Another poll on attitudes to rape

[Bells]

Edit to add..

And that is why I have a major issue with the list you originally posted Randwolf. Because it is attempting to make it into a black and white issue. And many, yourself included, have grasped it and assumed it to be correct. The list, as I have said before to James, is vague in many parts. And for some reason, many are unable to assign a correct response or line of thought to each point, instead taking it as fact that it is how it is somehow applied, when it is not.

The fact of the matter is, that list should not be so confusing. People should be able to apply their common sense and recognise what does and does not constitute consent. That so many are unable to recognise where consent is deemed to be given and when someone is in no position to consent is quite astounding, but sadly, not surprising in the least. The phrase 'been there done that' applies.

That the list is written by a radical feminist cannot be denied. She has taken a lot of rape awareness literature and given it a slant to align with her own beliefs. But the core object of the list is quite clear. If someone is in no position to consent, whether they are drunk or drugged out of their skull, unconscious, asleep (deep sleep and doesn't wake up or drugged sleep), etc, yes, the person who takes advantage of another being so incapacitated is a rapist. Now whether people are able to read that list and apply it in the correct context and understand it remains to be seen. From what I have seen so far, many fail in that regard.

 

[Randwolf]

What you and others just can't seem to grasp is that sometimes people (be they male or female) are too incapacitated to give consent.

I have no problem grasping this concept. Why do you have such an issue with understanding this? The question is, when is someone legally incapaicitated? And who decides this? I know you have answered this already Bells, but you kind of implied that the wording of the laws have no real affect on what happens, because of the checks and balances. Bull shit. The messier the wording of the law, the more abuse that will follow. You know this...

That such individuals cannot be held responsible for something that is done to them without their knowledge or understanding. Yes, people are responsible for their own actions. But it is not so black and white as that.

Yes, it is.

There was a big story not so long ago in Australia where a mentally disabled girl was gang raped and sexually abused by a bunch of school boys. She apparently said yes (eg supposedly consented) to the attack on her body. Would you say she should be held responsible for her actions?

How do I know? What are the facts of the case? I know that you sound like you are making an opening statement as a prosecutor. "The attack" on her body? Please...

In that she said yes, therefore tough titties? Or does the fact that she was mentally disabled and unable to understand what she was consenting to come into play?

I don't know, does it? Are you denying that she has the right to reproduce? That sounds like genetics, that sounds like... Godwin's alert!!!

The same applies to people who are so drunk or drugged that they do become mentally incapacitated. Such individuals are unable to understand what they are consenting to have done to their person.

Really? So if I am legally intoxicated, I am mentally incapacitated? Do you drink Bells? This stance is ludicrous....

 

[Asguard]

oh james i do disgree with the fourth from the bottom. Its just to vague to be in anyway relivent. For instance is it talking about seeing someone rape another person and then staying friends?
Being friends with someone who has commited STATITORY rape? (say a 20 year old who has sex with a 17 and 11 month 29 days year old)
Being friends years latter after they have paid there debt to sociaty?
ect

 

[Bells]

bells, a question i thought of at that paticular time.

A different set of legislation (actually the concent to medical treatment act and the guardianship act) says that the right to sexual activity and the right to procriate SPECIFICALLY are fundemential human rights. So taking that spirit how do we make sure the mentally disabled are able to concent to sexual activity in an informed way?

Im not saying that case in particular was informed concent because it clearly wasnt but that and a couple of other things including a fictional case where a mother wanted the courts to force her daughter to have an abortion and sterilisation made me think about it

It's not a fictional case. Some parents have attempted to have their mentally disabled daughters sterilised.

But the legislation was not designed to be applied so broadly. Tests can and are done to ensure that the individual is able to understand or grasp what they are consenting (or had consented) to. Others are not. The case of the mentally disabled girl who was a victim of the gang rape is a prime example of that. She truly did not understand what she was saying yes to. And those boys preyed on her inability to understand.. she was an easy target for them.

