Another poll on attitudes to rape

[Bells]

No, but someone has to.

Not particularly. For example, the legal limit in regards to driving is .05 (in Australia at least). For some, that can be one drink. For others it can be 2 or 3 drinks per hour.

Hence why incapacitation rules in regards to rape are a gray area and need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Hence why the law itself states incapacitation but does not define the exact amount of alcohol that needs to be consumed to reach that limit. Why? Because the amount of drinks required to reach that limit is different for each individual. For example, it would probably take 2 drinks for me to get to that limit. 3 is complete incapacitation in regards to understanding anything or even spelling my name. A friend of mine can drink a whole bottle of wine and she's still in full ownership of all her faculties.

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)

Key word there is 'interprets'. Rules about incapacitation and inability to grant consent is a grey area in the law, simply because it cannot be set down to a definite figure. And prior to the judiciary interpreting it, the case itself is almost vetted and the facts have to be gathered. If it shows that there was no crime committed, then it pretty much won't get to court unless the prosecutor deems that it should be or those involved decide to take it out of the criminal realm and into the civil realm.

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?

Does the term informed consent mean anything to you?

That you need to understand what you are consenting to? And again, the 'how much' depends on each individual. If witnesses say that the person was falling down, had difficulty understanding anything at all, had peed their pants (for example) because they couldn't figure out how to use the toilet, that is a pretty good indication that they were in no position to give consent. If the accused was stone cold sober and fully aware of this fact, or had plied the individual with the alcohol or drugs to get them to that state, again, it tends to speak for itself. I will not kid you when I say that rapes involving drugs and alcohol are a nightmare to prosecute. In some instances it is quite clear (for example, the guy who decided to tape it and it clearly showed a woman who was so drunk she couldn't even recognise where she was or who she was with). For example, a child can actively participate in a sexual act with an adult. Consent is deemed to not have been given because it is a child and said child would be unable to comprehend or understand what she was consenting to.

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

Aaarrrggghhhhhh..

FFS.. how many times has this been answered?:bawl:

Cases are investigated. If there is no case, there is no case.

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

Because in the majority of cases, there is not only enough evidence to prosecute the case, but in some, we find out that consent was valid and informed, that the individual was not that incapacitated.

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 shall reiterate a point you made earlier:

You and your condescending feminist friends belittle women, and blame men for all problems.

Post 77
​

You were saying? How exactly is that meant to be read as? We are not privy to your innermost thoughts. We can only respond to what you put down here in words. So pray tell, how exactly is that comment above meant to be interpreted?

 

[Bells]

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



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

Can you see what I mean James?

 

[Asguard]

out of interest bells can a case like this procide without a complaintant?

For instance if a video surfaced of someone activly persuing sexual activity with someone who was clearly incapacitated does a complaint still need to be made?

the other related question i had was does it make a difference who the person is?

What im saying is say for agument sake PB got SOO drunk she had no idea what she was doing and we had sex and someone filmed it (for the sake of taking technicalities out of the equasion say the tape was against both our wills, ie a perve taped us through the curtains) could a case be made against me that i breached her concent even though being her regular sexual partner she wouldnt care?

Thats the one part of these laws i find highly distasteful

 

[draqon]

Thats the one part of these laws i find highly distasteful

lol...prosecution tastes sour.

 

[Asguard]

actually its just the way the amendment was worded i have a problem with, not its intent

 

[Bells]

out of interest bells can a case like this procide without a complaintant?

For instance if a video surfaced of someone activly persuing sexual activity with someone who was clearly incapacitated does a complaint still need to be made?

Nope. The video of the mentally disabled girl posted on the internet is a prime example of that in Melbourne, at least. Her family did end up making a complaint to the police afterwards, but investigations into the tape had commenced as soon as it was found on the internet and when another person reported it to the police. Don't forget, it was also passed around at several schools.

What im saying is say for agument sake PB got SOO drunk she had no idea what she was doing and we had sex and someone filmed it (for the sake of taking technicalities out of the equasion say the tape was against both our wills, ie a perve taped us through the curtains) could a case be made against me that i breached her concent even though being her regular sexual partner she wouldnt care?

