|
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 how many women have to be present before I'm allowed to talk about rape? Is it like a proportion thing or is it an absolute number? Can they just observe the conversation or do they have to be in an explicitly supervisory capacity? I have so many questions...
Oh, also, is there like a certain number of guys that need to be present for women to discuss, I dunno, penile circumcision or automotive repair?
|
On September 15 2012 06:28 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +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 how many women have to be present before I'm allowed to talk about rape? Is it like a proportion thing or is it an absolute number? Can they just observe the conversation or do they have to be in an explicitly supervisory capacity? I have so many questions... Oh, also, is there like a certain number of guys that need to be present for women to discuss, I dunno, penile circumcision or automotive repair?
Seven.
I believe the number is seven.
|
On September 15 2012 00:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 20:29 sunprince wrote:On September 14 2012 17:18 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2012 08:16 sunprince wrote:On September 14 2012 02:02 Sandtrout wrote:On September 14 2012 01:56 sunprince wrote:On September 14 2012 01:46 JustPassingBy wrote:*bump* In Germany, a man was sentenced non-guilty, because the girl he is said to have raped did not fight back. german source: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-landgericht-essen-spricht-angeklagten-frei-a-855639.htmlGerman definition of rape includes something about violence, or threats, or being defenseless and according to the judge, the victim was not defenseless, as she could've shouted for help or run away but did neither. The literal translation of the "defenseless" clause is something like "abusing a situation in which the victim is defenseless at the mercy of the offender. edit: two facts upon which the sentence is based: 1. the door was open, so she could've escaped 2. there were people in the other apartments of the house, so her screams would've been heard. All sides in Germany are aware that the sentence is legally correct, but not morally. The article I stated talked about "men vs law". Based on Google Translate, the defendant did not act violently, did not threaten her, and she neither chose to leave nor to scream for help. In other words, there's no evidence of rape at all. So how exactly did people conclude she was raped? 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. 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. 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.
It sounds like what happened is that she said that she told him "no". However, there's no evidence to corroborate this, and in fact, the evidence contradicts this. Not to mention the fact that there can be relevant context that the article didn't discuss, such as a girl saying "no" yet changing her mind afterward, or saying "no" in a non-literal (such as playful or sarcastic) manner.
What's going on is that the outraged people are just taking her at her word and forgetting all about little concepts like innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
On September 15 2012 05:36 Reason wrote:
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.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
|
On September 15 2012 07:01 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 06:28 HULKAMANIA wrote: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 how many women have to be present before I'm allowed to talk about rape? Is it like a proportion thing or is it an absolute number? Can they just observe the conversation or do they have to be in an explicitly supervisory capacity? I have so many questions... Oh, also, is there like a certain number of guys that need to be present for women to discuss, I dunno, penile circumcision or automotive repair? Seven. I believe the number is seven.
Way off bro...way off
The answer is 42
In all seriousness...I am a bit depressed that this topic is still up and that it is still a controversial issue after years and years of progress, but that statement can be applied to a lot of things D:
|
I feel like this is one of those issues in which a small group of people doing stupid and/or malicious things are ruining it for everyone else: one man rapes a woman, and suddenly all men who have sex with women have the potential to be labelled rapists; one woman falsely and maliciously accuses a man of raping her, and suddenly all women who claim to be raped are lying sluts - though my instinct towards the latter (and I may be biased) is that the paranoia is far more widespread than the actual occurrences of it happening, and if I had to say why, I would probably make the tentative point that the consequences for a woman being raped include (despite what some senators believe) possible pregnancy, which even if aborted can be intensely traumatic in the very long term, both physically and emotionally, and is something I think most women would not invoke lightly.* There seems to be this pervasive attitude or fear that women, in particular, upon making shitty decisions, will abuse public resources (abortion) and/or lie (call rape) to get out of them, and I'm not entirely sure why this exists.
