 19:57 GMT
#753
On August 25 2012 04:50 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:40 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:33 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.

If these meatheads are so easily confused that they might, in their confusion, have sex with someone who has explicitly denied them consent to sex then they need to be behind bars for the protection of society because they are rapists.

What's your point to lock people up before they do something lol?
I'm just stating that I agree with the guy who's point is that the world has it's dark side and,while you can't always be safe against something,there are certainly way's to not get into a situation where you will get hurt.



You're buying into the stranger in a dark alley rape myth. You're way more likely to be raped by an acquaintance, partner, ex-partner or even family member. You generally get no indication that the person is a rapist because they look and act much like everyone else up until the rape. If you buy into the "don't give anyone the opportunity" bullshit then, once you understand the facts of rape, you must strip women of all liberties or blame them for rape when they enjoy the same freedoms that men do. The idea that you can simply avoid rapists when 6% of college aged men will, when asked anonymously, admit to being rapists, is absurd.
Source for that 6% claim
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

Can you substantiate this claim a bit more? I only ask because in my experience potential rapists tend to hold certain beliefs in regards to women and their status as human beings. Having gone through an undergraduate college education at a major state school, I came into contact with a few men who ended up being convicted of rape, and all of them maintained a particular brand of female objectification very much in line with the ideology of PUA and movements such as that. What I am getting at is that perhaps there is work to be done in terms of our societal ideation of what constitutes an inappropriate consideration of females. I simply do not buy that a potential rapist is undetectable.


I would suspect that rapists generally realize that women do not appreciate their misogynistic opinions, and as such will lie about, or avoid talking about such subjects. Some will be psychopaths, who will keep up an appearance of normality. Some will be predators, others will just take an opportunity while it arises.

While your personal anecdote may seem relevant to you, I may offer you one of my own: I have never suspected anyone of being inclined to rape people, even though statistically, I am almost certain to know such people.
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-24 20:02:33
August 24 2012 20:01 GMT
#754
On August 25 2012 04:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.

People keep repeating that I apparently want to see a courtroom where men are immediately locked up on nothing more than the testimony of their accuser. I do not and at no point have I expressed that view.

I will. The things you're railing against are standard courtroom procedure. What you want to replace them with is admittedly a little nebulous, but I won't fault you for that. It's hard to imagine how your particular dogmas would incarnate in jurisprudence.


Perhaps you should read up on the actual laws regarding courtroom procedure in rape cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield

The procedures you claim to be standard are infact illegal in many places. Jurisprudence need not be imagined, because it exists.
Necrophag1st
Profile Blog Joined July 2012
United States35 Posts
August 24 2012 20:02 GMT
#755
@Icethorn, I don't know about you but I have never had to question myself whether my intercourse the previous day was forced or consensual. If so, DR time buddy!

I believe the word rape is correctly identified in the U.S. Legislature. Because forced sexual intercourse has so many variables defining the severity of the crime "rape" is just not enough. I believe defining those variables is the only way to have a concrete/fair law on "rape".
Expect Nothing Prepare for Everything
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18832 Posts
August 24 2012 20:03 GMT
#756
On August 25 2012 04:57 Crushinator wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:50 farvacola wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:40 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:33 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris wrote:
[quote]

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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.

If these meatheads are so easily confused that they might, in their confusion, have sex with someone who has explicitly denied them consent to sex then they need to be behind bars for the protection of society because they are rapists.

What's your point to lock people up before they do something lol?
I'm just stating that I agree with the guy who's point is that the world has it's dark side and,while you can't always be safe against something,there are certainly way's to not get into a situation where you will get hurt.



You're buying into the stranger in a dark alley rape myth. You're way more likely to be raped by an acquaintance, partner, ex-partner or even family member. You generally get no indication that the person is a rapist because they look and act much like everyone else up until the rape. If you buy into the "don't give anyone the opportunity" bullshit then, once you understand the facts of rape, you must strip women of all liberties or blame them for rape when they enjoy the same freedoms that men do. The idea that you can simply avoid rapists when 6% of college aged men will, when asked anonymously, admit to being rapists, is absurd.
Source for that 6% claim
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

Can you substantiate this claim a bit more? I only ask because in my experience potential rapists tend to hold certain beliefs in regards to women and their status as human beings. Having gone through an undergraduate college education at a major state school, I came into contact with a few men who ended up being convicted of rape, and all of them maintained a particular brand of female objectification very much in line with the ideology of PUA and movements such as that. What I am getting at is that perhaps there is work to be done in terms of our societal ideation of what constitutes an inappropriate consideration of females. I simply do not buy that a potential rapist is undetectable.


