whats wrong with my post, James? were exactly in the last post am I wrong or you do not agree with?
Attitudes to rape
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
whats wrong with my post, James? were exactly in the last post am I wrong or you do not agree with?
USA and you James?
Well regardless of the law, asking for sexual attention should mean something to her. As I said, she should have SOME blame for knowing what could happen. However, as I have stated before, in no way should her portion of the blame affect the male's punishment nor should it be considered when charges are filed. Do you agree?
...isnt that were...the english people used to send thiefs and criminals to, in the past?
I agree that even if the woman did wear revealing clothes and the man raped her...the women should not be held responsible, but the rapist should be prosecuted. I am saying that in order to avoid majority of rapes, make women wear regular clothes...not shirt skirts or shirt blouses...or small top. Make sure the parents control what that girl wears is not revealing.
James R.:
You do realize that your post is the biggest example of the Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority that has ever been posted outside of quoting the Bible here on Sciforums, yes?
It matters little what the law says. Laws are made by man and are subject to the change of man.
Similarly, you degenerate into the ad hominem. Our views are not "bigotted" because they disagree with you. Please, if you are going to speak to any of us, let us have it without fallacies making a mockery of your viewpoints? It isn't befitting a man who is not a fool. And indeed, you are not a fool. I know you are capable of doing better than this.
Also, to make my own Appeal to Authority, the idea that a "women must be shown to have consented to sex" is contradictory to the United States (and most of the rest of the civilized world) conception of "the onus of proof is on the accuser". If we allow "women must be shown to have consented to sex", then any man, whenever he has sex with a woman, is completely liable for any rape charge the woman deems fit to charge against him, regardless of whether the act was rape or not to begin with. Accordingly, one could even say that not even a contract, that explicitly states that she consents to the act, could work, if she can "change her mind" and then it "becomes rape".
And there is little point in trying to argue you out of your absurd views. The only person who can do that is you yourself. But it willr equire that you put some effort into educating yourself. The information is out there if you care to look for it.
I'd just like to highlight for you where you're going wrong, at this stage, so you'll know where you're out of step with civilized society.
Let's can the sanctimonious crap, can we?
What constitutes "consent"? Does a woman have to say "I freely consent to have sex with you as a legal and binding verbal contract"? Or what if she decides not to during the act, even after she has rendered such contractual obligation?
Engaging in an act without saying "no" and not fighting back does not, in the least, affirm anything but consent.
Let the laws say what they want. The laws are absurd, impractical, and impossible to show.
By approach I meant the approach to sexual intercourse. I.E. The initiation of it and the affirmative response given through its reply.
I agree technically.
Then marriage no longer exists legally, either. The marriage which is presented is a business arrangement at most.
But then again, I could care less what the law says. The law might say the sky is green and the grass is blue. This would mean little.
If she accepts the money, it would be a business deal.
I had meant that the act of rape would still be immoral. My apologies for ambigious language.
No, I'm an Atheist.
Nor did I state in my answer that sex was for procreation. Only that marriage was for sex, specifically, procreative sex. Other forms of sex are part of why marriage exists.
I'd have you not tell me what I'd enjoy, James R. I'm fully aware of what I would and would not find appealing about a woman forcing herself upon me of reasonable attractiveness. I would not go away from the event scarred.
I'd probably go away with an intent to say "dude!" and drink beer and/or consume pizza with males to relate what is second only to "the prostitute gave me the money back it was so good" or "I converted a lesbian" in terms sexual conquest.
Lovely for the laws.
Rapists do have weaknesses and these must be understood.
You sir, are warping my words.
I have never claimed that women who dress provactively are at fault when they are raped. I said that they ought to not provoke things, but are not at fault, morally or otherwise, for rape.
Nor have I claimed the same for promiscuious women.
And I do not consider rape to be possible in marriage, not that married women are at fault when they are "raped".
And I have never once claimed they deserve it.
I'd have you retract your comments or provide a provice quotation of where I affirmed any of the above.