For example, some parents will attempt to charge another with rape when they find out their mentally disabled adult child had had sex. When their adult child is tested, they can pretty much gauge whether he/she can understand what they were getting into. Others are not in that position and usually then, they will try to ascertain whether the accused had sex with the disabled individual, knowing that they could not understand what they were getting involved in. And usually, you can tell quite quickly. Some people do prey on others because they are mentally disabled.

 

[Randwolf]

The fact of the matter is, that list should not be so confusing. People should be able to apply their common sense and recognise what does and does not constitute consent. That so many are unable to recognise where consent is deemed to be given and when someone is in no position to consent is quite astounding, but sadly, not surprising in the least.

You are right. Why are you continuing to argue my point Bells? Although, I do thank you for your tenacity...

That the list is written by a radical feminist cannot be denied.

No, really it can't. Once again, we agree.

She has taken a lot of rape awareness literature and given it a slant to align with her own beliefs. But the core object of the list is quite clear. If someone is in no position to consent, whether they are drunk or drugged out of their skull, unconscious, asleep (deep sleep and doesn't wake up or drugged sleep), etc, yes, the person who takes advantage of another being so incapacitated is a rapist.

For Christ's sake, give it a rest. We all agree with this. Do you think someone on this forum actually disagrees with this statement? Are you really that sanctimonious? What is it with this strawman?

Now whether people are able to read that list and apply it in the correct context and understand it remains to be seen. From what I have seen so far, many fail in that regard.

WTF is the correct context, if not as a joke? Please, the list speaks for itself...

 

[shorty_37]

The same applies to people who are so drunk or drugged that they do become mentally incapacitated. Such individuals are unable to understand what they are consenting to have done to their person.

So ppl who drunk and become mentally incapacited , get in their cars and hit a pedestrian on the street should be let off because they didn't know what they were doing at the time?

or should they be more responsible while out drinking?

I think it is the same for a woman who goes to a bar or nightclub. She has to be responsible for herself and her own safety. If she is reckless and drinks to the point she doesn't remember getting into a strangers car and doing god knows what with them, I don't have any sympathy for them. You can't keep using alcohol as an excuse for doing things that you shouldn't have.

This other argument of a man getting you drunk.....this doesn't fly with me either. How is he doing that exactly? He is forcing drinks down your throat till you are so pissed you
don't know what you are saying or doing...I don't buy that either. You don't know how to say No when you know you have had enough? That is your responsibility to know your limit.

 

[Asguard]

oh i realised that it did happen which is why the legislation was changed so that the guardianship board HAS to aprove all sterilisations for people under its power or children pre age of medical concent. Its also very specific that the ONLY reason it can aprove an operation is if its for MEDICAL need. i will try to find the two related acts if your interested. It specifically says "the right to reproduce being a fundemental human right, only medical nessecity will over ride this. A parents desire for there child to be sterilised for religious reasons, so that they dont have to deal with having a peroid or so that they cant get pregant are not enough of a reason", Oviously this is not a direct quote (parliment wouldnt be so clumsy in its wording) but it is the meaning as i rember it

It was just at the same time that girl was raped one of those cop shows had a fictional case related to that. The mother tried to have the girls BF charged with rape (though he also had down syndrom if i rember correctly), then she tried to have the day center where the two of them met charged with SOMETHING because they ran a sexual education course, then she tried to have the girl sterilised and aborted. In that show it turned out the father WASNT her BF (actually she thought she got pregant from kissing), it was the boss where she worked who convinced her sex was "exercise".

 

[angrybellsprout]

WTF is the correct context, if not as a joke? Please, the list speaks for itself...

Plenty of sexists, err feminists, believe in this crap for real. They push bull such as 'rape mentality' and 'rape culture' and really are in the same boat as the bridge dweller that came up with the list.

Look into these two things, and you will find plenty of lol stuff.