Thats the one part of these laws i find highly distasteful

To that point, the pervert filming you through the window without both of your consent would also be charged. But yes, theoretically, you could be charged in such a case, because of the fact that she was so incapacitated. But it would damn hard to prosecute it in court when the supposed victim is testifying that she was not raped.

 

[angrybellsprout]

could a case be made against me that i breached her concent even though being her regular sexual partner she wouldnt care?

Again asguard can't even read the rapist checklist...

If you're her husband you can still be a rapist.

 

[Asguard]

ABS, fuck off, that reffers to something compleatly different. Ie your wife\husband has the right to say NO

Bells ok then so if that happened you would have a cloud hanging over your head for what 10 years? (isnt that the statiute of limitation for rape) after making a complaint about the pervert incase some idot procicuter decided to make a name for himself with your life? Thats hardly fair, especially if down the track the relationship fell apart and they wished to make your life more dificult say so that they could get sole custody.

 

[angrybellsprout]

So once you are in a 'relationship' consent is no longer required?

Didn't you state earlier that just because a girl doesn't say no doesn't mean that it isn't rape?

 

[Tiassa]

Jumping to conclusions?

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.

I guess Angrybellsprout can't even read the things he quotes. Or maybe it was just a misplaced presumption of convenience that compelled him to overlook the word "may".

Perhaps the word has a different meaning where he's from.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

If you have been having sex with each other for like an hour or so already then suddenly she says "no stop" it might take a few seconds to register in the heat of the moment to actualy stop. You can't say it's rape if the guy takes 3-5 seconds to stop if you have already been having sex all over the house for hours or something. I would understand if you just put it inside and she says stop thats fair, but what if the guy is in the middle of ejaculating and she says no stop, thas going against all animal nature to expect a man to just suddenly be straight headed and say "why sure honey im an emotionless robot, This was just like reading the newspaper to me anyhow i will stop on the split second you ask me"

This whole thing is quite stupid if you ask me, some of those options/questions are ridiculous and are most likely written by feminists or men who have never had good sex. sex is not a business deal or a written contract between two machines, it's passionate and you can get caught up in the moment. If you don#t get caught up in a steamy passionate moment for ages then your not having good sex and you might aswell be a buddhist celebate anyway.




peace.

 

[visceral_instinct]

If you have been having sex with each other for like an hour or so already then suddenly she says "no stop" it might take a few seconds to register in the heat of the moment to actualy stop. You can't say it's rape if the guy takes 3-5 seconds to stop if you have already been having sex all over the house for hours or something. I would understand if you just put it inside and she says stop thats fair, but what if the guy is in the middle of ejaculating and she says no stop, thas going against all animal nature to expect a man to just suddenly be straight headed and say "why sure honey im an emotionless robot, This was just like reading the newspaper to me anyhow i will stop on the split second you ask me"

peace.

I do agree. Anyone would have a hard time doing that.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Could you really understand everything thats said in amongst all the screaming during sex?, what if the "no" was not heard, I know some women who say "no stop", then when you do stop they say "no i didn't mean actualy stop", so I can see how that can be confusing for example, say she tells you to stop 4-5 times then tells you she didn't mean actualy stop, then the 5th time you don't stop because you assume she does not really mean it, then afterwards she files a rape case against you for not stopping. even though she was banging your brains out willingly for 3 hours.


peace.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I do agree. Anyone would have a hard time doing that.

Yeah I know, I don't have arguments against most of the options especialy the drugging ones and forceful ones they are clearly rape. But if you are already both willingly having sex for ages and your both caught up in the moment I find it hard to understand how somebody can just switch off there natural sexual instincts in the blink of an eye.

It's unnatural and unrealistic to expect a human to be so robotic.


peace.

 

[draqon]

... and you might aswell be a buddhist celebate anyway.

peace.

that would be me

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

that would be me

yeah hopefully it will make you live longer.


