EPTWhat is Rape? - Page 52
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
| ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 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? This is sexist; men get raped too. | ||
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
On September 14 2012 20:29 sunprince wrote: 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. According to the poster above the issue isn't that he was found not guilty in a her word against his case but that simply saying "no, I do not want to have sex with you" isn't deemed non consent, you actually need to physically resist. I agree that that misunderstands how a significant number of rapes play out and fails to protect the victim. That definition of rape plays into the "legitimate rape" myth in which a chaste and virtuous young woman is attacked within her home by a stranger and fails to fight him off. Ignoring a verbal refusal should be enough to classify it as rape, if a man hears "stop" and doesn't stop then I have no sympathy for him. | ||
|
Gorinn
Bulgaria21 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Sandtrout
243 Posts
On September 15 2012 00:16 KwarK wrote: According to the poster above the issue isn't that he was found not guilty in a her word against his case but that simply saying "no, I do not want to have sex with you" isn't deemed non consent, you actually need to physically resist. I agree that that misunderstands how a significant number of rapes play out and fails to protect the victim. That definition of rape plays into the "legitimate rape" myth in which a chaste and virtuous young woman is attacked within her home by a stranger and fails to fight him off. Ignoring a verbal refusal should be enough to classify it as rape, if a man hears "stop" and doesn't stop then I have no sympathy for him. This is exactly the issue. I just now read the original article that Spiegel commented on and this is what the judge said (rough translation): "If you don't want something, you have to make it more explicit. He didn't even know that she didn't want it." So saying "No, I don't want to" isn't making it explicit enough according to german law. source (also in german): http://www.hertener-allgemeine.de/lokales/marl/Maedchen-hat-sich-nicht-genug-gewehrt;art996,833782 | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On September 14 2012 22:50 Mohdoo wrote: According to a feminist organization at my school, if a woman is intoxicated, its rape. Sure, the guy may be drunk too. But nope, its rape. Pretty ridiculous. Yeah, there is a ridiculous double standard there. Apparently if you drive a car while drunk, it's still your fault. But if you consent to sex while drunk, you were raped. It's simply mind boggling that people defend such a ridiculous concept. If you get drunk you're still responsible for your actions. Now having sex with an unconscious person is a different story altogether. I actually saw a drunk girl try to have sex with an unconscious guy at a party once. We moved her away though, and this other guy ended up having sex with her. | ||
|
Evilmystic
Russian Federation266 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? Guys discussing rape is completely normal, saying that the it concerns only women is pretty ignorant and somewhat sexist. Rape and its legal definition are very important to the entire human society, they concern not only the people who are directly affected by this issue (rape victims, rapists, relatives of such people) but everyone else too. One problem arises from the way rape related legislation influences human behavior in the matters of sexual life. I think no one will disagree that sex is huge part of almost everyone's life, it's also a part of life where our biological nature plays a very important role. When possible legal consequences make you act in contradiction with how you are naturally expected to act during sexual interaction it creates problems. I'd give an example about first time sex with a new partner. I have seen a lot of female opinions that express their disappointment in guys who fail to act first when women expect them to. This is often because naturally women think it's indecent for them to explicitly state that they want to have sex, and men who grew up in our present day society fear to act first, because they think it may even be considered sexual assault if no explicit consent is given beforehand. Another problem is more theoretical, it is a part of general matter of reverse discrimination. While we may agree that women were an oppressed social group in the past, it doesn't actually justify giving them any additional privileges besides restoring the rights they were deprived of. That makes me think that the German legislator were completely right with their definition of rape, because I think if you make it any more broad it will eventually make males a discriminated group. When we say that sexual violence is bad it's because of "violence", not "sexual". We want to put rapists in jail not because they give their victims bad sexual experience, but because they use coercion. My last point would be about general application of the law. While it's obvious that it's rape when one side explicitly states their unwillingness to have sex, the question of presenting objective evidence still stands. If there is no evidence besides victim's words you can't really expect a "guilty" verdict. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
Rephrasing the definition is not as "ez pz" as it might intuitively sound. We Germans had our share of careers abruptly ending because of women who pretended to have been raped by some men, even though the men were sentenced not guilty afterwards. All in all, a very delicate situation. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