I would suspect that rapists generally realize that women do not appreciate their misogynistic opinions, and as such will lie about, or avoid talking about such subjects. Some will be psychopaths, who will keep up an appearance of normality. Some will be predators, others will just take an opportunity while it arises.

While your personal anecdote may seem relevant to you, I may offer you one of my own: I have never suspected anyone of being inclined to rape people, even though statistically, I am almost certain to know such people.

What you are suggesting is that rape is some sort of utterly undetectable crime, and I do not buy into such despair. We can always work to improve our understanding of the psychology of rape in favor of preventing further crime.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
August 24 2012 20:04 GMT
#757
On August 25 2012 04:33 TheKefka wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.

If these meatheads are so easily confused that they might, in their confusion, have sex with someone who has explicitly denied them consent to sex then they need to be behind bars for the protection of society because they are rapists.

What's your point to lock people up before they do something lol?
I'm just stating that I agree with the guy who's point is that the world has it's dark side and,while you can't always be safe against something,there are certainly way's to not get into a situation where you will get hurt.

Which has nothing to do with how cases in court are resolved. If a girl dresses provocatively and knowingly goes to a bad neighborhood, she is doing a stupid thing, but if she is raped there, her being stupid has nothing to do with the guilt of the rapist.
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
August 24 2012 20:06 GMT
#758
On August 25 2012 05:03 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:57 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:50 farvacola wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:40 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:33 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:26 TheKefka wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:22 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.


What a ridiculous strawman. His point is that it is completely irrelevant if a person is promiscuous, it is completely irrelevant if the dress was sexy. Never, ever does it matter one bit. The only reason anyone would think it does, is because of misogynistic views about how women should act. The view that women in certain clothing are all sluts, and reasonable men could see this slutty behavior as consent to sex with everyone. It is not consent to sex, and reasonable men cannot see this as consent.

See,that's the thing.The world does not consist of only reasonable men.
The way I see it is like the guy above.If you dress like a hooker,you may not be one,but that shit is fucking confusing to some meat heads lol.
To say that clothing has no relevance to the type of people you will attract as a female is laughable.

If these meatheads are so easily confused that they might, in their confusion, have sex with someone who has explicitly denied them consent to sex then they need to be behind bars for the protection of society because they are rapists.

What's your point to lock people up before they do something lol?
I'm just stating that I agree with the guy who's point is that the world has it's dark side and,while you can't always be safe against something,there are certainly way's to not get into a situation where you will get hurt.



You're buying into the stranger in a dark alley rape myth. You're way more likely to be raped by an acquaintance, partner, ex-partner or even family member. You generally get no indication that the person is a rapist because they look and act much like everyone else up until the rape. If you buy into the "don't give anyone the opportunity" bullshit then, once you understand the facts of rape, you must strip women of all liberties or blame them for rape when they enjoy the same freedoms that men do. The idea that you can simply avoid rapists when 6% of college aged men will, when asked anonymously, admit to being rapists, is absurd.
Source for that 6% claim
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

Can you substantiate this claim a bit more? I only ask because in my experience potential rapists tend to hold certain beliefs in regards to women and their status as human beings. Having gone through an undergraduate college education at a major state school, I came into contact with a few men who ended up being convicted of rape, and all of them maintained a particular brand of female objectification very much in line with the ideology of PUA and movements such as that. What I am getting at is that perhaps there is work to be done in terms of our societal ideation of what constitutes an inappropriate consideration of females. I simply do not buy that a potential rapist is undetectable.