Is that somebody flying on the nimbus cloud?


peace.

 

[draqon]

yeah hopefully it will make you live longer.


Is that somebody flying on the nimbus cloud?


peace.

its me, why? :bugeye: you interested in joining the club of heaven's delights?

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

its me, why? :bugeye: you interested in joining the club of heaven's delights?

The avatar I mean, thats the nimbus cloud from dragonball and what appears to be a fake goku riding it. Did you know only those with a pure heart can sit upon the nimbus.

Anyway, what delights are you offering?, im pretty content with everything in the universe, unless you are offering eternal life? and I dont just want my "soul" to live on I want to keep this body aswell because I like it


peace.

 

[draqon]

The avatar I mean, thats the nimbus cloud from dragonball and what appears to be a fake goku riding it. Did you know only those with a pure heart can sit upon the nimbus.

Anyway, what delights are you offering?, im pretty content with everything in the universe, unless you are offering eternal life? and I dont just want my "soul" to live on I want to keep this body aswell because I like it


peace.

sorry brother, but the body is "to-go"...only soul is to stay. And are you really of pure heart? :bugeye: I am offering an offer you cannot resist, my offer is: give yourself an offer I would not resist of heavenly delights. That way we both take care of each other.

 

[Tiassa]

Oh poor, whining you!

Sex without consent is wrong. What constitutes consent is a topic for debate.

Strikingly, though, this aspect is never raised as a topic. There are at least a couple of reasons for this, though. On one side of the issue you have a number of people who consistently explain boundaries and don't seem to have much of an objection to them. We might consider the wording of a particular expression, or make certain points about a source author or transference from one individual to an entire movement, but by and large we appear to understand a bit more about the social and psychological issues accompanying rape than certain others. And those others are, as you might expect, on the other side of the issue, and seem to be arguing desperately from a perspective of whatever it takes to improve their chances of getting laid without going to jail. These don't want to explore the issue without finding some way to attack feminism or complain about injustice against men. These are the ones who post topics as responses to individuals, attempting to disguise their anger as some sort of intelligent response to something allegedly obscure and confusing. The reality, however, is that this side of the issue tends to argue as if they have no human sympathy or empathy, no compassion for their fellow human beings, and seem utterly and completely invested in themselves. Maybe it's hard to figure out when you're a teenager surrounded by a bunch of wide-eyed idiot dorks who actually believe that her eyes will say yes while her mouth says no. But when you grow up and actually take a moment to think through it, and once you have a little more experience with sexual relations, the whole situation should become a little more clear. And if it doesn't, you're still doing it wrong. There is nothing at all—to use a repeatedly-considered example from these discussions of late—about Asguard's situation with his partner that is confusing. Perhaps their relationship will eventually decline to the point that his permission is revoked; if he can't figure that out when it happens ... well, other people in this world have been sent up for criminal ignorance. It would be unfortunate, and may well be exploitative, but men have known the rules since boyhood, when they stood nose to nose in the schoolyard, trying to look tough, and saying, "Go ahead. Throw the first punch."

So unless we are expected to believe that such a number of our Sciforums neighbors are so warped by their upbringing that such simple and commonplace arguments like right and wrong, honor among thieves, walking the line, pushing the rules, and falling flat on our faces are foreign to them, it would probably do the "confused" or "we're not advocating rape and violence against women, why do you think that we are?" crowd to address a real question in good faith. Otherwise, a lot of people are just going to shrug and make a note that if there is ever a Sciforums convention, get-together, or meet-up, we at least know some of the people we need to keep our children away from.

Seriously, if there is an honest inquiry afoot by the anti-feminist crowd, it's not apparent. What constitutes consent? How hard is it to ask the question without setting up all manner of diversion about "femtrolling" or "copypasta", or Bells, or Tiassa, or anything else? What the hell is so goddamned hard about asking the question that is so important that you'll hammer away at it in topic after topic, complain that it doesn't get asked, but is too much to ask that you post it in good faith?