My other issue of concern is the idea that exists in various legal discourses that women cannot consent to sex while drunk (ie., if a girl says yes to sex while drunk, technically it is not actual reasoned consent, and the following intercourse is technically rape), but men can. I can't think of a reason that men should also not be able to consent while drunk, except that there would be a lot less sex happening overall, or alternatively, it would all be rape.
*this is a very long sentence
|
On September 15 2012 12:49 khaydarin9 wrote:
I feel like this is one of those issues in which a small group of people doing stupid and/or malicious things are ruining it for everyone else: one man rapes a woman, and suddenly all men who have sex with women have the potential to be labelled rapists; one woman falsely and maliciously accuses a man of raping her, and suddenly all women who claim to be raped are lying sluts - though my instinct towards the latter (and I may be biased) is that the paranoia is far more widespread than the actual occurrences of it happening, and if I had to say why, I would probably make the tentative point that the consequences for a woman being raped include (despite what some senators believe) possible pregnancy, which even if aborted can be intensely traumatic in the very long term, both physically and emotionally, and is something I think most women would not invoke lightly.* There seems to be this pervasive attitude or fear that women, in particular, upon making shitty decisions, will abuse public resources (abortion) and/or lie (call rape) to get out of them, and I'm not entirely sure why this exists.
My other issue of concern is the idea that exists in various legal discourses that women cannot consent to sex while drunk (ie., if a girl says yes to sex while drunk, technically it is not actual reasoned consent, and the following intercourse is technically rape), but men can. I can't think of a reason that men should also not be able to consent while drunk, except that there would be a lot less sex happening overall, or alternatively, it would all be rape.
*this is a very long sentence
the thing is, in the real world, drunk people have consensual sex all the time. Is that all considered rape? No. Things start to break down quickly when the law doesn't reflect the reality of how people live their lives. That's what needs to be changed.
|
On September 15 2012 12:51 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:49 khaydarin9 wrote:
I feel like this is one of those issues in which a small group of people doing stupid and/or malicious things are ruining it for everyone else: one man rapes a woman, and suddenly all men who have sex with women have the potential to be labelled rapists; one woman falsely and maliciously accuses a man of raping her, and suddenly all women who claim to be raped are lying sluts - though my instinct towards the latter (and I may be biased) is that the paranoia is far more widespread than the actual occurrences of it happening, and if I had to say why, I would probably make the tentative point that the consequences for a woman being raped include (despite what some senators believe) possible pregnancy, which even if aborted can be intensely traumatic in the very long term, both physically and emotionally, and is something I think most women would not invoke lightly.* There seems to be this pervasive attitude or fear that women, in particular, upon making shitty decisions, will abuse public resources (abortion) and/or lie (call rape) to get out of them, and I'm not entirely sure why this exists.
My other issue of concern is the idea that exists in various legal discourses that women cannot consent to sex while drunk (ie., if a girl says yes to sex while drunk, technically it is not actual reasoned consent, and the following intercourse is technically rape), but men can. I can't think of a reason that men should also not be able to consent while drunk, except that there would be a lot less sex happening overall, or alternatively, it would all be rape.
*this is a very long sentence
the thing is, in the real world, drunk people have consensual sex all the time. Is that all considered rape? No. Things start to break down quickly when the law doesn't reflect the reality of how people live their lives. That's what needs to be changed.
For sure. But what do you change it to?
|
On September 15 2012 12:57 khaydarin9 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:51 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:49 khaydarin9 wrote:
I feel like this is one of those issues in which a small group of people doing stupid and/or malicious things are ruining it for everyone else: one man rapes a woman, and suddenly all men who have sex with women have the potential to be labelled rapists; one woman falsely and maliciously accuses a man of raping her, and suddenly all women who claim to be raped are lying sluts - though my instinct towards the latter (and I may be biased) is that the paranoia is far more widespread than the actual occurrences of it happening, and if I had to say why, I would probably make the tentative point that the consequences for a woman being raped include (despite what some senators believe) possible pregnancy, which even if aborted can be intensely traumatic in the very long term, both physically and emotionally, and is something I think most women would not invoke lightly.* There seems to be this pervasive attitude or fear that women, in particular, upon making shitty decisions, will abuse public resources (abortion) and/or lie (call rape) to get out of them, and I'm not entirely sure why this exists.
