Rape: The Megathread
- Thread starter Randwolf
- Start date
Randwolf:
Let's here your views first.
The legal key phrase is "informed consent". That is, the person must know what is going on and must understand what they are being asked to consent to, specifically. Thus, if they are too drunk to be able to control their own actions in any meaningful way, informed consent becomes impossible. You can't inform them, because they are too out of it to take in anything you say.
I'm not sure what the law is where you are, but in my country the law says nobody below the age of 16 can consent to sex with an adult of age 18+. Thus, there is a presumption of statutory rape if, for example, a 15 year old makes a complaint against and 18 year old, but not if a 17 year old complains. The rationale for the law again is based on the idea of informed consent. The presumption is that a child of less than 16 years of age cannot understand the true implications of having sex with an adult, and therefore cannot be properly informed and therefore cannot give consent.
Maybe. What would the law say, in your ideal world? How would you write the legislation to improve things? Bear in mind that a court needs to be able to interpret and apply the law where a charge is laid. If your legislation is too wishy-washy, it will be useless as any kind of guide.
Where I come from, the legal definition (from memory) is that rape is sexual penetration without consent. However, the term "penetration" is defined so as not to exclude the rape of a male.
Let's here your views first.
The legal key phrase is "informed consent". That is, the person must know what is going on and must understand what they are being asked to consent to, specifically. Thus, if they are too drunk to be able to control their own actions in any meaningful way, informed consent becomes impossible. You can't inform them, because they are too out of it to take in anything you say.
I'm not sure what the law is where you are, but in my country the law says nobody below the age of 16 can consent to sex with an adult of age 18+. Thus, there is a presumption of statutory rape if, for example, a 15 year old makes a complaint against and 18 year old, but not if a 17 year old complains. The rationale for the law again is based on the idea of informed consent. The presumption is that a child of less than 16 years of age cannot understand the true implications of having sex with an adult, and therefore cannot be properly informed and therefore cannot give consent.
Maybe. What would the law say, in your ideal world? How would you write the legislation to improve things? Bear in mind that a court needs to be able to interpret and apply the law where a charge is laid. If your legislation is too wishy-washy, it will be useless as any kind of guide.
Where I come from, the legal definition (from memory) is that rape is sexual penetration without consent. However, the term "penetration" is defined so as not to exclude the rape of a male.
Bells
Staff member
Society has yet to catch up to the law.
It would go a long way if male victims did come forward and report it. It might help change the social ideal that a guy getting raped is a good thing.. that he somehow should not complain because he's 'getting some'. Sadly, it is many of their fellow males who hold such archaic views. For some, they find it easier to just blame the "feminists". Disregarding the fact that the laws are there to protect both sexes. That one sex refuses to come forward is not the women's fault. It lies in the psyche that men should somehow be grateful for any sex they get.
Ha, trust lil wayne to recycle some old lyrics, He is a hoe and a housewife himself.
peace.
Well, that was a "duhh" moment on my part.
Definition follows, although not Oxford...
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object) 6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.
OK.
"compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. "
Does anyone notice that this is gender specific? Setting that aside for a minute, this pretty much matches my preconceived notions.
Question is, does an alcohol content of .05 constitute "physical force or duress"? Does that fact that one party is 15 and the other 18? Even if the other party is unconscious, does this meet the dictionary definition of rape?
And for whatever it is worth, as I know how much disclaimers count here, no, I am not advocationg sex with unconscious people. Or unconscious anything.
Obligatory disclaimers aside, what about "nagging" someone? Does this meet the standard of "rape"?
This would all be moot, except that laws are being written to appease... to appease...
to appease those who would like laws to be written this way. Read: fem*** Can't even say it anymore.Seriously, does anyone see the potential for misapplying laws here? (Used to read "potential for abuse", but...)
Let's go through the "list" and see what qualifies according to the dictionary. Some of the items? All of them? Here is where we get into perspective....
Rape is a strong label. What do you think?
So says the master of strawmen himself.
So says the person who reponds to the scenario of someone giving both implicit and explicit consent to sex after a few drinks with claiming that they believe that nonconsentual sex is not rape?