 

[Bells]

I have no problem grasping this concept. Why do you have such an issue with understanding this? The question is, when is someone legally incapaicitated? And who decides this? I know you have answered this already Bells, but you kind of implied that the wording of the laws have no real affect on what happens, because of the checks and balances. Bull shit. The messier the wording of the law, the more abuse that will follow. You know this...

You cannot give an exact answer as to how many drinks it takes for a person to become that incapacitated. Each person has different toleration levels to alcohol. I for example can become completely sloshed on 3 glasses of wine. 4 glasses and I usually pass out cold.

Who decides it? Usually the police investigating the complaint. As I said, witness testimonies will usually be taken to try to gauge just how drunk the complainant is. As I have stated before, if someone is tipsy and gives consent and is able to understand what they had consented to, it is not rape. But if someone is falling down drunk, confused, passed out.. that individual could be viewed as not having been in possession of their mental faculties. The prosecutor will review the case and decide whether to go ahead with the case or not, usually based on witness testimonies as well as the information garnered from the accused and the complainant. In the majority of cases, it does not proceed past that point. In some cases where it is obvious that the complainant had been that incapacitated, it goes to trial.

In other words, it is taken on a case by case basis. And frankly, the law is written in such a way to ensure that it can be applied on a case by case basis because each case is different and each individual is different.

Yes, it is.

Err no it's not.

You might think it is because you seem to have this obscene view that all feminists want to kill all men and blame everything on the male species, but the reality is vastly different. But yeah, you take those scissors and run with it.

How do I know? What are the facts of the case? I know that you sound like you are making an opening statement as a prosecutor. "The attack" on her body? Please...

The facts of the case were as I stated it. The country learned of it when a video of the assault made it onto the internet (one of them borrowed his parents video camera to film it all). And yes, she was attacked. She had her hair ripped out, was spat on, peed on, raped and brutally sexually assaulted.

I don't know, does it? Are you denying that she has the right to reproduce? That sounds like genetics, that sounds like... Godwin's alert!!!

What failed to compute? No one is denying her right to reproduce. But everyone agrees that she was in no mental state to consent to be gang raped (which implies a lack of consent), brutally sexually assaulted, have her hair ripped out, be urinated on and spat on. How can I put it.. she was on the ground surrounded by nearly a dozen teenage boys who took turns. She looked confused and terrified, but she also giggled and complied to everything they demanded of her. So saying that is wrong is somehow denying her the right to reproduce? Ya.. ok..

Really? So if I am legally intoxicated, I am mentally incapacitated? Do you drink Bells? This stance is ludicrous....

It depends on how much you drink and how it affects you. This isn't about the legal limit to drive a car. This is about the level of intoxication that renders a person incoherent and unaware of their surroundings, ergo, unable to consent because they are no longer able to understand what they are consenting to. For some (like me) it can only take a few drinks. For others, it can take a hell of a lot more.

Hence why it is such a grey area and can only be looked at and evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

[James R]

Randwolf:

Because, James R, you have subtley changed the wording to some of these points.

There's a 100 character limit on poll options. Some of the items in the original list had to be edited down to less than 100 characters. I tried to retain the meaning as well as possible.

Which options in particular do you think I unfairly edited, so that you couldn't understand them, or so that their meaning changed significantly?

People, and of course this includes women, are responsible for their own actions. You and your condescending feminist friends belittle women, and blame men for all problems.

No. I blame rapists for raping.

I don't know what motivates you and angrybellsprout to take a list that is clearly about rape and to blow it up as if it is an attack on all men everywhere. Obviously, there's something else going on that you feel the need to belittle the woman who wrote the list.

Grow up, admit that we are all adults, and all of us should take responsibility for what happens.

That's what this list is all about, though, isn't it?

It is you who is trying to argue men out of responsibility.

When did you get elected arbiter of all morals? The list is BS, you know it, I know it, and 75% of the SF members know it.