My other issue of concern is the idea that exists in various legal discourses that women cannot consent to sex while drunk (ie., if a girl says yes to sex while drunk, technically it is not actual reasoned consent, and the following intercourse is technically rape), but men can. I can't think of a reason that men should also not be able to consent while drunk, except that there would be a lot less sex happening overall, or alternatively, it would all be rape.
*this is a very long sentence
the thing is, in the real world, drunk people have consensual sex all the time. Is that all considered rape? No. Things start to break down quickly when the law doesn't reflect the reality of how people live their lives. That's what needs to be changed. For sure. But what do you change it to?
just make people responsible for their actions regardless of what substances they've voluntarily taken. if you consent to sex but then change your mind later, that's your fault. just like if you commit a crime while drunk (like DUI), you're still responsible.
|
Northern Ireland23793 Posts
On September 15 2012 14:07 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:57 khaydarin9 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:51 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:49 khaydarin9 wrote:
I feel like this is one of those issues in which a small group of people doing stupid and/or malicious things are ruining it for everyone else: one man rapes a woman, and suddenly all men who have sex with women have the potential to be labelled rapists; one woman falsely and maliciously accuses a man of raping her, and suddenly all women who claim to be raped are lying sluts - though my instinct towards the latter (and I may be biased) is that the paranoia is far more widespread than the actual occurrences of it happening, and if I had to say why, I would probably make the tentative point that the consequences for a woman being raped include (despite what some senators believe) possible pregnancy, which even if aborted can be intensely traumatic in the very long term, both physically and emotionally, and is something I think most women would not invoke lightly.* There seems to be this pervasive attitude or fear that women, in particular, upon making shitty decisions, will abuse public resources (abortion) and/or lie (call rape) to get out of them, and I'm not entirely sure why this exists.
My other issue of concern is the idea that exists in various legal discourses that women cannot consent to sex while drunk (ie., if a girl says yes to sex while drunk, technically it is not actual reasoned consent, and the following intercourse is technically rape), but men can. I can't think of a reason that men should also not be able to consent while drunk, except that there would be a lot less sex happening overall, or alternatively, it would all be rape.
*this is a very long sentence
the thing is, in the real world, drunk people have consensual sex all the time. Is that all considered rape? No. Things start to break down quickly when the law doesn't reflect the reality of how people live their lives. That's what needs to be changed. For sure. But what do you change it to? just make people responsible for their actions regardless of what substances they've voluntarily taken. if you consent to sex but then change your mind later, that's your fault. just like if you commit a crime while drunk (like DUI), you're still responsible.
What's to stop guys 'taking care' of really drunk girls of a night by trying to get them home, having sex with someone who'd be barely conscious and the next day invoke the kind of defence that you mention. I too hate people who try to hide being alcohol to excuse their actions, but I have in the past steppd in, or seen others step in when a guy is trying to pull that kind of thing. People need some kind of protection over being taken advantage of when completely intoxicated
|
On September 15 2012 14:13 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 14:07 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:57 khaydarin9 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:51 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:49 khaydarin9 wrote:
I feel like this is one of those issues in which a small group of people doing stupid and/or malicious things are ruining it for everyone else: one man rapes a woman, and suddenly all men who have sex with women have the potential to be labelled rapists; one woman falsely and maliciously accuses a man of raping her, and suddenly all women who claim to be raped are lying sluts - though my instinct towards the latter (and I may be biased) is that the paranoia is far more widespread than the actual occurrences of it happening, and if I had to say why, I would probably make the tentative point that the consequences for a woman being raped include (despite what some senators believe) possible pregnancy, which even if aborted can be intensely traumatic in the very long term, both physically and emotionally, and is something I think most women would not invoke lightly.* There seems to be this pervasive attitude or fear that women, in particular, upon making shitty decisions, will abuse public resources (abortion) and/or lie (call rape) to get out of them, and I'm not entirely sure why this exists.