Evolutionary psychologists point to the origin of rape as a behaviour that developed as a last-chance for those who were not given opportunities to reproduce to reproduce. This would place it back on the sexual level.
Also, the idea that rape is about power comes from one Feminist book initially which has been triumphed as an example of truth, without a presentation of such. I have not at the moment a recollection of its name, but I believe Gloria Steinmen wrote it.
What's the difference between being sleepy and being asleep? Being conscious. Same thing here.
I did this earlier and said woman did not bite my head off, although I do not think she agreed in full.
Yet are as culturally relative as they were then.
I have never claimed a woman could be at fault for her rape.
We have to assume that people's reasons for their behaviour, barring other proof, are their actual reasons. If someone says "it was because she dressed like a slut!" then we must agree that he raped her because of that. Does it mean he is less to blame? No. Does it mean she is blameworthy? No. But it does mean that it his reason.
Bad reasons are still reasons.
Depends. Do I normally imprison myself for this length of time? Am I being treated relatively nicely or doing something I'd normally do?
You do realize that your post is the biggest example of the Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority that has ever been posted outside of quoting the Bible here on Sciforums, yes?
It matters little what the law says. Laws are made by man and are subject to the change of man.
Similarly, you degenerate into the ad hominem. Our views are not "bigotted" because they disagree with you. Please, if you are going to speak to any of us, let us have it without fallacies making a mockery of your viewpoints? It isn't befitting a man who is not a fool. And indeed, you are not a fool. I know you are capable of doing better than this.
Also, to make my own Appeal to Authority, the idea that a "women must be shown to have consented to sex" is contradictory to the United States (and most of the rest of the civilized world) conception of "the onus of proof is on the accuser". If we allow "women must be shown to have consented to sex", then any man, whenever he has sex with a woman, is completely liable for any rape charge the woman deems fit to charge against him, regardless of whether the act was rape or not to begin with. Accordingly, one could even say that not even a contract, that explicitly states that she consents to the act, could work, if she can "change her mind" and then it "becomes rape".
And there is little point in trying to argue you out of your absurd views. The only person who can do that is you yourself. But it willr equire that you put some effort into educating yourself. The information is out there if you care to look for it.
I'd just like to highlight for you where you're going wrong, at this stage, so you'll know where you're out of step with civilized society.
Let's can the sanctimonious crap, can we?
What constitutes "consent"? Does a woman have to say "I freely consent to have sex with you as a legal and binding verbal contract"? Or what if she decides not to during the act, even after she has rendered such contractual obligation?
Engaging in an act without saying "no" and not fighting back does not, in the least, affirm anything but consent.
Let the laws say what they want. The laws are absurd, impractical, and impossible to show.
By approach I meant the approach to sexual intercourse. I.E. The initiation of it and the affirmative response given through its reply.
I agree technically.
Then marriage no longer exists legally, either. The marriage which is presented is a business arrangement at most.
But then again, I could care less what the law says. The law might say the sky is green and the grass is blue. This would mean little.
If she accepts the money, it would be a business deal.
I had meant that the act of rape would still be immoral. My apologies for ambigious language.
No, I'm an Atheist.
Nor did I state in my answer that sex was for procreation. Only that marriage was for sex, specifically, procreative sex. Other forms of sex are part of why marriage exists.
I'd have you not tell me what I'd enjoy, James R. I'm fully aware of what I would and would not find appealing about a woman forcing herself upon me of reasonable attractiveness. I would not go away from the event scarred.
I'd probably go away with an intent to say "dude!" and drink beer and/or consume pizza with males to relate what is second only to "the prostitute gave me the money back it was so good" or "I converted a lesbian" in terms sexual conquest.
Lovely for the laws.
Rapists do have weaknesses and these must be understood.
You sir, are warping my words.
I have never claimed that women who dress provactively are at fault when they are raped. I said that they ought to not provoke things, but are not at fault, morally or otherwise, for rape.
Nor have I claimed the same for promiscuious women.
And I do not consider rape to be possible in marriage, not that married women are at fault when they are "raped".
And I have never once claimed they deserve it.
I'd have you retract your comments or provide a provice quotation of where I affirmed any of the above.
