|
United States41979 Posts
On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones?
You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated.
|
On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated.
I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario.
The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented.
The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence.
|
On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence.
Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. 
|
On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though.
Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post.
In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay. Ignoring "rape" that can't be substantiated is in line with this philosophy.
If rape can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, beyond mere he-says, she-says), then it won't be ignored, but it's understandable that German courts think you can't possibly prove that without some sort of force, express/implied imminent danger, or lack of consciousness.
|
United States41979 Posts
On September 23 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post. In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay.
Key words there are court of law. The definition of the crime exists outside of the courts, the courts simply test whether the facts of the incident meet the definition of the crime. You don't change the definition of the crime in order to prevent the courts doing their job, if the courts are locking up innocent men on hearsay then you deal with the courts rather than redefining the crime. You yourself just said that you ignore hearsay In a court of law, you have defined the areas in which your argument is relevant and, by your statement, definition of the crime is not one of them. The letter of the law is not drawn up in a court, it's created by the executive and passed by the legislative, the judiciary are simply responsible for enforcing it. If they're doing their job badly then address that, narrowing the definition of the crime so it is incapable of protecting both victims and the falsely accused is not a fix to a broken system.
As I keep saying to you over and over, what is acceptable evidence is determined by the courts whereas what is against the law is determined by the legislators. They are two entirely separate bodies, as your own post seems to recognise when it states that the potential problem is entirely within the court, and yet you insist on using one to do the job of the other. I'll repeat it one last time, the law defines the crime, the courts see if the crime took place. You have made no good argument for narrowing the legal definition of rape to anything beyond non consensual sex, all you have done is told rape victims that they need to do more than refuse to have sex with their rapist in order to meet your definition of a rape, that legally speaking their rapist did nothing wrong.
|
|
|
My personal definition of "Rape":
+ Show Spoiler +Rape means, forcing a human being to participate in sexual behaviour/actions against his/her will.
I guess one thing that every nation agrees with, is that rape means something sexual that is done against the will of someone. I would use this as my definition of what it is.
|
On September 23 2012 06:41 ULuMuGuLu wrote:My personal definition of "Rape": + Show Spoiler +Rape means, forcing a human being to participate in sexual behaviour/actions against his/her will. I guess one thing that every nation agrees with, is that rape means something sexual that is done against the will of someone. I would use this as my definition of what it is.
Can't over simplify it that hard. What is "sexual behaviour" and "sexual actions". What about "will", with respect to the Wikileaks case and Assange rape is still being prosecuted and she did so within the confine of free will, with the condom being thrown out as evidence what's left? You also have to define "force" because there are many different ways of force, pressure/peer-pressure/physical/mental.
Personally I suppose I'm part of the "rape culture" where I think a girl walking down a dark alley at night and getting raped is equivalent to a man doing the same and getting mugged, they were stupid/ignorant, obviously the criminal deserves full punishment but I can't quite grasp not thinking of the victim as being either ignorant/stupid in the process of putting themselves in that situation. That aside there is no doubt rape happens more frequently to females in the Western world and that rape is not very clearly defined though.
To me the biggest controversy is "rape" under the influence. A girl having sex while drunk then waking up the next morning, regretting it and calling it "rape" because she wouldn't have done so in a sober mind, how can you tell these apart etc? This is probably why so many rape cases get thrown out, there is just not enough evidence that it isn't crying wolf, quite the double edged sword. Everything else seems really clear imo.
Also the "no means no" rule I believe is over simplified, in my few year's I've seen enough girls tease to think of it as x = x and no other! Obviously me being in a relationship sets this aside differently, I know the limits I get teased and know where to push etc and "no means no" really doesn't apply. (+ Show Spoiler +If you don't agree, then perhaps you simply haven't gotten to a point with your partner where you're so comfortable sexually you know relatively everything and know when it's a no, often times it isn't even by being said no
|
On September 23 2012 06:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post. In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay. Key words there are court of law. The definition of the crime exists outside of the courts, the courts simply test whether the facts of the incident meet the definition of the crime. You don't change the definition of the crime in order to prevent the courts doing their job, if the courts are locking up innocent men on hearsay then you deal with the courts rather than redefining the crime. You yourself just said that you ignore hearsay In a court of law, you have defined the areas in which your argument is relevant and, by your statement, definition of the crime is not one of them. The letter of the law is not drawn up in a court, it's created by the executive and passed by the legislative, the judiciary are simply responsible for enforcing it. If they're doing their job badly then address that, narrowing the definition of the crime so it is incapable of protecting both victims and the falsely accused is not a fix to a broken system. As I keep saying to you over and over, what is acceptable evidence is determined by the courts whereas what is against the law is determined by the legislators. They are two entirely separate bodies, as your own post seems to recognise when it states that the potential problem is entirely within the court, and yet you insist on using one to do the job of the other. I'll repeat it one last time, the law defines the crime, the courts see if the crime took place.