My other issue of concern is the idea that exists in various legal discourses that women cannot consent to sex while drunk (ie., if a girl says yes to sex while drunk, technically it is not actual reasoned consent, and the following intercourse is technically rape), but men can. I can't think of a reason that men should also not be able to consent while drunk, except that there would be a lot less sex happening overall, or alternatively, it would all be rape.
*this is a very long sentence
the thing is, in the real world, drunk people have consensual sex all the time. Is that all considered rape? No. Things start to break down quickly when the law doesn't reflect the reality of how people live their lives. That's what needs to be changed. For sure. But what do you change it to? just make people responsible for their actions regardless of what substances they've voluntarily taken. if you consent to sex but then change your mind later, that's your fault. just like if you commit a crime while drunk (like DUI), you're still responsible. What's to stop guys 'taking care' of really drunk girls of a night by trying to get them home, having sex with someone who'd be barely conscious and the next day invoke the kind of defence that you mention. I too hate people who try to hide being alcohol to excuse their actions, but I have in the past steppd in, or seen others step in when a guy is trying to pull that kind of thing. People need some kind of protection over being taken advantage of when completely intoxicated
what you described is rape (having sex with someone who is so barely conscious they don't even know what's going on).
But people need to understand that getting that drunk is NOT a good idea. right now a lot of girls seem to think that it's perfectly okay to get as drunk as possible, and that there will be no risk to them whatsoever. Getting THAT intoxicated is risky behavior. Obviously the victim should never be blamed, but people can do things to minimize their risk of being attacked.
and good job by trying to stop rape, though it's hard to know when that is really happening. if you don't know them, you don't know if they are a couple, etc.
|
Northern Ireland23793 Posts
On September 15 2012 14:18 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 14:13 Wombat_NI wrote:On September 15 2012 14:07 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:57 khaydarin9 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:51 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:49 khaydarin9 wrote:
I feel like this is one of those issues in which a small group of people doing stupid and/or malicious things are ruining it for everyone else: one man rapes a woman, and suddenly all men who have sex with women have the potential to be labelled rapists; one woman falsely and maliciously accuses a man of raping her, and suddenly all women who claim to be raped are lying sluts - though my instinct towards the latter (and I may be biased) is that the paranoia is far more widespread than the actual occurrences of it happening, and if I had to say why, I would probably make the tentative point that the consequences for a woman being raped include (despite what some senators believe) possible pregnancy, which even if aborted can be intensely traumatic in the very long term, both physically and emotionally, and is something I think most women would not invoke lightly.* There seems to be this pervasive attitude or fear that women, in particular, upon making shitty decisions, will abuse public resources (abortion) and/or lie (call rape) to get out of them, and I'm not entirely sure why this exists.
My other issue of concern is the idea that exists in various legal discourses that women cannot consent to sex while drunk (ie., if a girl says yes to sex while drunk, technically it is not actual reasoned consent, and the following intercourse is technically rape), but men can. I can't think of a reason that men should also not be able to consent while drunk, except that there would be a lot less sex happening overall, or alternatively, it would all be rape.
*this is a very long sentence
the thing is, in the real world, drunk people have consensual sex all the time. Is that all considered rape? No. Things start to break down quickly when the law doesn't reflect the reality of how people live their lives. That's what needs to be changed. For sure. But what do you change it to? just make people responsible for their actions regardless of what substances they've voluntarily taken. if you consent to sex but then change your mind later, that's your fault. just like if you commit a crime while drunk (like DUI), you're still responsible. What's to stop guys 'taking care' of really drunk girls of a night by trying to get them home, having sex with someone who'd be barely conscious and the next day invoke the kind of defence that you mention. I too hate people who try to hide being alcohol to excuse their actions, but I have in the past steppd in, or seen others step in when a guy is trying to pull that kind of thing. People need some kind of protection over being taken advantage of when completely intoxicated what you described is rape (having sex with someone who is so barely conscious they don't even know what's going on). But people need to understand that getting that drunk is NOT a good idea. right now a lot of girls seem to think that it's perfectly okay to get as drunk as possible, and that there will be no risk to them whatsoever. Getting THAT intoxicated is risky behavior. Obviously the victim should never be blamed, but people can do things to minimize their risk of being attacked. and good job by trying to stop rape, though it's hard to know when that is really happening. if you don't know them, you don't know if they are a couple, etc.