Evolutionary psychologists point to the origin of rape as a behaviour that developed as a last-chance for those who were not given opportunities to reproduce to reproduce. This would place it back on the sexual level.
Also, the idea that rape is about power comes from one Feminist book initially which has been triumphed as an example of truth, without a presentation of such. I have not at the moment a recollection of its name, but I believe Gloria Steinmen wrote it.
What's the difference between being sleepy and being asleep? Being conscious. Same thing here.
I did this earlier and said woman did not bite my head off, although I do not think she agreed in full.
Yet are as culturally relative as they were then.
I have never claimed a woman could be at fault for her rape.
We have to assume that people's reasons for their behaviour, barring other proof, are their actual reasons. If someone says "it was because she dressed like a slut!" then we must agree that he raped her because of that. Does it mean he is less to blame? No. Does it mean she is blameworthy? No. But it does mean that it his reason.
Bad reasons are still reasons.
Depends. Do I normally imprison myself for this length of time? Am I being treated relatively nicely or doing something I'd normally do?
The harm is to men and women. Harm to man for having to choose a woman for sex and being rejected and harm to women for being selected for sex by man who they do not want sex with.
dragon:
Yes, I live in Australia. I asked because I don't think many people in the United States would advocated legal restrictions on how people should be allowed to dress (excepting public nudity).
Your user title says you are a citizen of the RusFed, dragon. Do people in Russia think the way you do, or is it just an individual thing because of your hatred of women?
Women are not objects to be "selected" by men. Women have equal choice in whom they do or do not want to have sex with.
Yes, I live in Australia. I asked because I don't think many people in the United States would advocated legal restrictions on how people should be allowed to dress (excepting public nudity).
Your user title says you are a citizen of the RusFed, dragon. Do people in Russia think the way you do, or is it just an individual thing because of your hatred of women?
Women are not objects to be "selected" by men. Women have equal choice in whom they do or do not want to have sex with.
Absane:
I agree that women should be aware of the danger posed by potential rapists. But I absolutely disagree that any rapist should have his sentence reduced, or should be acquitted of his crime, on the basis that his victim was wearing skimpy clothing.
Are we on the same page now?
I agree that women should be aware of the danger posed by potential rapists. But I absolutely disagree that any rapist should have his sentence reduced, or should be acquitted of his crime, on the basis that his victim was wearing skimpy clothing.
Are we on the same page now?
ok now I am sure there are many other people in USA who like dont care what women care...but rapes happen ok...women get raped...and to stop that...to protect those women...making them wear less revealing clothes will help greatly. and no, not like in Iraq but regular normal clothes, as for that all bars should be banned as well.
And yes it is my individual thing, because in Russia there are also many rapes happening, were women than hate their lifes because they were raped...because they wanted to attract men...but attracted the wrong men.
AND NO I DO NOT HATE WOMEN. I AM AFRAID OF WOMEN ACCUSING ME OF ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ACCUSE ME OF.
Any rapist must be dealth with according to the law and his sentence not reduced, (unless he/she realizes what they did...and really do something humanitarian while in jail to prove that they will not do it again), and his sentence not reduced if the women did wear revealing clothes.
What must be done, is the government needs to control which clothes women can wear or pheromones used...and in which zones in accordance with the law. ALL THIS TO PREVENT FURTHER POSSIBLE RAPES. helping men and women
I think that James' question is loaded. Rape is never right, and there is no such thing as mitigating circumstances.
However, one or two of his poll options are shady, and depending on one's interpretation, may not be interpreted as rape.
1. Woman was drunk at the time (i.e. got herself drunk).
If a woman is drunk, and gives consent to sex, then she has not been raped. Whether a man 'plies' her with drink is irrelevant. Guys often ply girls with chocolates and flowers in order to increase their chances of having sex with a woman. I doubt that they are guilty of rape in those cases. The woman is responsible for how much she drinks, not the man.
The situation changes if the woman cannot give consent (comatose) due to drunkeness. That is obviously rape.
