|
On August 24 2012 10:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:31 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote:
But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. I did not say that it was right to begin with, so I do not see why your telling me that its wrong. Of course it is wrong, but they label it as "rape" when it was not "forced intercourse" at all. Because they were not able to give free consent to someone in a position of power over them. It is still rape. The power dynamic precludes any relationship as equals.
That's kind of faulty reasoning. Just because someone is in a position of power over you does not make an otherwise consensual sexual act between you into rape. This isn't like sex with minors, there's nothing inherently coercive about it. I agree coercion may be much more likely and the law is a good protection, but I wouldn't go so far as to include authority as an automatic determinant of rape.
|
On August 24 2012 11:17 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:35 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote:
But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. I did not say that it was right to begin with, so I do not see why your telling me that its wrong. Of course it is wrong, but they label it as "rape" when it was not "forced intercourse" at all. Because they were not able to give free consent to someone in a position of power over them. It is still rape. The power dynamic precludes any relationship as equals. That's kind of faulty reasoning. Just because someone is in a position of power over you does not make an otherwise consensual sexual act between you into rape. This isn't like sex with minors, there's nothing inherently coercive about it. I agree coercion may be much more likely and the law is a good protection, but I wouldn't go so far as to include authority as an automatic determinant of rape.
But unfortunately, the law is not subjective, and cannot (and should not) make the distinction between the situation where both parties give consent but one is in a position of power due to age (this is where the rape comes from - a college student and a professor in a consensual relationship is not rape) and the situation where one party legitimately uses their age and authority to coerce consent.
|
On August 24 2012 11:26 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 11:17 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote:
But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. I did not say that it was right to begin with, so I do not see why your telling me that its wrong. Of course it is wrong, but they label it as "rape" when it was not "forced intercourse" at all. Because they were not able to give free consent to someone in a position of power over them. It is still rape. The power dynamic precludes any relationship as equals. That's kind of faulty reasoning. Just because someone is in a position of power over you does not make an otherwise consensual sexual act between you into rape. This isn't like sex with minors, there's nothing inherently coercive about it. I agree coercion may be much more likely and the law is a good protection, but I wouldn't go so far as to include authority as an automatic determinant of rape. But unfortunately, the law is not subjective, and cannot (and should not) make the distinction between the situation where both parties give consent but one is in a position of power due to age (this is where the rape comes from - a college student and a professor in a consensual relationship is not rape) and the situation where one party legitimately uses their age and authority to coerce consent.
Funnily enough, they do make the distinction. Check this law journal article on gender bias in statutory rape laws:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1921&context=ulj
|
I don't understand why a sexual relationship between a student and a teacher must be wrong by default. I mean, those two people can legitimately fall in love (or just get the urge to shag). It's "wrong" when power plays a big role in that relationship, but if it doesn't then it's fine.
I think that it would be unfortunate a while bunch of relationships as wrong simply because the 2 people aren't technically equals. I mean, there are plenty of social things that cause some sort of divide, perceived or otherwise - like social classes and such.
|
On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
Yes means yes is a radfem blog, and the fact that you link to it suggests either very little familiarity with the gendersphere, or an extremist outlook.
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously.
|
On August 24 2012 10:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:44 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:41 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Because this line of thinking is what allows serial rapists to easily escape the justice system time and time again. No, it isn't. Even if this exists outside of feminist myths (and I challenge you to provide an example with citations), it's proof that the system properly supports "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and/or that the prosecution is incompetent. You deny serial rapists exist in society outside of feminist myths? They self report in anonymous surveys happily enough. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/Of the 1882 people who responded 120 confessed to rape and 76 rapists anonymously confessed to serial rape, averaging at 5.8 each. No, I don't deny serial rapists exist. It's been well-documented by criminologists that rapists tend to be serial offenders, far more than most crimes. To clarify, (since I may have used ambiguous wording), what I don't believe is that serial rapists easily escape the justice system time and time again. Certain feminists have a tendency to argue that the justice system is too easy on rapists, but criminologists and judicial experts disagree. I'm assuming that by justice system you mean the ones that actually make it into the criminal system and not society's response to rape as a whole. Our society in general is woefully inadequate at responding to rape, the vast majority of rapes never get reported at all. The problem of rape is certainly not adequately addressed by the present laws and the majority of rapes are committed by serial rapists. Is your stance that the problem is getting these cases into the justice system rather than a problem with the system itself?