Yeah I actually do 100% agree that people need to be more responsible for their own behaviour with alcohol. I fucking hate people who do stupid things when drunk, and claim 'oh but I was drunk so it's not the same' in mitigation. It's pathetic, if you do stupid, hateful or dangerous things when you're drunk, drink less.
I was called a rape apologist and a rapist in waiting by folks in University societies because I didn't agree with their assessment that a police/student union initiative was terrible and damaging to women. Basically they had ads around campus for women i.e, don't drink too much or you make yourself a target, for guys it was rather stringent 'no means no' stuff. I'm not sure at what point thinking that drinking yourself into a stupor isn't a good idea becomes me justifying rape, but there you go. Apparently the two are inextricably interlinked!
Back the point I made earlier. Despite agreeing with some of what you're saying I do think with alcohol and rape victims they need some protection. Especially when drugging is involved if you put those kind of provisions like'drunk = own responsibility' , they can be abused by shady individuals. I once got spiked with GHB which was meant for a female friend of mine and it was horrible and very disorientating in terms of your recollection of the previous night. I know there are tests for such substances but iirc they are in and out of your system very quickly.
|
On September 15 2012 14:56 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 14:18 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:13 Wombat_NI wrote:On September 15 2012 14:07 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:57 khaydarin9 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:51 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:49 khaydarin9 wrote:
I feel like this is one of those issues in which a small group of people doing stupid and/or malicious things are ruining it for everyone else: one man rapes a woman, and suddenly all men who have sex with women have the potential to be labelled rapists; one woman falsely and maliciously accuses a man of raping her, and suddenly all women who claim to be raped are lying sluts - though my instinct towards the latter (and I may be biased) is that the paranoia is far more widespread than the actual occurrences of it happening, and if I had to say why, I would probably make the tentative point that the consequences for a woman being raped include (despite what some senators believe) possible pregnancy, which even if aborted can be intensely traumatic in the very long term, both physically and emotionally, and is something I think most women would not invoke lightly.* There seems to be this pervasive attitude or fear that women, in particular, upon making shitty decisions, will abuse public resources (abortion) and/or lie (call rape) to get out of them, and I'm not entirely sure why this exists.
My other issue of concern is the idea that exists in various legal discourses that women cannot consent to sex while drunk (ie., if a girl says yes to sex while drunk, technically it is not actual reasoned consent, and the following intercourse is technically rape), but men can. I can't think of a reason that men should also not be able to consent while drunk, except that there would be a lot less sex happening overall, or alternatively, it would all be rape.