A horrifying correct verdict by Anna-Lena Roth 31year old Roy Z. had to show up before a court. He was accused of raping a 15 year old. The judge acquit Z. - amongst other things because the girl didn't resist enough. It was a legally correct verdict according to Experts. [The outrage in(?) social media is huge] [2 paragraphes about the outrage in social media. Crediting the "Hertener Allgemeine" for first publishing the case.] Indeed past monday there was a process at the regional court Essen against Roy Z.,31. He was accused of raping the then 15y.o. in July 2009 in his flat in Marl. It is said that Z. drank much alcohol and smoked weed that evening, according to him he then had massive alcohol- and drug problems. Beside him and the girl there were two other women in the flat: Z.'s girlfriend, who is mother of his two children, and a prostitute according to his defendant Klaus Rumberg. According to the prosecutor Z. sent the two women to the basement shortly before they + Show Spoiler + [it's not clear who they are] The court worded it more serious but i'm lacking here sorry It is about Paragraph 177. The process against Z. was scheduled for two day. It ended after two hours. According to Rumberg, all involved agreed that there was no legal hold - despite the bad taste. In other words: Z. comes free. "In accordance with the high court the verdict was well reasoned." says Tatjana Hörnle, professor for criminal laws at Humboldt University in Berlin, and points out paragraph 177 of the [german] criminal law. It states: "Who another person 1. with force 2. through threats with immediate danger for body or live or 3. through abuse of a situation in which the victim is helpless at the actions of the offender coerces to endure sexual acts of the offender or a third [party] or to carry out sexual acts at the offender or a third will be punished with imprisonment of at least one year. The first two cases could be excluded. And the girl was also not "helpless" from the point of view of the judge. "She could have run away or cry for help, but she suffered everything. That's not enough to punish someone." the "Hertener Allgemeine" cites the judge. Human vs. lawyer The Teenager was "emotionally very struck" by the verdict says her lawyer Dirk Brockpähler. He explained her the case at length and thinks that she understood the decisions by the lawmakers/judges [?] "If one takes the constitutional state serious there would have been no other verdict possible" says Brockpähler. There have been no locked doors, so an escape theoretically would have been possible. Furthermore the cry for help of his client would have been heard. Thus the girl was not "helpless". Brockpähler understands the turmoil in social networks as a human but not as a lawyer: "the people who get het up now haven't followed the process closely" he says. Even the expert for criminal laws Hörnle understands the turmoil. The decision of the court is correct under the given situation, but "one has to pose the question if the law which caused the verdict is right." [According to her] the case has shown that the law is not satisfactory. However it makes sense to list objective criteria for rape in criminal law, says Hörnle. Otherwise it would be hard to prove the accusation of a women if she says the sexual intercourse was rape. Z. himself on one side was relieved upon hearing the verdict says his defender Rumberg. On the other side he is also bitter, because he never understood the accusations and always felt innocent. Z. also spoke about his harsh childhood, about violence in the family and his unemployment at court. At the moment he serves a three and a half year sentence due to aggravated assault. At the very same evening in July 2009 he abused the prostitute. This year in November two thirds of his sentence are over and Z wants to start a therapy. i would be quite glad if someone would doublecheck what i just wrote and point out errors. I especially had trouble with the german conditional that is used to express claims. To sum it up: the man was drunk and stoned. the girl did nothing but say "no i don't want it" one time (it's not clear when she said that or how loud it was) he was not guilty because the girl was not "helpless" but choose to not use the means at hand (run from him through the unlocked door or cry for help) (maybe interesting: the judge was a women) Open question(s) for me: Why was the girl in the flat anyways? What were here relations to the three adults involved. (Why did her parents allow her to visit aggressive persons?) Edit: There is a press release of the court which is not quite helpful but points out that the man was not punished because she was not helpless. Many media in germany reported as if she wasn't resisting enough. The original article of the Hertener Allgemeine is utter trash. 2nd Edit: here is the official announcement of the court. It states that the girl was intimidated because of the assault at the prostitute. 3rd Edit: I forgot this but according to the court the crime is over 2 years over and nobody is able to give the exact date of the crime. | ||
|
jodogohoo
Canada2533 Posts
I think they discuss rape at some point in the talk. But this is part of a greater problem that has been present throughout human history in different geographical areas. The domination of women. The domination of nature. The sociology and social psychology. The scripts. The norms. It's more then just about the individual. I'm not saying don't blame the individual, but also look at the environment and context that allowed this type of situation to occur. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
It doesn't matter why she was there, it doesn't matter what her relation to the other people was, it doesn't matter if her parents are the worst parents in the whole world. You don't get to rape another person, ever. Is it really so hard to conceive that other people are human beings? Entitled to decide what happens to their own person? Here is the thing: If Scarlet Johanson runs into my house, fully naked, says she wants every guy in the world to fuck her, except me, well you know what? I guess I'm the unluckiest guy in the world, but that doesn't mean I get to rape because I'm "entitled" to my "fair share" of sex, nor is her acting "un-ladylike," a get out of jail free card either. Every single person gets to decide what happens to their own body. If someone doesn't want to have sex, no matter what circumstance you fabricate, they are not obligated to fullfill any pervert's demand for sex. If you accept that you can violate another person's body, if only the circumstances are right, what kind of a creature does that make you? Not a man, that's for sure. | ||