The majority of crimes aren't reported at all. The notion that rape is extremely underreported (unless you're talking about the rape of men) is based on ideologically motivated studies which use vastly expanded definitions of rape to come up with bullshit myths like "1 in 4 women are raped". In reality, criminologists will tell you that rape is underreported at the same rate as non-sexual assault, 41%. Relative to other crimes, rape also has disportionately high rates of wrongful convictions and false accusations, which makes sense given the relatively low standard of evidence that rapes are held to (rape is a special kind of evil to society!) and that false accusers are rarely ever punished (thanks to feminist groups who argue that punishing false accuser will discourage real victims from coming forward).
It is my stance that the problem of (male-on-female) rape is adequately addressed by the present laws, and you will find that criminologists and government statistics agree. Further, the problem of male-on-female rape is overly addressed by present laws, as evidenced by the unusually high wrongful conviction and false accusation rate, thanks to the role that feminists have played in influencing the judicial process. The feminist notion of "rape culture" is ridiculous (the only rape that society condones or laughs about is prison rape), and is based on statistics and interpretations of statistics that criminologists and fact-checking organizations will agree are false.
On August 24 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:39 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. I cannot give you statistics on the prevalence of courts shaming an alleged victim simply to turn the jury against her or to use humiliation as a weapon and therefore can't effectively argue the efficacy of laws stopping irrelevant arguments. I don't disagree that all relevant information should be heard by the court but there is certainly a popular perception that the promiscuity argument is used, despite its irrelevance, and there is evidence that jurors are stupid enough to buy into it (polls show people are happy to blame rape victims etc). I assume we agree that it is a disgusting and immoral tactic when used purely to exploit sexism and harass the alleged victim, you simply feel that evidence laws, when enforced, should prevent it. Yeah, I agree it's a disgusting and immoral tactic. Unfortunately, it works because jurors are idiots, but there is no way around this without compromising the rights of the accused. I don't think that evidence laws prevent all of it, due to said stupidity, but going beyond those laws is a worse harm than potentially letting a rapist go free. You can just get rid of the terrible jury system altogether, you know 
It's a terrible system, but it's the best we can come up with. Despite it's... drawbacks, it also serves the benefit of limiting the power of government, which is a positive thing. The best solution I can come up with is properly educating America's citizens... smarter citizens on average means better juries on average.
|
On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape.
It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/ Show nested quote +
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously.
I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. This idea that the victim is on trial doesn't start in the courtroom either. The police often ask questions like "what were you dressed in at the time?/how short was your skirt?" when the victim is reporting the events for the first time.
Society as a whole, inside and outside the courtroom, is putting scrutiny on the victim rather than the accused, and that's the issue that's been brought up in this thread a lot. Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims.
|
On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course.
In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty.
On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
The police often ask questions like "what were you dressed in at the time?/how short was your skirt?" when the victim is reporting the events for the first time.
Citation, please. This is one of those feminist myths that has no basis in fact. I can guarantee you that any modern police force that asks these questions without good cause will be broadly condemned by feminist groups and society as a whole.
On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
Society as a whole, inside and outside the courtroom, is putting scrutiny on the victim rather than the accused, and that's the issue that's been brought up in this thread a lot. Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims.
Another feminist myth. A huge amount of scrutiny is placed on the accused, enough so that prominent privileged white men such as Dominique Strauss Kanh have had their careers wrecked by false allegations. Rape is one of the most heinous crimes in our society, and to argue otherwise is blind to reality.
By contrast, male-male rape victims are laughed at while victims of female-on-male rape are often told that they (should have) enjoyed it.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:By contrast, male-male rape victims are laughed at while victims of female-on-male rape are often told that they (should have) enjoyed it.
