rape prevention , by " teaching men not to rape " a concept ?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Just because someone claims to have been raped does not mean they were actually raped. And even if they were raped the circumstances involvd DO PLAY a role in the verdict. Are you really that obtuse to not understand a single thing I and others have been saying all along?

Do you even believe in innocent until proven guilty, and beyond reasonable doubt?

Your emotional responses are killing me captain. I dont even know why I bother replying to you.

I hope your not a judge, because every single case would be GUILTY! Give him a life sentence, no evidence necessary. Womens testimony is all one needs. Men are always liars. Women are not capable of raping men.

Tell me what happens when a couple enjoyed sex, later got into a big arguement, and women wants to get revenge by suing her partner? It never happens? Women claims "that pig raped me". Is this black and white enough for you?

What the hell are your credentials? You must live on another planet!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Just because someone claims to have been raped does not mean they were actually raped. And even if they were raped the circumstances involvd DO PLAY a role in the verdict. Are you really that obtuse to not understand a single thing I and others have been saying all along?

Once again, I am speaking of rape. You are speaking of false accusations of rape. Notice how every example I have made includes a person actually being raped?

THATS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Now, if you wish to discuss false accusations of rape, Id be glad to, but that is an entirely different topic. You can try and drag this one there all you want, but it is not the topic.

Circumstances involved do play a part in the verdict-they DO NOT, however, determine the level of guilt held by the victim, as you already claimed. Ever notice how there are only two option, guilty and not-guilty? Notice how there is not such thing as 'partially guilty'?

Do you even believe in innocent until proven guilty, and beyond reasonable doubt?

Sure do. Do you have the capacity to understand that this conversation is about rapes that have occured?

Furthermore, werent you the one saying it isnt about the legal side, but about morals? You, still, are all over the board, and are quite obviously scrambling to backtrack on what you have said.

Your emotional responses are killing me captain. I dont even know why I bother replying to you.

Please provide one example of my using an emotional response.

I hope your not a judge, because every single case would be GUILTY! Give him a life sentence, no evidence necessary. Womens testimony is all one needs

Ad hominem is logical fallacy, and destroys your credibility.

. Men are always liars.

Sad you see it this way.

Women are not capable of raping men.

You think so? Hmmm.....ive stated multiple times that both sexes are capable of being raped. Perhaps you should get better educated so you can understand such things.

Tell me what happens when a couple enjoyed sex, later got into a big arguement, and women wants to get revenge by suing her partner?

Thats called false rape accusation. Happens a lot. Its really not relevant to this conversation, though.

? It never happens?

I think you must be a little slow. Ive said it happens plenty.

Women claims "that pig raped me". Is this black and white enough for you?

FALSE ACCUSATION. Different topic.

What the hell are your credentials?

Soliciting personal information is against the T&C of this site. I will simply tell you I have worked in social services for a long time, and have never once, NEVER ONCE, seen an instance where a rape victim was at fault for being raped.

You must live on another planet!

For someone who accuses me of being rude, you sure do like to jump to personal attacks, ad hominem, and off topic posts. Interesting.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Fine I will try one more time, since I seem to keep making "off-topic posts" lately according to you.

I think there gray areas between man raping women, sex with consent, women raping man.

The DETAILS matter a lot!

reply to post by ignorant_ape


This sums it up for me. It is not about teaching anyone to not do something. It is about having respect for your fellow human beings...

reply to post by captaintyinknots

The perpetrators point of view does not matter.

Well, it does so far as the perpetrator must have a guilty mind (mens rea). This is important when it comes to rape because it is possible to accidentaly rape someone (not strictly in a legal sense). Victim quite often freezes and does not clearly indicate lack of or withdrawal of consent. This can lead to unconsentual sex and the same trauma as the usual, stereotypical type of violent rape. Yet it would not be justified to punish the perpetrator who is without guilty mind.

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Fine I will try one more time, since I seem to keep making "off-topic posts" lately according to you.

I think there gray areas between man raping women, sex with consent, women raping man.

The DETAILS matter a lot!

And what gray area is that? Please, elaborate. What gray area exists with forced sex?

Maslo
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

The perpetrators point of view does not matter.