*this is a very long sentence
the thing is, in the real world, drunk people have consensual sex all the time. Is that all considered rape? No. Things start to break down quickly when the law doesn't reflect the reality of how people live their lives. That's what needs to be changed. For sure. But what do you change it to? just make people responsible for their actions regardless of what substances they've voluntarily taken. if you consent to sex but then change your mind later, that's your fault. just like if you commit a crime while drunk (like DUI), you're still responsible. What's to stop guys 'taking care' of really drunk girls of a night by trying to get them home, having sex with someone who'd be barely conscious and the next day invoke the kind of defence that you mention. I too hate people who try to hide being alcohol to excuse their actions, but I have in the past steppd in, or seen others step in when a guy is trying to pull that kind of thing. People need some kind of protection over being taken advantage of when completely intoxicated what you described is rape (having sex with someone who is so barely conscious they don't even know what's going on). But people need to understand that getting that drunk is NOT a good idea. right now a lot of girls seem to think that it's perfectly okay to get as drunk as possible, and that there will be no risk to them whatsoever. Getting THAT intoxicated is risky behavior. Obviously the victim should never be blamed, but people can do things to minimize their risk of being attacked. and good job by trying to stop rape, though it's hard to know when that is really happening. if you don't know them, you don't know if they are a couple, etc. Yeah I actually do 100% agree that people need to be more responsible for their own behaviour with alcohol. I fucking hate people who do stupid things when drunk, and claim 'oh but I was drunk so it's not the same' in mitigation. It's pathetic, if you do stupid, hateful or dangerous things when you're drunk, drink less. I was called a rape apologist and a rapist in waiting by folks in University societies because I didn't agree with their assessment that a police/student union initiative was terrible and damaging to women. Basically they had ads around campus for women i.e, don't drink too much or you make yourself a target, for guys it was rather stringent 'no means no' stuff. I'm not sure at what point thinking that drinking yourself into a stupor isn't a good idea becomes me justifying rape, but there you go. Apparently the two are inextricably interlinked! Back the point I made earlier. Despite agreeing with some of what you're saying I do think with alcohol and rape victims they need some protection. Especially when drugging is involved if you put those kind of provisions like'drunk = own responsibility' , they can be abused by shady individuals. I once got spiked with GHB which was meant for a female friend of mine and it was horrible and very disorientating in terms of your recollection of the previous night. I know there are tests for such substances but iirc they are in and out of your system very quickly.
ah yeah, date raping (or really getting someone to take any drug without them knowing it) is a separate issue altogether. It's a really terrible crime, and I think the punishment often isn't harsh enough. People should get 10 years + in prison for date rape before even getting a chance to get parole. Unfortunately it's one of those things that is really hard to prevent, just like how you can't be always safe from a random psycho coming up and shooting you in the face.
|
On September 15 2012 14:07 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:57 khaydarin9 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:51 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:49 khaydarin9 wrote:
I feel like this is one of those issues in which a small group of people doing stupid and/or malicious things are ruining it for everyone else: one man rapes a woman, and suddenly all men who have sex with women have the potential to be labelled rapists; one woman falsely and maliciously accuses a man of raping her, and suddenly all women who claim to be raped are lying sluts - though my instinct towards the latter (and I may be biased) is that the paranoia is far more widespread than the actual occurrences of it happening, and if I had to say why, I would probably make the tentative point that the consequences for a woman being raped include (despite what some senators believe) possible pregnancy, which even if aborted can be intensely traumatic in the very long term, both physically and emotionally, and is something I think most women would not invoke lightly.* There seems to be this pervasive attitude or fear that women, in particular, upon making shitty decisions, will abuse public resources (abortion) and/or lie (call rape) to get out of them, and I'm not entirely sure why this exists.
My other issue of concern is the idea that exists in various legal discourses that women cannot consent to sex while drunk (ie., if a girl says yes to sex while drunk, technically it is not actual reasoned consent, and the following intercourse is technically rape), but men can. I can't think of a reason that men should also not be able to consent while drunk, except that there would be a lot less sex happening overall, or alternatively, it would all be rape.
*this is a very long sentence
the thing is, in the real world, drunk people have consensual sex all the time. Is that all considered rape? No. Things start to break down quickly when the law doesn't reflect the reality of how people live their lives. That's what needs to be changed. For sure. But what do you change it to? just make people responsible for their actions regardless of what substances they've voluntarily taken. if you consent to sex but then change your mind later, that's your fault. just like if you commit a crime while drunk (like DUI), you're still responsible.
I suspect you would still run into the problem of, say, waking up next to someone any not knowing if it was "I was intoxicated and consented to sex" or "I was intoxicated, passed out, and someone had sex with my unconscious body".
