| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On September 14 2012 07:05 Pjorren wrote: Yea thats what they say these days. (Americans to be more specific). Please don't make racist remarks because a single person in a country of over 300 million said something stupid. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On September 14 2012 07:44 Voltaire wrote: Please don't make racist remarks because a single person in a country of over 300 million said something stupid. American isn't a race, it's a nationality lol. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On September 14 2012 07:45 killa_robot wrote: American isn't a race, it's a nationality lol. Oh god, not this argument again. Let's just stop it now. Making discriminatory remarks based on someone's place of birth is racism. And "ethnicityism" is not a word. That's why everyone uses the phrase "racism" to refer to discrimination against things that technically aren't races. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 14 2012 02:02 Sandtrout wrote: Because she didn't consent to the sex. Especially considering that she is 15 and he is 31 and according to the two other women who were with them he becomes violent if they don't do what he tells them to do, it's quite possible that she felt defenseless (even if she objectively could have screamed for help or run away) and that's why she didn't fight back. You missed the point completely. To restate, what evidence is there that she didn't consent? On September 14 2012 02:02 Sandtrout wrote: But apparently, according to german law, saying "no" isn't enough of not consenting. Pretty sure the issue is that there's no evidence she said "no" in the first place. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
| ||
|
Kraww
Sweden10 Posts
An obvious and welcome change in the societies OP related to would be if sex was to be conditioned by "enthusiastic consent". That is, if everyone of us would happily and obviously consent to the act every doubt of it's niceness would be gone. This would require us to talk about it, before, under and after the act. One big bonus would be we would probably have less bad sex, because since when would you enthusiasticly consent to that? | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On September 14 2012 10:02 Kraww wrote: My stance is that rape is when one have sex or something similar with someone who have not given consent to it, and consent have to be given before every time you have sex. I think this is the law in Sweden at least, even though it's very rarely applied. An obvious and welcome change in the societies OP related to would be if sex was to be conditioned by "enthusiastic consent". That is, if everyone of us would happily and obviously consent to the act every doubt of it's niceness would be gone. This would require us to talk about it, before, under and after the act. One big bonus would be we would probably have less bad sex, because since when would you enthusiasticly consent to that? Enthusiastic consent? Sorry but that's ridiculous. Continuing with the acts of sex without verbally telling the other to stop or physically resisting is a form of consent. Couples don't just say "want to have sex?" "okay!" That's just not how relationships work. The law needs to reflect the reality of interpersonal contact. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 14 2012 08:07 Voltaire wrote: Oh god, not this argument again. Let's just stop it now. Making discriminatory remarks based on someone's place of birth is racism. And "ethnicityism" is not a word. That's why everyone uses the phrase "racism" to refer to discrimination against things that technically aren't races. While it's just semantics, I do think he has a point. I don't hear "everyone" use the phrase racism to refer to discrimination against things that aren't technically races. The entire premise of racism is that people of certain races are born to be biologically predisposed to certain tendencies and qualities. It would be racist to say that Caucasian people are intellectual inferior to Asians not because of their environment but because Caucasian people genetically do not have the same intellectual capacity as Asians. Just as it would be racist to say that black people are more prone to violence due to being black. It wouldn't be racist to say that a lot of black people are more prone to commit violent acts because they grew up in a poor environmental setting which in turn caused the violent tendencies. Anyways, semantics, but I've always limited my view of racism to such thinking. I've never thought it was possible to be racist against a Swedish person, although it might be possible to argue it is possible to be racist against Scandinavians. On September 14 2012 10:02 Kraww wrote: My stance is that rape is when one have sex or something similar with someone who have not given consent to it, and consent have to be given before every time you have sex. I think this is the law in Sweden at least, even though it's very rarely applied. An obvious and welcome change in the societies OP related to would be if sex was to be conditioned by "enthusiastic consent". That is, if everyone of us would happily and obviously consent to the act every doubt of it's niceness would be gone. This would require us to talk about it, before, under and after the act. One big bonus would be we would probably have less bad sex, because since when would you enthusiasticly consent to that? As embarrassing as it is to say, I've had a situation where I was with my now exgf, and I basically kept nagging her that I was horny. She said she didn't really want to, but after nagging (no physical force, implied threat, or her being in a comprised state of mind) she agreed. In the end it kind of sucked anyways because she wasn't into and she was dry, which resulted in a very memorable slight, yet distinct, gritty feeling that was notably less pleasurable, leading me to quit within 45 seconds. Zero enthusiastic consent was given by her though, lol. Under your definition, I raped my ex. And under that definition, a lot of married men end up raping their wives on a regular basis who put out to get their spouse to shut up! | ||
|
ETisME
12499 Posts