Well, it does so far as the perpetrator must have a guilty mind (mens rea). This is important when it comes to rape because it is possible to accidentaly rape someone (not strictly in a legal sense). Victim quite often freezes and does not clearly indicate lack of or withdrawal of consent. This can lead to unconsentual sex and the same trauma as the usual, stereotypical type of violent rape. Yet it would not be justified to punish the perpetrator who is without guilty mind.

edit on 3/10/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Im not so sure about that. Does a person who possesses stolen property stand to be punished, even if they dont know it was stolen? How many people have been convicted of murder when they were convinced it was self defense?

ETA: What about Ariel Castro, who, until they day he offed himself, claimed all of the sex with the captive girls was consensual?

It seems some people do not understand the real issues with rape and attitudes towards the victims. Seems that some people think a woman can be blamed and /or partially guilty in her rape, (or him if a male is the victim.) Yet we never hear of a woman being sentenced for being guilty of being raped --COS IT ISN'T SO!!!

Some are slagging off very intelligent debaters and losing the plot by desperately trying to save their reputation and end up trying diversionary tactics and insults. They are obviously lacking in intelligent debate.

You were wrong. Admit it. We all make mistakes in our lives but the mature thing to do is admit it, learn and move on.

There are no grey areas.
Rape is rape as soon as a woman says no.

Dunno about you, but if I was about to have sex with a woman who suddenly freezes, it would make me think something is not right. I would talk to her. If I then continued then it would seem I didn't care how she felt about it and would make me the rapist

captaintyinknots
Can you provide a single example of any time a person can state "No" or "Stop" in a sexual situation, and the other person forces them to proceed, that is not black and white?

Many, but only one is mine to share. I actually described my own rape, in public on this thread which took forcing myself since it's not really something I'd normally volunteer, specifically for that purpose. However, that example would have been an even better example and a lot more like that of many women I know, had (a) I been participating in the makeout session a whole lot more, and (b) had the man been under the influence of something (e.g. had he or we been drinking and had I chosen to engage with him knowing that, and then said no at the last minute).

The perpetrators point of view does not matter. If the victim stated "No", then the perpetrator is in the wrong.

As long as the 'perpetrators' are human beings, of course their point of view matters, though whether it changes a legal definition is another story -- but sometimes perhaps it should change the definition of whether something is a crime at all.

It is my genuine respect for all people including men that causes me to be compassionate for their circumstance as well, even when they are sometimes being idiots or jerks, which is not the same as being a heinous violent criminal.

If our culture had a spectrum response to what I consider a spectrum of behavior, this would be a different topic, because it could be addressed fairly. But as long as men are utterly destroyed personally and often for life due to being accused of rape (I'm referring to when they really did have sex with her but THEY did not feel it was rape), it polarizes it. It is injust to put men in that situation over the many shades-of-grey of human interaction between outright-rape and consensual-sex.

When men and women begin working together to solve the injustices and imbalances in our culture we might get somewhere, but as long as either side cares for nothing except their side of the situation that's unlikely to happen. I see this situation with things like child support and visitation, which is just as much a mess to discuss as this topic.

Many murderers do not believe what they did was wrong, either.

Humorously, I knew you were going to bring up murder in a response, lol.

It is a matter of defintion of what is a crime and when it is a crime. I live in Oklahoma. You break into my house with your friend, I shoot you dead, and your friend goes to prison for life for first degree murder. I don't. It was my house. Your friend didn't even shoot him but he engaged in a crime that led to death. If I lived in San Francisco, it would be a completely different story. So you see even the definition of murder is pretty variable... even when the behavior is identical, and it is fair to say that from the point of view of the person killed, it was murder either way and I definitely did it. However, I don't think we should get the thread derailed into this analogy since it's having enough trouble with cordial communication on the one it has already got. And every topic like this is a mess of context, and since you seem to have genuine trouble with the whole concept of context, adding more complexity in that area is probably not wise.

Mind altering substances are not an excuse to commit any crime, let alone rape. Ever heard of someone getting set free for murder because they were high or drunk?

I agree it is not ok to commit crimes while under the influence or not, however the question here is not whether it is ok to commit crimes, it is the definition of whether something is even a crime in the first place.

I think if a person engages in presex with a man who is under the influence and then it turns out he is not able or willing, quite possibly due to that situation, to change gears at the last instant, that it ought to be considered self-endangerment to the degree that there should be no charge of rape. Our culture desperately needs a few gradients in the legal treatment and semantic definition of this topic.

Edited to add: I am not suggesting, in the above, that the man did no wrong, or that there should be no response to this. I am suggesting that a cultural spectrum of response to include counseling, related community service, and more, that does not involve public destruction of his character, forfeit of his business and income, and incarceration, ought to exist for such situations.

taoistguy
There are no grey areas.
Rape is rape as soon as a woman says no.

