|
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.
|
United States41982 Posts
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.
|
|
|
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?
|
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.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
zzz sorry I was reading one guys post maybe I replied to the wrong comment.
Misquoted..
|
United States41982 Posts
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/
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
@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".
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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_shieldThe 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.
|
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_shieldThe 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