I would suspect that rapists generally realize that women do not appreciate their misogynistic opinions, and as such will lie about, or avoid talking about such subjects. Some will be psychopaths, who will keep up an appearance of normality. Some will be predators, others will just take an opportunity while it arises.

While your personal anecdote may seem relevant to you, I may offer you one of my own: I have never suspected anyone of being inclined to rape people, even though statistically, I am almost certain to know such people.

What you are suggesting is that rape is some sort of utterly undetectable crime, and I do not buy into such despair. We can always work to improve our understanding of the psychology of rape in favor of preventing further crime.


I did not mean to suggest such a thing, merely that it is impossible for every single person to identify every single rapist with ease. I wholeheartedly agree with your second statement.
HULKAMANIA
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
United States1219 Posts
August 24 2012 20:06 GMT
#759
On August 25 2012 05:01 Crushinator wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 04:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.

People keep repeating that I apparently want to see a courtroom where men are immediately locked up on nothing more than the testimony of their accuser. I do not and at no point have I expressed that view.

I will. The things you're railing against are standard courtroom procedure. What you want to replace them with is admittedly a little nebulous, but I won't fault you for that. It's hard to imagine how your particular dogmas would incarnate in jurisprudence.


Perhaps you should read up on the actual laws regarding courtroom procedure in rape cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield

The procedures you claim to be standard are infact illegal in many places. Jurisprudence need not be imagined, because it exists.

I think you misread your wiki article. It doesn't talk about taking the accuser's word for it.
If it were not so, I would have told you.
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
August 24 2012 20:09 GMT
#760
On August 25 2012 05:06 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 25 2012 05:01 Crushinator wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 04:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:10 KwarK wrote:
On August 25 2012 03:02 gaheris 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?


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.


This post is so bizarre. What kind of system are you talking about that is so unjust and sexist? One that has a defense lawyer? Would you prefer that the defense just take the woman's word for it and leave off speculating entirely? Would that finally be a courtroom free of "residual sexism"?

woman: "I did not do anything unreasonable, and I assure you that I was raped."
judge: "Cool! Case closed then. Let's go to lunch."

The job of the court is to investigate serious accusations like rape thoroughly and evenhandedly. It's not to take the accuser's word for it. That's not misogyny. It's standard courtroom procedure.

People keep repeating that I apparently want to see a courtroom where men are immediately locked up on nothing more than the testimony of their accuser. I do not and at no point have I expressed that view.

I will. The things you're railing against are standard courtroom procedure. What you want to replace them with is admittedly a little nebulous, but I won't fault you for that. It's hard to imagine how your particular dogmas would incarnate in jurisprudence.


Perhaps you should read up on the actual laws regarding courtroom procedure in rape cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield

The procedures you claim to be standard are infact illegal in many places. Jurisprudence need not be imagined, because it exists.

I think you misread your wiki article. It doesn't talk about taking the accuser's word for it.


Then I believe you have thoroughly misunderstood Kwark's point. I cannot imagine he would mean to suggest we should take an accuser's word for it, and just throw all accused in jail. Infact I am certain he did not.
Prev 1 36 37 38 39 40 56 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 2m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ProTech76
StarCraft: Brood War
GuemChi 2753
Bisu 604
sorry 79
Dewaltoss 72
Hyuk 66
ToSsGirL 66
JulyZerg 40
HiyA 37
Sharp 26
Nal_rA 24
[ Show more ]
Pusan 17
Light 17
soO 17
ajuk12(nOOB) 12
Free 10
SilentControl 9
Dota 2
XcaliburYe216
boxi98150
NeuroSwarm112
League of Legends
JimRising 463
Counter-Strike
olofmeister948
shoxiejesuss630
Stewie2K575
allub161
Other Games
XaKoH 151
Trikslyr13
trigger2
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick594
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 33
lovetv 20
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 29
• Light_VIP 26
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Jankos941
• Stunt679
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
1h 2m
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
Map Test Tournament
2h 2m
The PondCast
4h 2m
RSL Revival
1d 1h
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
1d 18h
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
1d 23h
RSL Revival
2 days
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Online Event
3 days
[ Show More ]
Wardi Open
4 days
Monday Night Weeklies
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
LiuLi Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
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

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
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.