Legislators are supposed to create laws that follow established legal principles. and should they fail to do so their laws should be struck down by the courts. Therefore, the legal definition of rape must follow the same legal philosophies utilized by the courts. You're trying to separate the law "outside the court" and legal procedure, when in truth they're intertwined. Germany has, through its legislature as well as its judicial precedent, that it would be improper to define the nonconsent aspect of rape as something that is characterized by force, threat, or non-consciousness. Whether or not you disagree, the reason that it is "narrowly defined" is that Germany feels this is the only way that an act can be fairly identified as rape.
What you're trying to do is argue that there is something "wrong" about Germany's "narrow" definition of rape. In reality, this is no different from how the law "narrowly" defines every crime or wrong. For example, civil law in most nations have a "narrow" definition of a contract, and this is purposely limited so that the courts only have to work with what can be reasonably proven in a court of law. Although the legal definition of a "contract" is different from how you or most people commonly definie the term, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the legal definition. It just means that the legal definition takes into account legal realities that dictionaries don't have the luxury of ignoring. Similarly, the legal definition of "rape" is different from a commonly understood definition, but that doesn't mean that this is inherently problematic.
If you think that rape should be defined more broadly, then you're going to have to argue why doing so would make sense and would properly safeguard the principle of innocent until prove guilty. What you're doing instead is simply sidestepping that by arguing that legal definition of rape is wrong because it doesn't match a colloquial understanding of rape, when that's not how the law works in any sort of crime or tort.
On September 23 2012 06:26 KwarK wrote:
You have made no good argument for narrowing the legal definition of rape to anything beyond non consensual sex, all you have done is told rape victims that they need to do more than refuse to have sex with their rapist in order to meet your definition of a rape, that legally speaking their rapist did nothing wrong.
The argument I've made is that the legal definition is intended to preserve the assumption of innocence, by not defining rape as something that can be proven by simply using a potentially out-of-context statement as evidence or that can occur without mens rea.
What you're trying to do is tell false rape accusers that they can victimize others with impunity because our society is so concerned with protecting damsels in distress that witch hunts are okay.
|
On September 23 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post. In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay. Ignoring "rape" that can't be substantiated is in line with this philosophy. If rape can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, beyond mere he-says, she-says), then it won't be ignored, but it's understandable that German courts think you can't possibly prove that without some sort of force, express/implied imminent danger, or lack of consciousness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-votes-to-regulate-jewish-circumcision-ritual.html
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/nyregion/regulation-of-circumcision-method-divides-some-jews-in-new-york.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion
Per your definition, rapes like these happen all the time but they are ignored because they are considered too far outside the mainstream to get substantiated? You have straw-manned my argument and you reply with grammar problems which give me a headache to figure out what you mean.
Are babies "willing" to endure this kinda crap? There is no "will" in rape, unless it happens in a courtroom, which is absurd.
|
On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post. In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay. Ignoring "rape" that can't be substantiated is in line with this philosophy. If rape can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, beyond mere he-says, she-says), then it won't be ignored, but it's understandable that German courts think you can't possibly prove that without some sort of force, express/implied imminent danger, or lack of consciousness. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-votes-to-regulate-jewish-circumcision-ritual.htmland http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/nyregion/regulation-of-circumcision-method-divides-some-jews-in-new-york.html?_r=1&ref=nyregionPer your definition, rapes like these happen all the time but they are ignored because they are considered too far outside the mainstream to get substantiated?
What does circumcision have to do with the topic at hand?
For the record, I'm opposed to circumcision and consider it to be little more than religiously-sanctioned male genital mutilation. However, it's clearly not rape in the criminal sense, so what exactly is your point?
On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:
You have straw-manned my argument and you reply with grammar problems which give me a headache to figure out what you mean.