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
On September 15 2012 04:14 zalz wrote: For fuck's sake. It doesn't matter why she was there, it doesn't matter what her relation to the other people was, it doesn't matter if her parents are the worst parents in the whole world. You don't get to rape another person, ever. Is it really so hard to conceive that other people are human beings? Entitled to decide what happens to their own person? Here is the thing: If Scarlet Johanson runs into my house, fully naked, says she wants every guy in the world to fuck her, except me, well you know what? I guess I'm the unluckiest guy in the world, but that doesn't mean I get to rape because I'm "entitled" to my "fair share" of sex, nor is her acting "un-ladylike," a get out of jail free card either. Every single person gets to decide what happens to their own body. If someone doesn't want to have sex, no matter what circumstance you fabricate, they are not obligated to fullfill any pervert's demand for sex. If you accept that you can violate another person's body, if only the circumstances are right, what kind of a creature does that make you? Not a man, that's for sure. No one is really arguing that you should be able to force a girl/guy into sex. However you can't deny there is an issue regarding the fairness of rape and sexual assault laws. How is it fair if two people are drunk and things smoothly progress to sex, the next morning the girl can completely change her mind about what happened and accuse the guy of rape even though he was just as drunk as her? They were both massively intoxicated, but the guy gets his reputation ruined for life because he has a penis and not a vagina? Where do you draw the line? What's the context in your example? Is she teasing you or is she dead serious as she says those words? Context, context, context. In one instance you make a pass at her and she might fuck you, in the other she'll probably reject your advances. If you want to play it safe, tell her to get out of your house, haha. | ||
|
trbot
Canada142 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
drbrown
Sweden442 Posts
I've heard of cases where because the woman apparently didn't resist "enough" it couldn't have been rape, in this case she had said no several times and even tried to push her assailant off her but since she wasn't violent enough it "wasn't rape" and the guy walked free. Stupid. Then a complete opposite happens and cases where consent wasn't explicitly stated and the women just happened to regret the sex afterwards turned into jailtime for the man. Stupid. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Limitless supply of people willing to be banned just to make this same comment lol ? (post above drbrown) The above comment though applies to all law. So many stupid sentences passed and so many guilty people let free... it is very frustrating sometimes but I guess all we can do is make a concious effort to gradually improve the process. | ||
|
Dyme
Germany523 Posts
If they aren't gonna change the law, they should probably 'allow' a wider definition of "helpless" or something. Maybe a 15-year old child could have been "helpless" because of mental stuff like low self esteem and seeing adults as superior and not being able to really question their decisions, combined with some kind of confusion because of lack of life experience and therefore not being able to defend herself. Or something like that. | ||
|
ANoise
United States67 Posts
On September 15 2012 05:27 trbot wrote: When I read the title of this thread, the first thing to pop into my head was an extremely famous song, whose lyrics my brain auto-modified. "What is rape? Baby don't hurt me... don't hurt me... no more..." There can't possibly be any good reason to post that in this thread. You should install a censor in your brain to keep comments like this unsaid, especially when they are both so offensive and simply unfunny to others. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On September 15 2012 04:14 zalz wrote: For fuck's sake. It doesn't matter why she was there, it doesn't matter what her relation to the other people was, it doesn't matter if her parents are the worst parents in the whole world. You don't get to rape another person, ever. Is it really so hard to conceive that other people are human beings? Entitled to decide what happens to their own person? Here is the thing: If Scarlet Johanson runs into my house, fully naked, says she wants every guy in the world to fuck her, except me, well you know what? I guess I'm the unluckiest guy in the world, but that doesn't mean I get to rape because I'm "entitled" to my "fair share" of sex, nor is her acting "un-ladylike," a get out of jail free card either. Every single person gets to decide what happens to their own body. If someone doesn't want to have sex, no matter what circumstance you fabricate, they are not obligated to fullfill any pervert's demand for sex. If you accept that you can violate another person's body, if only the circumstances are right, what kind of a creature does that make you? Not a man, that's for sure. well Scarlett Johanson would be charged with breaking and entering and possibly sexual harassment for doing that. | ||
|
Evilmystic
Russian Federation266 Posts
On September 15 2012 05:47 Dyme wrote: About the 15-year old girl raped in Germany: If they aren't gonna change the law, they should probably 'allow' a wider definition of "helpless" or something. Maybe a 15-year old child could have been "helpless" because of mental stuff like low self esteem and seeing adults as superior and not being able to really question their decisions, combined with some kind of confusion because of lack of life experience and therefore not being able to defend herself. Or something like that. Well, there is no point in going about this "child" stuff, the age of consent is set exactly for this reason and she was above it. | ||
|
Golem72
Canada127 Posts
| ||
| ||