However, one or two of his poll options are shady, and depending on one's interpretation, may not be interpreted as rape.
1. Woman was drunk at the time (i.e. got herself drunk).
If a woman is drunk, and gives consent to sex, then she has not been raped. Whether a man 'plies' her with drink is irrelevant. Guys often ply girls with chocolates and flowers in order to increase their chances of having sex with a woman. I doubt that they are guilty of rape in those cases. The woman is responsible for how much she drinks, not the man.
The situation changes if the woman cannot give consent (comatose) due to drunkeness. That is obviously rape.
Again, if a woman does not say 'no', and willingly has sex with an individual, then it is not rape.
You and I were always on the same page about the same consequence (no reduced sentence). However, I am just questioning terms and playing a bit of "devil's adovocate." I chose my answer for your poll before my first post.. I knew what you meant and I agree.
James R(quote)
Engaging in an act without saying "no" and not fighting back does not, in the least, affirm anything but consent.
Engage? Who engaged it? So if a woman is drunk and passed out, its not rape because she can't say no? If a man or woman is threatened with fear of further angering the assailant and inciting more harm, its not rape because "no" was not stated? So your stupid disgusting bullsh*t is that its not rape as long as the assailant can use manipulative threats or tactics, abuse their authority over another or fear to subdue the victim even though he/ she may know the victim does not want to be raped or touched WHICH HAPPENS OFTEN WITH CHILDREN OR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE INTIMIDATED BY PERCEIVED AUTHORITY FIGURES? YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT.
Engaging in an act without saying "no" and not fighting back does not, in the least, affirm anything but consent.
Engage? Who engaged it? So if a woman is drunk and passed out, its not rape because she can't say no? If a man or woman is threatened with fear of further angering the assailant and inciting more harm, its not rape because "no" was not stated? So your stupid disgusting bullsh*t is that its not rape as long as the assailant can use manipulative threats or tactics, abuse their authority over another or fear to subdue the victim even though he/ she may know the victim does not want to be raped or touched WHICH HAPPENS OFTEN WITH CHILDREN OR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE INTIMIDATED BY PERCEIVED AUTHORITY FIGURES? YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT.
I remember in college being told that the only way to have sex without it being rape was to specifically ask permision before each "escalation" of intimate contact. May I kiss you? May I fondle your left breast? How about the right one? May I remove your panties? May I touch your vagina.
Utterly absurd, and good a a good laugh back at the dorm. All these examples of how it's rape if the woman consents and then says no just before you cum. Is it the equivalent of the woman being jumped by a stranger in the park?
Or how it's rape if a couple on a date gets drunk. They told us that in college too. "An intoxicated woman can not give consent." Give me a fricken break. If that rule were followed, ninety-nine percent of premarital sex would be rape. I mean, that's pretty much the whole dating process. Take her out, ply her with alcohol and entertainment, and hope you'll get lucky. The difference is the rapist won't accept no for an answer.
Utterly absurd, and good a a good laugh back at the dorm. All these examples of how it's rape if the woman consents and then says no just before you cum. Is it the equivalent of the woman being jumped by a stranger in the park?
Or how it's rape if a couple on a date gets drunk. They told us that in college too. "An intoxicated woman can not give consent." Give me a fricken break. If that rule were followed, ninety-nine percent of premarital sex would be rape. I mean, that's pretty much the whole dating process. Take her out, ply her with alcohol and entertainment, and hope you'll get lucky. The difference is the rapist won't accept no for an answer.
I agree with you there.
I pretty much agree with you on this one, madan.
Utterly absurd is the deliberate obtuseness though their fooling no one but convincing themselves of what leniency they want to keep plugging.
Its rape if you don't stop when she says no, so simple ain't it? Those who keep bypassing this simple and obvious reality are just fooling themselves. Give me a fuking break! What dumbshits
HAHA, Madan, so you think or believe because 99.9% of people would try to purposely ply someone with alcohol so they have diminished control or awareness is okay because people do it? So are you admitting this is the kind of behavior you engage in? Maybe its not classified as rape just maybe its possible you'd regret it in the morning because you didn't realize fully what you did, is okay? You think its okay that the woman might regret it as long as you got some, huh? If a law was passed tomorrow that everyone should marry their cousin or kill jews or gays, i'm sure you'd agree with it, i mean since everybody would be doing it right? HOTGODFUKINGDAM, this world is full of idiots!