Not by feminists, predominantly by the same group of people who think rape jokes are funny.
|
On August 24 2012 10:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:31 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote:
But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. I did not say that it was right to begin with, so I do not see why your telling me that its wrong. Of course it is wrong, but they label it as "rape" when it was not "forced intercourse" at all. Because they were not able to give free consent to someone in a position of power over them. It is still rape. The power dynamic precludes any relationship as equals.
Some of this reply stems from my post on page 24 on my phone out of town for work so it's kinda hard to properly quote every bit I want to.
But......
Honestly Kwark, all your posts sound like anytime anyone has any sex, it's rape.
The word feminist, to me. Is fucking disgusting, I loathe a feminist as much as I despise a misogynist. Be a humanist.
Are you honestly going to tell me, that if I hook up with a girl at a party, and we are both drunk, then it's rape?
Even if she initiates it, but drunk, it's rape?
Even with 0 coersion ( which is such a dumb argument anyway, there are levels to coersion not all are rape) and just one thing leads to another, it's rape?
'the fuck outta here
I can tell you right now, I have woken up with a strange women in my bed. And regretted it the next morning, can I cry rape?
Nope
Tell me one good fucking reason why she should be able to? Regretting a decision you made, after the fact. Then crying rape is deplorable, and honestly the female should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If you can't agree wih that, then I don't think you should be posting your overly admired posts due to mod status. I'm sorry but I think all over this thread you are out of school. Once again there are no grey area, black and white. Yes means yes, no means no.
Unless the yea came from physical or verbal abuse or threats, it's not rape. Sorry.
And please dont even bother bringing up " what if she is passed out cold from booze" argument. That goes without saying.
|
On August 24 2012 13:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:By contrast, male-male rape victims are laughed at while victims of female-on-male rape are often told that they (should have) enjoyed it. Not by feminists, predominantly by the same group of people who think rape jokes are funny.
Agreed; feminists have in general been very good about acknowledging and condemning prison rape, even if they (understandably) haven't devoted much of their lobbying power towards it.
|
On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
The police often ask questions like "what were you dressed in at the time?/how short was your skirt?" when the victim is reporting the events for the first time. Citation, please. This is one of those feminist myths that has no basis in fact. I can guarantee you that any modern police force that asks these questions without good cause will be broadly condemned by feminist groups and society as a whole. [1] Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
Society as a whole, inside and outside the courtroom, is putting scrutiny on the victim rather than the accused, and that's the issue that's been brought up in this thread a lot. Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims. Another feminist myth. A huge amount of scrutiny is placed on the accused, enough so that prominent privileged white men such as Dominique Strauss Kanh have had their careers wrecked by false allegations. Rape is one of the most heinous crimes in our society, and to argue otherwise is blind to reality. [2] By contrast, male-male rape victims are laughed at while victims of female-on-male rape are often told that they (should have) enjoyed it. [3]
[1] http://books.google.ca/books?id=-O0zZygYdNUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false mostly page 329 where it talks about interviewing the victim
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main52.asp?filename=Ne140412Coverstory.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk This entire event is in protest of the attitudes that police have about sexual assault.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13739876
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/06/how-my-rapist-walked-free
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/97848834.html
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/38671/test-case-youre-not-a-rape-victim-unless-police-say/full/
http://www.splcenter.org/sexual-violence-against-farmworkers-a-guidebook-for-criminal-justice-professionals/what-can-i-do-to- This is a FAQ written for criminal investigators. Look at the advice specifically involving law enforcement.
I tried to include a variety of sources with different perspectives. I could keep going for an indefinite amount of time/links, but I'm not sure it would satisfy you either way. Saying "oh this would never happen because then society would condemn them" doesn't mean those things don't happen. It's hard to get society at large to pay attention to something without a big media hulk making a big issue out of it. There are literally hundreds of thousands of various reports of the type you requested, but a few reports here and a few reports there just don't make as big a splash as arguing over abortion or terrorists.