Funny that person would attempt to make such a claim.
I suggest that you stop it with the strawmen and other dishonest tactics and attempt to reply to something that I've actually stated.
So asguard going on and on about how he has sex with his girlfriend when she is incapacitated by drink isn't suggesting that such behaivor is acceptable when he does it?
Coming from someone who can't understand how figurative language works?
More strawmen from James Retard.
Asguard can't have sex with his unconcious girlfriend? Maybe you should alert him to this fact.
Considering the fact that I was the only one to object to Asguard's joy of having sex with his intoxicated/unconcious girlfriend, you are again showing yourself to be an idiot.
I'm guessing that this is your stance with having sex with 10 year olds as well, or do you simply believe in double standards. Either having sex with someone who is 'unable to consent' but claims that they weren't raped is a crime or it isn't. You can't simply pick and choose when one situation is rape and when the other is just a boyfriend and girlfriend getting their jollies off.
Instead of simply throwing around even more lies, why don't you start to show where I ever claimed this? In fact, the text that you quoted was talking about how I believed that women should be drawing an income to pay off the bills, but instead of addressing that you just built up another strawman.
Funny because that has been my claim the entire time. In every thread I've consistantly mentioned implicit and explicit consent, but you seem to have a problem when both of those forms of consent are given. Rather than ever address my claim, James Retard has consistantly claimed that I have stated that nonconsentual sex is not rape. Funny because after several demands for him to actually post where I made this claim, he still refuses to link to such a claim.
Ah poor James Retard is taking things that he doesn't even know anything about, despite the fact that I described one of the events on the forum before, and is trying to create even more lies.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82161
Though I'm sure that you'd agree that simply talking to a girl that starts a conversation with me is the same thing as driving over half an hour out of my way back home. The correct behaivor should have been fuck off woman don't talk to me, right? Because obviously answering her questions and carrying on a conversation was the wrong behaivor.
If you want another classic example, look at how female teachers who have sex with their high school and middle school students are treated when compared to their male counterparts.
Well, that was a "duhh" moment on my part.
Definition follows, although not Oxford...
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object) 6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.
OK.
"compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. "
Does anyone notice that this is gender specific? Setting that aside for a minute, this pretty much matches my preconceived notions.
Question is, does an alcohol content of .05 constitute "physical force or duress"? Does that fact that one party is 15 and the other 18? Even if the other party is unconscious, does this meet the dictionary definition of rape?
And for whatever it is worth, as I know how much disclaimers count here, no, I am not advocationg sex with unconscious people. Or unconscious anything.
Obligatory disclaimers aside, what about "nagging" someone? Does this meet the standard of "rape"?
This would all be moot, except that laws are being written to appease... to appease...
Seriously, does anyone see the potential for misapplying laws here? (Used to read "potential for abuse", but...)
Let's go through the "list" and see what qualifies according to the dictionary. Some of the items? All of them? Here is where we get into perspective....
Rape is a strong label. What do you think?
I think if they wan't to make up these laws that they should not use the word rape, as rape is already an existing word with a set defenition in the english language.
Yes it is a strong label, for instance say a guy did have sex without consent with a girl where no force was used and it was due to them both being drunk and retarded, she did not say yes, she did not say no either. Now he has been labeled a rapist and branded in public as a known rapist, the first thing people are going to think when they hear he raped a girl is something like "he violantly attacked her and forced her to have sex", when this certain individual might not ever be capable of commiting such a violent rape because he is not the type of person to do so. But yet he is labeled as one and the same as the people who actualy attack women and force them at knife point to have sex.
its like calling somebody who stole a bottle of wine from the supermarket a dangerous armed robber, when they clearly are 2 different crimes.
make up a new word if its now a crime to do this that and the other, dont just say well all of these things are now also classed as rape, when rape has a set meaning.
Does the english language mean anything?, or can I just go and call a banana an apple. because I think that a banana deserves apple status.
peace.
Ah looks like James is back to dismissing male victims and towing the feminist line.
Go back to your strawmen instead of being an apologist for sexist feminists.
Looks like James R has plenty of competition as it is in this thread alone. A new thread in a separate subforum seems pointless.