Pointing out that you completely failed to understand my post is not the same thing as a strawman. My response to you was gramatically accurate (unlike either of your posts), so if you're having trouble understanding my posts because my vocabulary and syntax are beyond your comprehension, then I'd suggest you read and respond more carefully.
|
On September 23 2012 11:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 23 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post. In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay. Ignoring "rape" that can't be substantiated is in line with this philosophy. If rape can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, beyond mere he-says, she-says), then it won't be ignored, but it's understandable that German courts think you can't possibly prove that without some sort of force, express/implied imminent danger, or lack of consciousness. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-votes-to-regulate-jewish-circumcision-ritual.htmland http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/nyregion/regulation-of-circumcision-method-divides-some-jews-in-new-york.html?_r=1&ref=nyregionPer your definition, rapes like these happen all the time but they are ignored because they are considered too far outside the mainstream to get substantiated? What does circumcision have to do with the topic at hand? For the record, I'm opposed to circumcision and consider it to be little more than religiously-sanctioned male genital mutilation. However, it's clearly not rape in the criminal sense, so what exactly is your point? Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:
You have straw-manned my argument and you reply with grammar problems which give me a headache to figure out what you mean. Pointing out that you completely failed to understand my post is not the same thing as a strawman. My response to you was gramatically accurate (unlike either of your posts), so if you're having trouble understanding my posts because my vocabulary and syntax are beyond your comprehension, then I'd suggest you read and respond more carefully.
Does your argument have relevance to the facts I've presented from the NY Times? I'm trying to show you that your argument is too wishy washy & you are trying to define rape in a bubble. Please address this point and then I will respond to your points accordingly.
|
On September 23 2012 13:14 kokomojowelieole wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 11:14 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 23 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2012 18:02 sunprince wrote:
The idea that women aren't adult agents who are capable of acting in some way when being raped is an incredibly infantilizing, misogynistic notion. I for one believe that women are capable of clearly expressing nonconsent, at least when they're sober adults with mental/emotional capacities to match. Why does everyone insist on denigrating women as incompetent children? A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post. In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay. Ignoring "rape" that can't be substantiated is in line with this philosophy. If rape can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, beyond mere he-says, she-says), then it won't be ignored, but it's understandable that German courts think you can't possibly prove that without some sort of force, express/implied imminent danger, or lack of consciousness. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-votes-to-regulate-jewish-circumcision-ritual.htmland http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/nyregion/regulation-of-circumcision-method-divides-some-jews-in-new-york.html?_r=1&ref=nyregionPer your definition, rapes like these happen all the time but they are ignored because they are considered too far outside the mainstream to get substantiated? What does circumcision have to do with the topic at hand? For the record, I'm opposed to circumcision and consider it to be little more than religiously-sanctioned male genital mutilation. However, it's clearly not rape in the criminal sense, so what exactly is your point? On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:
You have straw-manned my argument and you reply with grammar problems which give me a headache to figure out what you mean. Pointing out that you completely failed to understand my post is not the same thing as a strawman. My response to you was gramatically accurate (unlike either of your posts), so if you're having trouble understanding my posts because my vocabulary and syntax are beyond your comprehension, then I'd suggest you read and respond more carefully. Does your argument have relevance to the facts I've presented from the NY Times? I'm trying to show you that your argument is too wishy washy & you are trying to define rape in a bubble. Please address this point and then I will respond to your points accordingly.
Your articles have absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand. Circumcision is not rape. Unless you can explain how they are relevant, I have no idea what "point" you even want me to address.
|
On September 23 2012 19:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 13:14 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 23 2012 11:14 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 23 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post. In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay. Ignoring "rape" that can't be substantiated is in line with this philosophy. If rape can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, beyond mere he-says, she-says), then it won't be ignored, but it's understandable that German courts think you can't possibly prove that without some sort of force, express/implied imminent danger, or lack of consciousness. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-votes-to-regulate-jewish-circumcision-ritual.htmland http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/nyregion/regulation-of-circumcision-method-divides-some-jews-in-new-york.html?_r=1&ref=nyregionPer your definition, rapes like these happen all the time but they are ignored because they are considered too far outside the mainstream to get substantiated? What does circumcision have to do with the topic at hand? For the record, I'm opposed to circumcision and consider it to be little more than religiously-sanctioned male genital mutilation. However, it's clearly not rape in the criminal sense, so what exactly is your point? On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:
You have straw-manned my argument and you reply with grammar problems which give me a headache to figure out what you mean. Pointing out that you completely failed to understand my post is not the same thing as a strawman. My response to you was gramatically accurate (unlike either of your posts), so if you're having trouble understanding my posts because my vocabulary and syntax are beyond your comprehension, then I'd suggest you read and respond more carefully. Does your argument have relevance to the facts I've presented from the NY Times? I'm trying to show you that your argument is too wishy washy & you are trying to define rape in a bubble. Please address this point and then I will respond to your points accordingly. Your articles have absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand. Circumcision is not rape. Unless you can explain how they are relevant, I have no idea what "point" you even want me to address.