Edit: and I understand that people should probably take responsibility for their actions, which may include irresponsible drinking and putting yourself in position in which you can't defend yourself, but without the perpetrator of a crime, there would be no crime, and taking responsibility for your actions, so to speak, should apply to everyone.
|
On September 15 2012 07:30 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 00:16 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2012 20:29 sunprince wrote:On September 14 2012 17:18 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2012 08:16 sunprince wrote:On September 14 2012 02:02 Sandtrout wrote:On September 14 2012 01:56 sunprince wrote:On September 14 2012 01:46 JustPassingBy wrote:*bump* In Germany, a man was sentenced non-guilty, because the girl he is said to have raped did not fight back. german source: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-landgericht-essen-spricht-angeklagten-frei-a-855639.htmlGerman definition of rape includes something about violence, or threats, or being defenseless and according to the judge, the victim was not defenseless, as she could've shouted for help or run away but did neither. The literal translation of the "defenseless" clause is something like "abusing a situation in which the victim is defenseless at the mercy of the offender. edit: two facts upon which the sentence is based: 1. the door was open, so she could've escaped 2. there were people in the other apartments of the house, so her screams would've been heard. All sides in Germany are aware that the sentence is legally correct, but not morally. The article I stated talked about "men vs law". Based on Google Translate, the defendant did not act violently, did not threaten her, and she neither chose to leave nor to scream for help. In other words, there's no evidence of rape at all. So how exactly did people conclude she was raped? 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. 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. 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. It sounds like what happened is that she said that she told him "no". However, there's no evidence to corroborate this, and in fact, the evidence contradicts this. Not to mention the fact that there can be relevant context that the article didn't discuss, such as a girl saying "no" yet changing her mind afterward, or saying "no" in a non-literal (such as playful or sarcastic) manner. What's going on is that the outraged people are just taking her at her word and forgetting all about little concepts like innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 05:36 Reason wrote:
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. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Please read this where you can find a translation of the article. The man was set free because in german law either a threat, an imminent danger or helplessness is mandatory for "rape". According to the Court she could have run away because the door was not locked or cry for help.
The problem is that many german newspapers are utter trash and confused "didn't resist enough" (wrong) with "wasn't helpless" (actual reason).
|
What is rape?
Well its whatever the current judge is deciding it is.
So many times I read rapists being not sentenced by judges for whatever reasons, especially in Austria and Germany.
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On September 15 2012 15:37 khaydarin9 wrote:
I suspect you would still run into the problem of, say, waking up next to someone any not knowing if it was "I was intoxicated and consented to sex" or "I was intoxicated, passed out, and someone had sex with my unconscious body".
Edit: and I understand that people should probably take responsibility for their actions, which may include irresponsible drinking and putting yourself in position in which you can't defend yourself, but without the perpetrator of a crime, there would be no crime, and taking responsibility for your actions, so to speak, should apply to everyone.
Well, I think it isn't really important if you don't know whether you've been unconscious or simply intoxicated. Even if you've been unconscious you need some sort of evidence besides your own words, and if there is no such evidence there is no crime from legal viewpoint.
On September 15 2012 16:46 sharkie wrote:
What is rape?
Well its whatever the current judge is deciding it is.
So many times I read rapists being not sentenced by judges for whatever reasons, especially in Austria and Germany.
I'd agree with sunprince who has quoted William Blackstone earlier on this page. It's much worse when someone is put in jail for rape when in reality he had consensual sex. Such things happen more and more often these days and that's very concerning.
|
On September 15 2012 17:47 Evilmystic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:37 khaydarin9 wrote:
I suspect you would still run into the problem of, say, waking up next to someone any not knowing if it was "I was intoxicated and consented to sex" or "I was intoxicated, passed out, and someone had sex with my unconscious body".
Edit: and I understand that people should probably take responsibility for their actions, which may include irresponsible drinking and putting yourself in position in which you can't defend yourself, but without the perpetrator of a crime, there would be no crime, and taking responsibility for your actions, so to speak, should apply to everyone.
Well, I think it isn't really important if you don't know whether you've been unconscious or simply intoxicated. Even if you've been unconscious you need some sort of evidence besides your own words, and if there is no such evidence there is no crime from legal viewpoint. Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 16:46 sharkie wrote:
What is rape?
Well its whatever the current judge is deciding it is.