Most of the girls were drunk and didn't want to have sex and some didn't even wake up during the sex. There were two videos that I was especially interested in: 1 is that the girl intially rejected, being a girl and pretty drunk, she tried hard to resist but the guy was already inside her. Eventually she gave in and started to enjoy it and even sat on him to continue. 2 is there are 2 girls and the guy. The two girls had most of the cloths off and teasing eachother. Then the guy wanted to have sex but A girl kinda push him away, B girl helped him to take her cloths off and get naked herself. A girl and the guy had sex while B girl (who was also quite drunk) just kept teasing the guy. However, when the guy want to have sex with B girl, she also rejected but eventually gave in and had sex with him. So would you say both are rape? extra note is that they don't know they were filmed and they knew eachother. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
Akasha
United States261 Posts
On September 14 2012 10:08 Voltaire wrote: Enthusiastic consent? Sorry but that's ridiculous. Continuing with the acts of sex without verbally telling the other to stop or physically resisting is a form of consent. Couples don't just say "want to have sex?" "okay!" That's just not how relationships work. The law needs to reflect the reality of interpersonal contact. Couples do ask if their partner want to have sex. What about people who are unconscious who are raped? They didn't verbally tell the person to stop or physically resist. | ||
|
Blurry
Switzerland125 Posts
Here are Blurry's "Extra Special Criteria for Deciding Whether or not You Raped Dat Girl or Guy" If the person is willing and sober, it is not rape. If you nagged the person into it until the person finally gave in and had sex with you, while you may be kind of a douche or inconsiderate, it is not rape unless the person said no and you forced yourself on them. If the person is drunk to the point of not being able to function (walk, etc.) then it is most definitely rape. If the person is even moderately drunk and you encouraged the person to that level with the express purpose of having sex with them, I consider it rape. (I don't mean offering them some whine, i mean pouring shot after shot down their throat even though they don't really want to) If the person is drunk but can still function, and got to this level of inebriation on their own (ie you did not feed the person shots as in the above example) it is not rape, even if the person regrets it in the morning. You may be a douche, but it still is not rape. If you force yourself onto someone when they verbally or physically express discomfort and unwillingness then it is rape. If you put the person in a position where they are unable to refuse sex (have sex with me or lose your job, I will kill your dog, threat of violence etc.) it is rape. It is really that simple. | ||
|
Kraww
Sweden10 Posts
On September 14 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote: As embarrassing as it is to say, I've had a situation where I was with my now exgf, and I basically kept nagging her that I was horny. She said she didn't really want to, but after nagging (no physical force, implied threat, or her being in a comprised state of mind) she agreed. In the end it kind of sucked anyways because she wasn't into and she was dry, which resulted in a very memorable slight, yet distinct, gritty feeling that was notably less pleasurable, leading me to quit within 45 seconds. Zero enthusiastic consent was given by her though, lol. Under your definition, I raped my ex. And under that definition, a lot of married men end up raping their wives on a regular basis who put out to get their spouse to shut up! I've been in the same situation, in my case I thought I had the standing invitation to her body. This is why we need to talk more with each other, also it makes it apparent really crappy sex is being had out there. On September 14 2012 10:08 Voltaire wrote: Enthusiastic consent? Sorry but that's ridiculous. Continuing with the acts of sex without verbally telling the other to stop or physically resisting is a form of consent. Couples don't just say "want to have sex?" "okay!" That's just not how relationships work. The law needs to reflect the reality of interpersonal contact. Excuse me, but just because "that's just not how relationships work" right now doesn't make it any more justified. We've had some really great advances for womens rights the last few decades what with right to abortion, equal pay for equal work, voting (only 100yrs ago!), being treated equally under the law etc - when these rights did not exist, it was not right because "that's how it worked". It was a crappy part of the society. The definition of rape has not come as far as other questions and need to be redefined so that raping does not occur any longer, enthusiastic consent really would accomplish much of that. I think Sweden, in the law, has come far but in society it's still the victim who's antagonized. Enthusiastic consent would move the discourse to "was she really really happy about you penetrating her?" from "we cannot be really really sure she did not consent because she did consent the day before and he may have been confused!". That'd make me happy! Reality of interpersonal contact works as we want it to work, there is no natural or biological answer to how that works. | ||
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
On September 14 2012 08:16 sunprince wrote: You missed the point completely. To restate, what evidence is there that she didn't consent? Pretty sure the issue is that there's no evidence she said "no" in the first place. I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that there isn't enough evidence that she didn't consent to convict the guy? If so, read the post you're quoting again, the law came to the exact same conclusion so there's no dispute there. Or are you saying that you can't possibly be raped if you could have screamed and didn't? I think that statement massively misunderstands how traumatic rape is and how people respond to it. Maybe she was raped and maybe she wasn't but the facts are that there was just her word against his so he was found not guilty and that's fine. | ||
|
et
Switzerland367 Posts