So, put your money where your mouth is. Why not copy the list and write down exactly why you disagree with it, point by point?

Hell, let's have a formal debate about it.

Or are you and ABS afraid?

They have stated their case. Why are you the lone voice in the wilderness crying foul? Were you raped as a child?

Do you realise how insensitive it is to ask somebody that question? Really, grow up. If I had been raped as a child, imagine my reaction.

And you think that me expressing a feminist point of view somehow gives you licence for deep personal attacks?

Interesting.

Sex without consent is wrong. What constitutes consent is a topic for debate. Sure, the topic brings out the squirrels. So what? The squirrels allow us the opportunity for self examination. I just do not understand why this topic, above all, can raise everyone's hackles in this way. However, it is quite a bit of fun...

Let's debate what constitutes consent then.


Bells:

And that is why I have a major issue with the list you originally posted Randwolf. Because it is attempting to make it into a black and white issue. And many, yourself included, have grasped it and assumed it to be correct.

Well, I'm playing devil's advocate just a bit, I admit. Still, it looks like somebody needs to.

The fact of the matter is, that list should not be so confusing. People should be able to apply their common sense and recognise what does and does not constitute consent. That so many are unable to recognise where consent is deemed to be given and when someone is in no position to consent is quite astounding, but sadly, not surprising in the least. The phrase 'been there done that' applies.

I agree.

That the list is written by a radical feminist cannot be denied. She has taken a lot of rape awareness literature and given it a slant to align with her own beliefs.

Actually, I came to this not knowing where it came from or who wrote it. It doesn't really matter, I don't think.

I don't agree with some brands of extremist feminism. In fact, I'm not a big one for extremism in any form. So, maybe this author is an extremist. But I'm happy to examine this list on its merits.

Now whether people are able to read that list and apply it in the correct context and understand it remains to be seen. From what I have seen so far, many fail in that regard.

Clearly.

 

[Asguard]

bells was this the case:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1004591.stm

i thought it was in NSW but this says it was an american case

 

[Bells]

So ppl who drunk and become mentally incapacited , get in their cars and hit a pedestrian on the street should be let off because they didn't know what they were doing at the time?

or should they be more responsible while out drinking?

I think it is the same for a woman who goes to a bar or nightclub. She has to be responsible for herself and her own safety. If she is reckless and drinks to the point she doesn't remember getting into a strangers car and doing god knows what with them, I don't have any sympathy for them. You can't keep using alcohol as an excuse for doing things that you shouldn't have.

This other argument of a man getting you drunk.....this doesn't fly with me either. How is he doing that exactly? He is forcing drinks down your throat till you are so pissed you
don't know what you are saying or doing...I don't buy that either. You don't know how to say No when you know you have had enough? That is your responsibility to know your limit.

:bugeye:

One assaults another with their vehicle while mentally incapacitated, causing harm or death to others as a result.. another has an assault on their person by another who decides to take advantage of their situation. Can you tell the difference between the two. In short, one is in a position to pace their alcohol intake knowing they have to drive home afterwards and the other is out with friends and isn't driving and should be free to drink however much they feel like without being preyed upon by other individuals. Can you tell the difference?

 

[shorty_37]

Well what if they planned on taking a cab home but then became so mentally incapacitated they went outside and got in their car because they didn't know what they were doing.
Why can't they use alcohol as an excuse for making them do something they didn't plan on doing ?

Now what if a woman in a bar drinks so much she becomes mentally incapacitated and willingly goes with a strange man because she doesn't know what she is doing. He is drunk too and they end up having sex. In the morning she wakes up and says she didn't consent to having sex, because she doesn't really remember anything. So now she says that this guy raped her.......Now what?

 

[James R]

I challenge angrybellsprout, Randwolf and Kadark to a Formal Debate.

Proposal thread is [thread=82760]here[/thread].