Its rape if you don't stop when she says no, so simple ain't it? Those who keep bypassing this simple and obvious reality are just fooling themselves. Give me a fuking break! What dumbshits
HAHA, Madan, so you think or believe because 99.9% of people would try to purposely ply someone with alcohol so they have diminished control or awareness is okay because people do it? So are you admitting this is the kind of behavior you engage in? Maybe its not classified as rape just maybe its possible you'd regret it in the morning because you didn't realize fully what you did, is okay? You think its okay that the woman might regret it as long as you got some, huh? If a law was passed tomorrow that everyone should marry their cousin or kill jews or gays, i'm sure you'd agree with it, i mean since everybody would be doing it right? HOTGODFUKINGDAM, this world is full of idiots!
Last edited:
Prince_James:
No. I have not appealed to any authority.
I merely set down what the current law is. I made it very clear as to your options, just to let you know. You can either accept the laws made by people more enlightened than yourself, or try to get the laws changed.
Sounds like you want to work to change them, then.
Back to the old days for you - you hope.
No. They are bigotted because they are degrading to women. They treat women as lower class citizens, and blame them for things which are the acts of evil men.
Clearly, lawyers and lawmakers in the United States disagree with you, because they work hard to eliminate laws that are contrary to one another.
Obviously, questions of onus of proof in criminal matters are not your area of expertise. In rape, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the offender committed the rape, beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must show that there was sex and that there was no consent. Often, in such cases consent is the major issue. The burden of proof on the prosecution is very high: they must show that the victim did not consent, beyond reasonable doubt.
In his defence, an accused person may try to establish that he had the consent of the accuser. In doing so, if he introduces sufficient evidence to provoke a "reasonable doubt" that there was consent, then he will get off scott free.
Moreover, people who make false accusations of rape are liable to prosecution under the laws of the United States. This is an extra safeguard against frivilous or vexations accusations.
Please explain what is absurd about my views. "Absurd" means non-sensicle. If I have not made sense somewhere, please point it out for me.
Sorry PJ, but I can't respect you while you continue to hold the views you are espousing and refuse to make any effort to educate yourself or take on board new information that is provided to you. Sticking your head in the sand displays a lack of integrity that I personally find quite galling.
It is mostly a common-sense thing. If a women is actively participating in the sexual act, expressing enjoyment and so on, then it will usually be obvious that consent is present. On the other hand, if she lies stiffly, won't look at her attacker, takes no active role in the act, then chances are consent is not present. This is a question of fact in any particular case.
My advice to you is that if you cannot tell whether a woman is consenting to sex, you should ask her verbally, just to make sure. For example, you could ask "Would you like to have sex with me?" If the answer is "yes", you can safely assume you have consent.
Read Bells post above. This is nonsense. Head in the sand doesn't cut it here, PJ.
Then you ought to work to change the laws. At present, you are out of touch with mainstream society. You should become active in your community. Perhaps you should campaign for regressive sex laws.
Then don't bother getting married, PJ. You can have sex without being married, and there's no other reason you'd get married, right?
Yeah, and if you were raped and then had $100 thrown at you, that would be a business deal too.
Read my post to Absane, above, regarding fantasies vs. reality. Once again, head in the sand just doesn't cut the mustard here, PJ. You're living in a mental Disneyland. Re-read Bells post for a reality check.
After they have been convicted and fairly sentenced for their crimes, then they can get therapy.
Or, better yet, we can take people with attitudes such as yours and attempt to educate them, so they never commit rape in the first place.
You don't seem to realise that reducing the penalty a rapist gets because of the woman's dress is equivalent to assigning fault to the woman. Think about it.
Which evolutionary psychologists?
Well, I'm sure there was a first person to write down the idea. But the idea is now commonly held by most people with an appropriate education about the issues.
