The Automated Ban List - Page 1339

On August 25 2012 03:47 KwarK wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo


Regarding one of the more prolific serial rapists and killers. But I guess the standard you hold the average woman to is higher than those of the detectives who deal with serial rapists as their job.

On August 23 2012 15:29 zalz wrote:


Rape as such isn't just physical force. If a women doesn't feel safe and feels like she can't say no, that might still be a form of force.

I think if a women is exceptionally intoxicated, it might also consitute rape, because she can't in all seriousness make any real choices.

A big problem though is that it doesn't take long before public opinion turns to blame a women. They once polled people to ask when something was still a rape in their eyes.

Being phyiscally forced was obviously a rape in the eyes of nearly everyone, but if a women gets naked, climbs into your bed, and then suddenly says she doesn't want to have sex, is it still a rape? Of course it is (imo anyway), but the majority of people seem to disagree on that notion.

On August 23 2012 18:57 Thylacine wrote:
LOL so in Sweden it's only rape if the vagina is fucked?
Awesome.
I can finally bang that chick in school without going to prison.Just gotta fuck her ass instead then oO

On August 23 2012 22:31 MattBarry wrote:

A more appropriate analogy is someone going into section 8 housing in new Orleans in a brand new nice car that screams "I have money, please rob me" Sure, in an ideal world people don't get robbed. But they do, and doing something so obviously stupid, is in fact stupid.

On August 25 2012 00:48 Zahir wrote:
"If the eyewitness can't recognize the woman's face, and only saw a mini and heels, his/her testimony is useless. "

In a court of law maybe. In practice it might be the only lead.

"A woman's dress will not make or break a serial rapist case. If a serial rapist is believed to only target women in drab clothing, and a suspect is disregarded because he targeted a woman with heels, the police are not doing their job."

Better to err on the side of giving police the information they think they need, in my view. Police are trained to avoid causing undue trauma, when they do so anyway THAT is when they are not doing their job.

If a person was raped they were raped. Doesn't matter what clothing they were wearing. Here we agree.

If someone is falsely accused of rape, they need to be able to establish a defense. You say clothes cannot establish consent. I think clothes can be one among many factors used to illustrate that consent was likely. People are more likely to buy and wear certain types of clothing, lingerie, etc before going out and attempting to find a partner for consensual sex. It doesn't automatically mean all sex acts afterward are consensual, but the choice of clothing, grooming, and other factors is not IRRELEVANT.

http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/164458.pdf
http://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/articles/articles/publications/211-2004-DiscoClothing.pdf
http://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdf
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/01/24/ncbi-rofl-the-effect-of-womens-suggestive-clothing-on-mens-behavior-and-judgment-a-field-study/

Again, i do not mean that sexy clothes are an invitation to rape. Merely that they are related to the desire to attract members of the opposite sex, for potentially amorous purposes. Certainly not to be used as the definitive evidence for consent, but not an irrelevant and unrelated factor when we are talking about consensual sex.

On August 24 2012 00:09 NeMeSiS3 wrote:

You know you can be quite the misquoting condescending [thought I'd say bitch ^^ got ya] But in all honesty, be the bigger person and don't reply to offtopic things with such an attitude... It really not only takes away from the discussion, it questions the validity of your posts since you obviously are turned to emotions really easily.