Anyway ...
Does the english language mean anything?, or can I just go and call a banana an apple. because I think that a banana deserves apple status.
/bitch slaps
What? Apples taste better than bananas, and they have fewer calories. Sure, bananas are more filling, but so what? Are you some sort of perverted banana loving conspirator? Some kind of a banana-addicted monkey? What did apples ever do to you?
Kadark the Irate
Anyway ...
Does the english language mean anything?, or can I just go and call a banana an apple. because I think that a banana deserves apple status.
/bitch slaps
What? Apples taste better than bananas, and they have fewer calories. Sure, bananas are more filling, but so what? Are you some sort of perverted banana loving conspirator? Some kind of a banana-addicted monkey? What did apples ever do to you?
Kadark the Irate
As a first draft, I would try this.
Explicit consent is overriding. Explicit consent exists where someone specifically gives verbal assent. As in "let's take off our clothes and shag".
A person can not do this if they are comatose. They can do this if they are inebriated. If I, am caught driving drunk, I can not say "oh, I was drunk, therefore I was not able to give informed consent to driving, therefore I am innocent". There seems to be a parallel here. I am not talking about "forced sex". I am saying that the liability pendulum has swung way far here....
Yes, I see this. Yes, I agree. What remains to be explored is when can a "person ... know what is going on and ... understand what they are being asked to consent to". What we really need to understand, is how can a person "reasonably" (I also can play "legalese" James) be expected to know if the other is capable of "informed consent"?
I understand majority, James. My question is, regardless of the specific age in a given realm, don't you find it absurd that two people can give consent today, but not tomorrow? Let alone that one party can misrepresent their age and the other can not "reasonably" rely on this information, but instead can find themselves subject to litigation and imprisonment?
I don't think, although I don't know for a fact, that you and I have any issues with the acceptability of "rape" per se. I think our differences lie in how the determination and protection of the victims should be executed. Am I wrong?
Randwolf, you left out implicit consent, which is also difficult for a comatose person to give.
ABS:
I'm not Asguard. Ask him what he thinks.
Once more, it's out with the insults when you have nothing intelligent to say, right?
*yawn*
He can read. Apparently, you struggle.
But that is exactly what courts are asked to decide all the time.
Take a completely different crime: murder. Why have trials for murder? Either something is murder, or it isn't. Right? You can't simply pick and choose when one is a cold-blooded killing and the other is a tragic accidental death, can you? So goes your argument.
I have asked you twice already, directly, the following question:
"Do you believe that sex without consent is always rape?"
I now ask you for the third time. A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
So? Will you agree that sex without consent is rape, or will you still hold out for the possibility that maybe under some circumstances sex without consent is just fine?
Why are you so reticent to say what you actually believe - to take a stand on this issue? Do you feel like a big man if you can remain silent? Is that it? Would you rather be thought a misogynistic fool than to admit that you agree with me? Or are you ashamed to admit that you disagree with me?
What do you want from me, regarding your story, exactly?
Am I supposed to infer that all women are bitches because you had a bad experience?
I'm not Asguard. Ask him what he thinks.
Once more, it's out with the insults when you have nothing intelligent to say, right?
*yawn*
He can read. Apparently, you struggle.
But that is exactly what courts are asked to decide all the time.
Take a completely different crime: murder. Why have trials for murder? Either something is murder, or it isn't. Right? You can't simply pick and choose when one is a cold-blooded killing and the other is a tragic accidental death, can you? So goes your argument.
I have asked you twice already, directly, the following question:
"Do you believe that sex without consent is always rape?"
I now ask you for the third time. A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
So? Will you agree that sex without consent is rape, or will you still hold out for the possibility that maybe under some circumstances sex without consent is just fine?
Why are you so reticent to say what you actually believe - to take a stand on this issue? Do you feel like a big man if you can remain silent? Is that it? Would you rather be thought a misogynistic fool than to admit that you agree with me? Or are you ashamed to admit that you disagree with me?
What do you want from me, regarding your story, exactly?
Am I supposed to infer that all women are bitches because you had a bad experience?
Randwolf:
I agree with most of what you wrote.