I agree, that isn't rape. That is mutilation, something entirely different as controversial and often easier to prove.
|
from PM. Thanks Aphasie.
Original Message From Aphasie: Hey if you're looking to expand upon your OP. Here is the general legal definiton: Rape a) forces sexual activites either by violence or threatening behavior b) engages in sexual activities with someone who is unconscious or is unable to resist said activites due to other factors c) forces some one, either by violence or threatening behavior, to engage in sexual activities with some one else, or forces the victim to preform sexual activities on his or her persona. I translated it from this source: http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/all/tl-20050520-028-029.html&emne=voldtekt*&&
|
Any penetration counts as rape. The belly button? I think it counts but I'm not sure.
|
On September 23 2012 19:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 13:14 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 23 2012 11:14 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 23 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
A lot of adult humans react in shock to personal violation. I don't believe it is in the least bit misogynistic to accept the possibility of a woman being paralysed by the realisation that she is in the same room as someone who is ignoring her clearly expressed non consent. We tend to live in this fantasy world where it's safe and we're in control of our own lives and ignore the fact that at any time someone could just choose to run us down with a car or stab us for no reason because we typically don't have to deal with that kind of shit. Think about that moment of realisation that you've lost control of your body, that the social rules about conduct and not imposing and abusing each other are simply not being followed and that the other person does not respect them and could do literally anything to you. Do you not think that shock, especially on a 15 year old in this German case, could cause the lack of a physical fight? Do you not think that physically confronting the rapist or screaming might seem an absolutely terrifying prospect, he's already showed that he's willing to do break the rules and doesn't care about you. If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case? On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Your idea of rape is a fantasy and insisting that the victim needs to meet your requirements of resistance for it to qualify as a rape, even though someone is forcing sex upon them against their will, is absolutely despicable. You're not stopping at "you can't prove you were raped", you're going with "you weren't raped, even though he forced sex upon you, because you didn't do enough to stop it". No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were. On September 20 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:
It's disgusting. Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post. In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay. Ignoring "rape" that can't be substantiated is in line with this philosophy. If rape can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, beyond mere he-says, she-says), then it won't be ignored, but it's understandable that German courts think you can't possibly prove that without some sort of force, express/implied imminent danger, or lack of consciousness. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-votes-to-regulate-jewish-circumcision-ritual.htmland http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/nyregion/regulation-of-circumcision-method-divides-some-jews-in-new-york.html?_r=1&ref=nyregionPer your definition, rapes like these happen all the time but they are ignored because they are considered too far outside the mainstream to get substantiated? What does circumcision have to do with the topic at hand? For the record, I'm opposed to circumcision and consider it to be little more than religiously-sanctioned male genital mutilation. However, it's clearly not rape in the criminal sense, so what exactly is your point? On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:
You have straw-manned my argument and you reply with grammar problems which give me a headache to figure out what you mean. Pointing out that you completely failed to understand my post is not the same thing as a strawman. My response to you was gramatically accurate (unlike either of your posts), so if you're having trouble understanding my posts because my vocabulary and syntax are beyond your comprehension, then I'd suggest you read and respond more carefully. Does your argument have relevance to the facts I've presented from the NY Times? I'm trying to show you that your argument is too wishy washy & you are trying to define rape in a bubble. Please address this point and then I will respond to your points accordingly. Your articles have absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand. Circumcision is not rape. Unless you can explain how they are relevant, I have no idea what "point" you even want me to address.
Apparently you have never heard of "sexual battery" because that is the tying thread, to which your argument comes up short (or I'm still waiting for you to address this point)
|
On September 28 2012 10:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 19:26 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 13:14 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 23 2012 11:14 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 23 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote:On September 23 2012 04:35 kokomojowelieole wrote:On September 21 2012 21:06 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 17:45 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2012 09:37 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
If the victim reacted in shock due to personal violation, then one could instead show evidence that there was a reason they were shocked (which typically boils down to something threatening). For example, if a mugger stops you in an alleyway and you freeze up, you could simply demonstrate that they were presenting an explicit or implied threat. The problem here is that there wasn't any evidence of an actual threat, so the question is why did she freeze up? Without any evidence of force or of an actual threat, there's more than enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. How exactly did the defendant show that "he's willing to break the rules and doesn't care about you" in this case?