[2] Rape has very little to do with this. If his career was ruined, it was by media attention. Bill Clinton's career was ruined by completely consensual sexual acts. If the same thing happened to some random Joe, someone that wasn't a celebrity or a prominent figure worthy of media attention, it's very likely that the random Joe would feel very few ill effects from this case apart from lost time and generic stress associated with the court system etc.
[3] Those things are obviously terrible, but I don't see how that has any real bearing on how we should view or treat victims of male-female rape. What's more or less happened here is:
1. I said "x is an issue that group A has"
2. You respond "group A's issue is so full of shit, I mean look at group B's issues in comparison"
Continuing to direct undue scrutiny and judgment towards female rape victims does not in some way solve or alleviate the problems faced by male rape victims. They are both unfortunate issues, but putting one down does not give more "points" or credence to the other.
|
On August 24 2012 14:38 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:35 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote:
But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. I did not say that it was right to begin with, so I do not see why your telling me that its wrong. Of course it is wrong, but they label it as "rape" when it was not "forced intercourse" at all. Because they were not able to give free consent to someone in a position of power over them. It is still rape. The power dynamic precludes any relationship as equals. Some of this reply stems from my post on page 24 on my phone out of town for work so it's kinda hard to properly quote every bit I want to. But...... Honestly Kwark, all your posts sound like anytime anyone has any sex, it's rape. The word feminist, to me. Is fucking disgusting, I loathe a feminist as much as I despise a misogynist. Be a humanist. Are you honestly going to tell me, that if I hook up with a girl at a party, and we are both drunk, then it's rape? Even if she initiates it, but drunk, it's rape? Even with 0 coersion ( which is such a dumb argument anyway, there are levels to coersion not all are rape) and just one thing leads to another, it's rape? 'the fuck outta here I can tell you right now, I have woken up with a strange women in my bed. And regretted it the next morning, can I cry rape? Nope Tell me one good fucking reason why she should be able to? Regretting a decision you made, after the fact. Then crying rape is deplorable, and honestly the female should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If you can't agree wih that, then I don't think you should be posting your overly admired posts due to mod status. I'm sorry but I think all over this thread you are out of school. Once again there are no grey area, black and white. Yes means yes, no means no. Unless the yea came from physical or verbal abuse or threats, it's not rape. Sorry. And please dont even bother bringing up " what if she is passed out cold from booze" argument. That goes without saying.
Don't confuse radical feminists with feminists. Feminists are just for equality, and your comments are fucking offensive there is nothing inherently wrong with equality for sexes. Just because they fight more for their cause then say starving children doesn't make them bad people.
. If your both drunk, and both "consent", it's not rape.
If she is drunk, and you are sober, then it's your responsibility to not have sex with her, grab her number and see if she is up for a date.
There are grey areas, life is not black and whIte.
It's sad too see so many posts claiming that women go around just crying rape all the time, it's really fucking rare guys. If you act like a decent human being and treat your sex partners with respect you got nothing too worry about.
|
On August 24 2012 05:23 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:17 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 05:12 dani` wrote:On August 24 2012 05:10 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:54 JinDesu wrote:If a girl is under the influence of chemicals (drugs/alcohol), it's a no, regardless of what she says. This is an overarching application, as people respond differently to chemicals, and it's better safe than sorry. You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. Uhm, taking advantage of drunk girls is not perfectly acceptable. You can call it "taking advantage" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they got drunk on purpose and therefore are responsible for their own bad decisions. Even though I strongly agree with 'you are responsible for your actions', I strongly disagree with 'you can do whatever you want with drunk girls who cannot consciously make any decision like giving consent because they got drunk on purpose'.
I'm not talking about unconscious girls. I'm talking about drunk girls. Drunk girls can consent and they are themselves responsible for that consent.
On August 24 2012 05:25 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:17 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 05:12 dani` wrote:On August 24 2012 05:10 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:54 JinDesu wrote:If a girl is under the influence of chemicals (drugs/alcohol), it's a no, regardless of what she says. This is an overarching application, as people respond differently to chemicals, and it's better safe than sorry. You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. Uhm, taking advantage of drunk girls is not perfectly acceptable. You can call it "taking advantage" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they got drunk on purpose and therefore are responsible for their own bad decisions. There's your problem: You're mistaking which decisions they did and did not make. They are responsible for their bad decisions. You are responsible for yours. If they get drunk, they did not make the decision to have sex while drunk. They made the decision to get drunk. The person who had sex with them made the decision to have sex with them. He is the only person who made that decision. When only one person makes a decision to have sex, that is rape. Your argument is literally no different from saying that somebody walking down a dark alley who got raped is at fault, because they made a bad decision.