 

[Asguard]

shorty that case wouldnt fly as you have decribed it basically because if he is as drunk as SHE is then either they are both guilty of rape or nither are

 

[draqon]

shorty that case wouldnt fly as you have decribed it basically because if he is as drunk as SHE is then either they are both guilty of rape or nither are

but would court see it as them both being guilty of rape?

both of them are drunk, somehow manage to undress, pull out their stuff and get down to business...than later she wakes up before him calls her lawyer and tells that she has been raped since she never consented. what now? Will court make them both guilty of rape and give them the same term?

 

[Randwolf]

You cannot give an exact answer as to how many drinks it takes for a person to become that incapacitated.

No, but someone has to.

Who decides it? Usually the police investigating the complaint. As I said, witness testimonies will usually be taken to try to gauge just how drunk the complainant is.

Bells, I appreciate the checks and balances. Do you have blind faith in the system? Isn't the foundation of a legal system that the executive branch makes the laws and the judicial branch interprets and enforces them? (In the US)

Isn't it true that the law, as written, according to Asguard, explicitly defines rape as one party being presumed unable to give consent if they have consumed x amount of alcohol, even if they then actively participate in sex? And then the other is guilty of rape? In this case, the presumption of incapacitation is implied by a person's consumption of alcohol, so isn't it a valid question as to how much?

As I have stated before, if someone is tipsy and gives consent and is able to understand what they had consented to, it is not rape.

Once again, we agree. Back to who decides this...

But if someone is falling down drunk, confused, passed out.. that individual could be viewed as not having been in possession of their mental faculties. The prosecutor will review the case and decide whether to go ahead with the case or not, usually based on witness testimonies as well as the information garnered from the accused and the complainant. In the majority of cases, it does not proceed past that point.

Why, in the majority of cases, does it not proceed past this point?

In some cases where it is obvious that the complainant had been that incapacitated, it goes to trial.

Obvious to whom? Some arbitrary and capricious them?

In other words, it is taken on a case by case basis. And frankly, the law is written in such a way to ensure that it can be applied on a case by case basis because each case is different and each individual is different.

Of course it is. Here is that word again, "arbitrary". Oh, and "capricious". The worse that the laws are origionally formulated, the worse the enforcement will hit us all. Oh, well...

Err no it's not.

You might think it is because you seem to have this obscene view that all feminists want to kill all men and blame everything on the male species, but the reality is vastly different. But yeah, you take those scissors and run with it.

What? How did you get here? This makes you look foolish, in the middle of an otherwise rational dialog. I stated that, yes it is black and white that people are responsible for their own actions, and you take that to "this obscene view that all feminists want to kill all men and blame everything on the male species, but the reality is vastly different. But yeah, you take those scissors and run with it."???? What is that? I don't even know how to respond to this....


I'm distracted at the moment, part 2 will come soon....

 

[angrybellsprout]

shorty that case wouldnt fly as you have decribed it basically because if he is as drunk as SHE is then either they are both guilty of rape or nither are

I'm sure there are plenty of men in the USA that are in prison that would disagree with you about that...

http://www.winona.edu/winonan/S2006/2-15-06/Daterateordrunksex.htm

http://www.lawrentian.com/media/sto...e200609252009&sourcedomain=www.lawrentian.com

The trial, at which Sokolow, a former attorney, was present, involved two intoxicated juniors at a Big Ten university.

Yet one was mysteriously a 'rapist' and the other was a 'victim' while they were both in a similar state...

 

[shorty_37]

shorty that case wouldnt fly as you have decribed it basically because if he is as drunk as SHE is then either they are both guilty of rape or nither are

Well I would have to say I think you are wrong. I think that in a a lot of those cases they would take the womans word for it and charge the man. As for the woman being charged with raping the man.........slim very slim I would think.

 

[angrybellsprout]

I guess that asguard can't even read the rapist checklist...

If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.

If the both of you are drunk, then you just raped her.