On September 14 2012 17:18 KwarK wrote: I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that there isn't enough evidence that she didn't consent to convict the guy? If so, read the post you're quoting again, the law came to the exact same conclusion so there's no dispute there. Or are you saying that you can't possibly be raped if you could have screamed and didn't? I think that statement massively misunderstands how traumatic rape is and how people respond to it. Maybe she was raped and maybe she wasn't but the facts are that there was just her word against his so he was found not guilty and that's fine. That's not the case. Even if it happened exactly as she said, it did not fulfill the conditions in the german law about rape, which requires the offender to a) use violence b) threaten with violence c) exploit a condition where the victim is defenseless. That's why also the prosecutor (not only the judge) said that there should be no penalty. And that's why people are discussing if the law is adequate. Edit: There *is* discussion about the "her-word-against-his" issue because *if* the law was altered so that simple verbal non-consent is classified as rape by law, *then* you would get issues like this. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 14 2012 17:18 KwarK wrote: I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that there isn't enough evidence that she didn't consent to convict the guy? If so, read the post you're quoting again, the law came to the exact same conclusion so there's no dispute there. Or are you saying that you can't possibly be raped if you could have screamed and didn't? I think that statement massively misunderstands how traumatic rape is and how people respond to it. Maybe she was raped and maybe she wasn't but the facts are that there was just her word against his so he was found not guilty and that's fine. According to JustPassingBy there is great moral outrage over the court's decision. My point is that if there is indeed no evidence, I'm not seeing why "all sides in Germany" think this decision was morally wrong. If I missed something in the article it would be great if a German speaker could point that out. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On September 14 2012 17:06 Kraww wrote: Excuse me, but just because "that's just not how relationships work" right now doesn't make it any more justified. We've had some really great advances for womens rights the last few decades what with right to abortion, equal pay for equal work, voting (only 100yrs ago!), being treated equally under the law etc - when these rights did not exist, it was not right because "that's how it worked". It was a crappy part of the society. It's odd that you put the right to abortion in the first place because that's actually the most disputable right. (Read: It's one you could argue about. The others are granted because of human rights.) On September 14 2012 17:06 Kraww wrote: The definition of rape has not come as far as other questions and need to be redefined so that raping does not occur any longer, enthusiastic consent really would accomplish much of that. I think Sweden, in the law, has come far but in society it's still the victim who's antagonized. Enthusiastic consent would move the discourse to "was she really really happy about you penetrating her?" from "we cannot be really really sure she did not consent because she did consent the day before and he may have been confused!". That'd make me happy! Reality of interpersonal contact works as we want it to work, there is no natural or biological answer to how that works. Do you really think that changing a legal text will change how society works. I don't think so. Especially in a loaded field like sexuality. I also think this "enthusiastic intercourse" would open the doors for abuse like "I said yes, but I'm sure he felt I didn't enjoy it." For me the thing boils down that a woman should resist as long as resistance is reasonable. Nobody would blame a woman if she is frightened from a guy like O.J. Simpson but that doesn't release her from the duty to make it clear she isn't enjoying it in the slightest. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
If annyone it should be women discussing this. Does noone in this thread feel completely out of place discussing this in all its technicalities? | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On September 14 2012 21:26 Rassy wrote: Guys discussing the definition of rape. If annyone it should be women discussing this. Does noone in this thread feel completely out of place discussing this in all its technicalities? So we should let children discuss childabuse? I also think that having women in this discussion would be very beneficial but they don't always add positive contributions like a deus ex machina. And for me some very valuable statements have been posted in this thread. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
No i dont think children should be the ones to discuss child abuse but lets take this analogy wich is a pretty good one a step further. How about a thread in this forum, discussing what exactly is child abuse. Would you find that a good thread or would you find that a weird distastefull thing? I would find it a weird thing to say the least, and i would doubt the motives of the op for making such a thread.(wich i dont do with this thread btw, i guess its intentions are good) Rape isnt the same as child abuse but for me its in the same category, and therefor i find this thread equally distastefull. It is almost as if people have a pleasure discussing this in all its details and technicalities. Just replace rape with child abuse and you will see how sick a pleasure this basicly is. Off course in the end such things need to be discussed, laws need to be made. Still discussing this for pleasure on a forum like tl just isnt my thing to say the least. There are more tastefull and interesting things to discuss. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
 We may only speculate about the intentions of the OP. I think starting point was the Assange case where there has been a lot of confusing information given by the media about the laws of Sweden regarding rape and if he really is accused of "rape" or rather "sexual assault"/harassment. One reason to bring something like this to the tables might just be the urge to raise the awareness of rape which was quite successful in the case of marital rape. I also think that it is a common phenomenon (in Internet discussions) that people stop talking about the obvious cases where | ||
| ||
|
|
IPSL
dxtr13 vs OldBoy
Napoleon vs Doodle
LAN Event
Lambo vs Clem
Scarlett vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs TBD
Zoun vs TBD
BSL 21
Gosudark vs Kyrie
Gypsy vs OyAji
UltrA vs Radley
Dandy vs Ptak
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
IPSL
JDConan vs WIZARD
WolFix vs Cross
BSL 21
spx vs rasowy
HBO vs KameZerg
Cross vs Razz
dxtr13 vs ZZZero
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