You didn't answer the question, but stuck your head in the sand and tried to avoid it again. Want to try again?
Why do you draw such a black-and-white line between consciousness and unconsciousness? Don't you think rape is potentially worse when you're conscious and aware of everything that is happening, compared to if you're unconscious?
That's what you're constantly claiming. You're in denial. Read your own posts.
You have a naive view of criminals. Don't you think a criminal will say anything to get himself off the hook or make himself look better to a judge or jury?
Nobody "normally" goes about getting raped.
No. I have not appealed to any authority.
I merely set down what the current law is. I made it very clear as to your options, just to let you know. You can either accept the laws made by people more enlightened than yourself, or try to get the laws changed.
Sounds like you want to work to change them, then.
Back to the old days for you - you hope.
No. They are bigotted because they are degrading to women. They treat women as lower class citizens, and blame them for things which are the acts of evil men.
Clearly, lawyers and lawmakers in the United States disagree with you, because they work hard to eliminate laws that are contrary to one another.
Obviously, questions of onus of proof in criminal matters are not your area of expertise. In rape, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the offender committed the rape, beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must show that there was sex and that there was no consent. Often, in such cases consent is the major issue. The burden of proof on the prosecution is very high: they must show that the victim did not consent, beyond reasonable doubt.
In his defence, an accused person may try to establish that he had the consent of the accuser. In doing so, if he introduces sufficient evidence to provoke a "reasonable doubt" that there was consent, then he will get off scott free.
Moreover, people who make false accusations of rape are liable to prosecution under the laws of the United States. This is an extra safeguard against frivilous or vexations accusations.
Please explain what is absurd about my views. "Absurd" means non-sensicle. If I have not made sense somewhere, please point it out for me.
Sorry PJ, but I can't respect you while you continue to hold the views you are espousing and refuse to make any effort to educate yourself or take on board new information that is provided to you. Sticking your head in the sand displays a lack of integrity that I personally find quite galling.
It is mostly a common-sense thing. If a women is actively participating in the sexual act, expressing enjoyment and so on, then it will usually be obvious that consent is present. On the other hand, if she lies stiffly, won't look at her attacker, takes no active role in the act, then chances are consent is not present. This is a question of fact in any particular case.
My advice to you is that if you cannot tell whether a woman is consenting to sex, you should ask her verbally, just to make sure. For example, you could ask "Would you like to have sex with me?" If the answer is "yes", you can safely assume you have consent.
Read Bells post above. This is nonsense. Head in the sand doesn't cut it here, PJ.
Then you ought to work to change the laws. At present, you are out of touch with mainstream society. You should become active in your community. Perhaps you should campaign for regressive sex laws.
Then don't bother getting married, PJ. You can have sex without being married, and there's no other reason you'd get married, right?
Yeah, and if you were raped and then had $100 thrown at you, that would be a business deal too.
Read my post to Absane, above, regarding fantasies vs. reality. Once again, head in the sand just doesn't cut the mustard here, PJ. You're living in a mental Disneyland. Re-read Bells post for a reality check.
After they have been convicted and fairly sentenced for their crimes, then they can get therapy.
Or, better yet, we can take people with attitudes such as yours and attempt to educate them, so they never commit rape in the first place.
You don't seem to realise that reducing the penalty a rapist gets because of the woman's dress is equivalent to assigning fault to the woman. Think about it.
Which evolutionary psychologists?
Well, I'm sure there was a first person to write down the idea. But the idea is now commonly held by most people with an appropriate education about the issues.
You didn't answer the question, but stuck your head in the sand and tried to avoid it again. Want to try again?
Why do you draw such a black-and-white line between consciousness and unconsciousness? Don't you think rape is potentially worse when you're conscious and aware of everything that is happening, compared to if you're unconscious?
That's what you're constantly claiming. You're in denial. Read your own posts.
You have a naive view of criminals. Don't you think a criminal will say anything to get himself off the hook or make himself look better to a judge or jury?
Nobody "normally" goes about getting raped.
- Status