Sorry for more legalese, but what a court would do is to ask "Would a reasonable person, in the position of the accused, have thought that the victim was consenting to sex in these particular circumstances?"
The law does not get more specific than that, because to make an exhaustive list of 1 million different sets of circumstances is obviously impractical and still wouldn't cover all situations that actually arise. Instead, what the law does is to ask disinterested observers (such as a judge or jury) to consider the cirumstances as objectively as they can and draw their own conclusions about whether consent existed or not.
Drawing somewhat arbitrary legal lines always leads to some anomalous results. However I wonder how many actual convictions there have been under the "statutory rapes" rules for the kind of situation you mention.
As for misrepresentation of age, where I come from it is a defence if the victim actually misrepresented his or her age. Reasonable belief that the victim was older is also a defence, I think.
Actually, I'm not sure we have huge differences, even on that issue.
It's hard to talk about this in the abstract. Perhaps we need some actual case studies. Of course, people can easily come up with hypotheticals that are on the margins of the law, but the 1 in a million hypothetical shouldn't invalidate a general law that otherwise works well.
I agree with most of what you wrote.
Sorry for more legalese, but what a court would do is to ask "Would a reasonable person, in the position of the accused, have thought that the victim was consenting to sex in these particular circumstances?"
The law does not get more specific than that, because to make an exhaustive list of 1 million different sets of circumstances is obviously impractical and still wouldn't cover all situations that actually arise. Instead, what the law does is to ask disinterested observers (such as a judge or jury) to consider the cirumstances as objectively as they can and draw their own conclusions about whether consent existed or not.
Drawing somewhat arbitrary legal lines always leads to some anomalous results. However I wonder how many actual convictions there have been under the "statutory rapes" rules for the kind of situation you mention.
As for misrepresentation of age, where I come from it is a defence if the victim actually misrepresented his or her age. Reasonable belief that the victim was older is also a defence, I think.
Actually, I'm not sure we have huge differences, even on that issue.
It's hard to talk about this in the abstract. Perhaps we need some actual case studies. Of course, people can easily come up with hypotheticals that are on the margins of the law, but the 1 in a million hypothetical shouldn't invalidate a general law that otherwise works well.
Bells
Staff member
Why do you think that is? Advocates, many of them feminists, have been demanding that female teachers who sexually abuse their male students be treated to the same harsh penalties imposed on their male counterparts. However, there is a prevailing belief in society that the teenage boy should somehow count himself as being lucky. And where does that belief stem from? From other males.
Do a search through these forums and you will find a ton of posts by your fellow males who view adult women having sex with teenage boys as being good for the boy. That boys who are placed in that kind of position are somehow 'lucky'.
The blame is not on the feminists. The blame lies squarely on the asshats who hold the beliefs that young boys want to have sex with adult women and therefore it shouldn't be a crime.
For example:
Fraggle Rocker said:
You know the saying 'it's a man's world'? Apply it.
Is there a discrepancy? Hell yes. And it is a god damned disgrace. But no amount of feminists screaming at the top of their lungs for said discrepancy to be abandoned is going to drown out the chorus of males who are screaming back that the teenage boy should be thankful he got some.
I'm not typically concious when I'm asleep.
I'm sorry but I must have missed the NOW protests regarding this cause?
Maybe you could offer up some important names of 'feminists' that were out there doing what you're claiming?
You said that nobody on the site thought that was acceptable behaivor. I gave an example of someone who thought that it was acceptable to have sex with a partner who is intoxicated to the point of being incapacitated. So why don't you admit that someone thought that such behavior was acceptable, as this same someone was bragging about it.
Why don't you quit with the strawmen, then I won't have to keep pointing them out?
The courts are asked to decide if it is okay to have sex with a 10 year old girl who claims to be your girlfriend and that she was never raped or if it is okay to have sex with a 20 year old girl who is intoxicated to the point of being incapacitated but claims to have never been raped?
That is funny because either both of these cases should be allowed or they should both be illegal.
I refuse to acknowledge your strawmen.
Because I ever said that all women are bitches? Better yet, why don't you link to where I made that claim?
Just keep making up lies about me James Retard.