So many times I read rapists being not sentenced by judges for whatever reasons, especially in Austria and Germany. I'd agree with sunprince who has quoted William Blackstone earlier on this page. It's much worse when someone is put in jail for rape when in reality he had consensual sex. Such things happen more and more often these days and that's very concerning.
Proof? Sure it happens but I've seen no evidence that's it happens more often than any other time in history (or with other kinds of crimes that no one seem to give a crap about)
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On September 15 2012 18:00 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 17:47 Evilmystic wrote:On September 15 2012 15:37 khaydarin9 wrote:
I suspect you would still run into the problem of, say, waking up next to someone any not knowing if it was "I was intoxicated and consented to sex" or "I was intoxicated, passed out, and someone had sex with my unconscious body".
Edit: and I understand that people should probably take responsibility for their actions, which may include irresponsible drinking and putting yourself in position in which you can't defend yourself, but without the perpetrator of a crime, there would be no crime, and taking responsibility for your actions, so to speak, should apply to everyone.
Well, I think it isn't really important if you don't know whether you've been unconscious or simply intoxicated. Even if you've been unconscious you need some sort of evidence besides your own words, and if there is no such evidence there is no crime from legal viewpoint. On September 15 2012 16:46 sharkie wrote:
What is rape?
Well its whatever the current judge is deciding it is.
So many times I read rapists being not sentenced by judges for whatever reasons, especially in Austria and Germany. I'd agree with sunprince who has quoted William Blackstone earlier on this page. It's much worse when someone is put in jail for rape when in reality he had consensual sex. Such things happen more and more often these days and that's very concerning. Proof? Sure it happens but I've seen no evidence that's it happens more often than any other time in history (or with other kinds of crimes that no one seem to give a crap about)
I'm not gonna give any sort of statistic, not sure it even exists. Such things obviously happen, and there is a public discussion on them (just like in this thread). For me the most concerning thing is amount of support there is for such things. We hear statements like "drunk woman's consent is invalid", propositions of making "enthusiastic consent" legally required or calls to change rape laws to be more broadly defined (and it would directly increase the chances of putting innocent people in jail) all the time.
|
On one joke site, I heard that rape is the simplest form of affection on our planet. I think it was by BigBalls.
|
On September 15 2012 17:47 Evilmystic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:37 khaydarin9 wrote:
I suspect you would still run into the problem of, say, waking up next to someone any not knowing if it was "I was intoxicated and consented to sex" or "I was intoxicated, passed out, and someone had sex with my unconscious body".
Edit: and I understand that people should probably take responsibility for their actions, which may include irresponsible drinking and putting yourself in position in which you can't defend yourself, but without the perpetrator of a crime, there would be no crime, and taking responsibility for your actions, so to speak, should apply to everyone.
Well, I think it isn't really important if you don't know whether you've been unconscious or simply intoxicated. Even if you've been unconscious you need some sort of evidence besides your own words, and if there is no such evidence there is no crime from legal viewpoint. Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 16:46 sharkie wrote:
What is rape?
Well its whatever the current judge is deciding it is.
So many times I read rapists being not sentenced by judges for whatever reasons, especially in Austria and Germany. I'd agree with sunprince who has quoted William Blackstone earlier on this page. It's much worse when someone is put in jail for rape when in reality he had consensual sex. Such things happen more and more often these days and that's very concerning.
The issue with intoxication is that in a lot of places, you legally can't consent to anything if you're drunk. This is to protect people from being taken advantage of - so, someone can't ply another person with alcohol and make them sign a contract that they otherwise, being sober and rational, would not have signed; or someone can't get another person drunk so that they can have sex with them when they would normally have declined, though just looking at pop culture, the latter is probably astonishingly common.
I also think it's difficult to say which is "worse" (and which of the two happens more frequently): innocent men being falsely accused and successfully convicted of rape, or men guilty of rape going free. Could you say the same about any other violent crime - that it's "worse" that innocent people are being sent to jail than it is having perpetrators pronounced innocent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