You seem to have trouble understanding the chain of events. I'm saying that first they decide to get drunk. Then, when they are drunk, they decide to have sex with someone. This drunk person has not been raped.
Yes, my argument is different from that. Completely different. The person walking down the alley never wanted to have sex, but the drunk girl did. I don't see how you are unable to tell the two apart.
|
Rape is when a man forces a woman to have sex or any sexual act with him. This should be easy enough.
|
On August 24 2012 15:51 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
Rape is when a man forces a woman to have sex or any sexual act with him. This should be easy enough.
Why isn't it rape when a woman forces a man to have sex with her? Smells like misandry to me.
|
On August 24 2012 15:58 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 15:51 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
Rape is when a man forces a woman to have sex or any sexual act with him. This should be easy enough. Why isn't it rape when a woman forces a man to have sex with her? Smells like misandry to me.
Don't be silly! Males never get sexually abused ever!
|
On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. This idea that the victim is on trial doesn't start in the courtroom either. The police often ask questions like "what were you dressed in at the time?/how short was your skirt?" when the victim is reporting the events for the first time. Society as a whole, inside and outside the courtroom, is putting scrutiny on the victim rather than the accused, and that's the issue that's been brought up in this thread a lot. Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims.
There should be due scrutiny on both parties, just like any other crime. You walk into a police station and say "hey the other day i was walking around in the ghetto last night and got took for 1000 bucks" and youre some clean cut white guy, they are immediately gonna ask why were you there, why were you carrying that much money, were you there to purchase illegal drugs or a prostitute, etc. all sorts of invasive and personal questions. Basically looking for an excuse not to raise their crime stats. Doesn't only happen to rape victims.
Also, most male male rape victims (prison inmates) get completely ignored. So, at least in the us, that part of your post is incorrect.
|
On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt.
Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter.
The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime.
It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime.
On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously.
Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital."
The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials.
On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty.
Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history.
|
On August 24 2012 16:28 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. This idea that the victim is on trial doesn't start in the courtroom either. The police often ask questions like "what were you dressed in at the time?/how short was your skirt?" when the victim is reporting the events for the first time. Society as a whole, inside and outside the courtroom, is putting scrutiny on the victim rather than the accused, and that's the issue that's been brought up in this thread a lot. Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims. There should be due scrutiny on both parties, just like any other crime. You walk into a police station and say "hey the other day i was walking around in the ghetto last night and got took for 1000 bucks" and youre some clean cut white guy, they are immediately gonna ask why were you there, why were you carrying that much money, were you there to purchase illegal drugs or a prostitute, etc. all sorts of invasive and personal questions. [1] Basically looking for an excuse not to raise their crime stats. [2] Doesn't only happen to rape victims. [3] Also, most male male rape victims (prison inmates) get completely ignored. So, at least in the us, that part of your post is incorrect. [4]
[1] Just because something happens doesn't make it acceptable or good.
[2] I hope you aren't trying to say that downplaying the occurrence of crime is some kind of legitimate police practice.
[3] So rape victims should just sit by and accept it because "it happens to other people too"?
Your post is basically this:
1. Both parties should be reasonably examined (that's what due scrutiny means) to get the facts of a case.
2. It's ok for police to display and use the prejudices they hold when gathering information on a crime. (Somehow this won't lead to them creating their own prejudice-injected narrative?)
3. It's understandable for police to reject victims and their stories since they don't want their numbers to look bad. (???)
4. Also, quit bitching because X happens to other people too and you don't see them bitching about it! (This is something that's been repeated in this thread at an alarming rate.)
[4] Maybe I missed something, but show me where I talked about male rape victims not being ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