[quote]
No, I'm not. There's a difference between what the court accepts and what actually happened. To use a comparison, hearsay laws prohibits the use of hearsay as evidence that an event occurred. For example, if a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town," that's not legitimate evidence that Tom was in town. Does that mean Tom wasn't in town? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but for the legal purposes of a court of law, we assume that Tom wasn't in town until there is evidence that he was. Similarly, we don't necessarily know if any particular alleged victim was actually raped or not, but for the purposes of the law and criminal procedure (and also epistemology), the assumption is that they were not until there is evidence that they were.
[quote]
Could we keep the discusssion centered on logical arguments rather than emotional ones? You keep arguing about this in terms of evidence, as if you're in the court defending the guy in this German case. You keep missing the point. The law says that it's not a rape unless force or the threat of force is used. Not "the courts can't prove it was a rape without force or the threat of force" which is a completely unrelated issue relating to the strength of the evidence but actually "ignoring clearly expressed non consent to sex and having sex with someone anyway isn't always rape". Stop bringing up evidence, it's completely irrelevant to the legal definition of the crime. I'm not arguing that the quality of evidence should be lowered or that innocent people should be convicted or anything like that, I'm saying that if one person says "do not have sex with me" and another person has sex with them, that is rape. It's really not all that complicated. I addressed this already. The law says what it does because there's no possible way that you can provide conclusive evidence otherwise. Any situation lacking the prerequisite force or threats will ultimately boil down to a he-said, she-said scenario. The fact that the law requires this is for evidentiary reasons. It's no different from how hearsay laws say that "it's not speech when you heard someone else talk about it". Hearsay laws don't redefine the definition of speech, and similarly, this rape law doesn't redefine the definition of rape. What they both do, however, is establish the definitions of those things for legal purposes and the reason why is because of the limits of how evidence can possibly be presented. The reason I keep bringing up evidence is because you're completely missing it's crucial relevance to the German legal definition of rape at hand. Yes, I agree with you that rape is nonconsensual sex. That's not the point here. The point is that as far as legal definitions are concerned, it makes sense to define it differently because there is otherwise no way to establish mens rea and prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between the action called rape and the legal crime called rape, just as there's a difference between what people generally understand to be evidence and what is legally considered admissable evidence. Just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean you can ignore it though. Your reading comprehension completely failed at understanding my post. In a court of law, we ignore unsubstantiated evidence, such as hearsay. Ignoring "rape" that can't be substantiated is in line with this philosophy. If rape can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, beyond mere he-says, she-says), then it won't be ignored, but it's understandable that German courts think you can't possibly prove that without some sort of force, express/implied imminent danger, or lack of consciousness. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-votes-to-regulate-jewish-circumcision-ritual.htmland http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/nyregion/regulation-of-circumcision-method-divides-some-jews-in-new-york.html?_r=1&ref=nyregionPer your definition, rapes like these happen all the time but they are ignored because they are considered too far outside the mainstream to get substantiated? What does circumcision have to do with the topic at hand? For the record, I'm opposed to circumcision and consider it to be little more than religiously-sanctioned male genital mutilation. However, it's clearly not rape in the criminal sense, so what exactly is your point? On September 23 2012 10:07 kokomojowelieole wrote:
You have straw-manned my argument and you reply with grammar problems which give me a headache to figure out what you mean. Pointing out that you completely failed to understand my post is not the same thing as a strawman. My response to you was gramatically accurate (unlike either of your posts), so if you're having trouble understanding my posts because my vocabulary and syntax are beyond your comprehension, then I'd suggest you read and respond more carefully. Does your argument have relevance to the facts I've presented from the NY Times? I'm trying to show you that your argument is too wishy washy & you are trying to define rape in a bubble. Please address this point and then I will respond to your points accordingly. Your articles have absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand. Circumcision is not rape. Unless you can explain how they are relevant, I have no idea what "point" you even want me to address. Apparently you have never heard of "sexual battery" because that is the tying thread, to which your argument comes up short (or I'm still waiting for you to address this point)
Sexual assault ≠ rape, and circumcision ≠ sexual assault.
Circumcision is religiously sanctioned mutilation. That's a completely different can of worms than rape or sexual assault.
|
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.
This is so right. In any rape case that gets to court (Of which the proportion is very very low) the first thing that will be read out by the defence is what the women was wearing at the time. It's a joke. Men complain about these one in a million scenario's where a drunk girl changes her mind and gets the man done for rape, and yet, I haven't seen many examples of this. Yet at the same time, legitimate rape happens every day with very few of the men (or women) getting convicted.
|
Fun
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