To the woman, yes.

However there are two people involved in the situation. Last time I checked, men deserved recognition as humans too.

reply to post by RedCairo

I think if a person engages in presex with a man who is under the influence and then it turns out he is not able or willing, quite possibly due to that situation, to change gears at the last instant, that it ought to be considered self-endangerment to the degree that there should be no charge of rape. Our culture desperately needs a few gradients in the legal treatment and semantic definition of this topic.

So, in your mind, presex is a binding contract to go all the way? I ask honestly, as I truly dont understand this standpoint.

There is no such thing as someone not being able to stop. That is a sham and a cop out. There is NOTHING in the human body that makes it impossible to not have sex.

RedCairo

taoistguy
There are no grey areas.
Rape is rape as soon as a woman says no.

To the woman, yes.

However there are two people involved in the situation. Last time I checked, men deserved recognition as humans too.

Are you saying that if the perpetrator doesnt think its rape, that brings into question whether or not it actually is?

Last I checked, the only person who has control over whether they want to have sex or not is the individual. Its not something that can be decided for you. Just because the perpetrator thinks to him or herself "well, they are saying no, but they actually want it" doesnt change a thing.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Im not so sure about that. Does a person who possesses stolen property stand to be punished, even if they dont know it was stolen?

Of course not.

taoistguy
It seems some people do not understand the real issues with rape and attitudes towards the victims. Seems that some people think a woman can be blamed and /or partially guilty in her rape, (or him if a male is the victim.) Yet we never hear of a woman being sentenced for being guilty of being raped --COS IT ISN'T SO!!!

Well this is the meat and potatoes of the issue. Obviously the victim is the plaintiff and the perpetrator is the defendant. The state is the prosecutor. How can the victim/plaintiff get sentenced for being partially guilty? If she shares any blame it will be reflected in the verdict against the defendant, either in a reduced sentence or if she was faking the case, the defendant will be set free.

Some are slagging off very intelligent debaters and losing the plot by desperately trying to save their reputation and end up trying diversionary tactics and insults. They are obviously lacking in intelligent debate.

Save their reputation for disagreeing? Come on dude, that is uncalled for. I can disagree with whatever the hell I please. It doesn't make me a criminal, its not hate speech, its not spreading misinformation.

Every rational person already knows rape is a felony crime.

You were wrong. Admit it. We all make mistakes in our lives but the mature thing to do is admit it, learn and move on.

Sure I make plenty of mistakes. But hardely any in this thread.

Rape is rape as soon as a woman says no.

No doubt, but she better be able to back it up with substance.

There are no grey areas.

If there were no gray areas, then everyone charged with rape would ALSO be convicted of rape.

Do you see the contradiction in your false assumption that I just pointed out? Heaven knows I have tried but I am not getting through with some folks!

captaintyinknots

I think if a person engages in presex with a man who is under the influence and then it turns out he is not able or willing, quite possibly due to that situation, to change gears at the last instant, that it ought to be considered self-endangerment to the degree that there should be no charge of rape. Our culture desperately needs a few gradients in the legal treatment and semantic definition of this topic.

So, in your mind, presex is a binding contract to go all the way?

No, you are hearing "what you think I mean by what I said" as opposed to what I said.

There are many things in our reality which are not deserved, and may involve another person being at fault, but are sometimes brought upon oneself anyway. I think recognition of these contexts is required for anything with the word 'justice' in it.

What I am saying is that this is sometimes a complex and contextual situation and there are circumstances which ought to merit a spectrum of semantic and legal definition, and not just the polarization of rape vs. not-rape as if one is either a heinous criminal or not, because for most humans, there is definitely a spectrum.

However to address your specific question, while I do not consider anything a binding contract except a binding contract, I do consider making out with drunk men to be self-endangerment. While we are teaching men about how everything they ever even thought about is rape, we should be teaching women that if you don't want to get laid, don't make out with drunk men.

There is no such thing as someone not being able to stop. That is a sham and a cop out. There is NOTHING in the human body that makes it impossible to not have sex.

Yes, nearly always that is true -- the issue with altered states is not that it makes it physiologically impossible to stop (if that were the case they'd probably have a hard time with the deed at all), it is that it makes people physiologically-emotionally unwilling, which added to hormones some of which directly influence emotion in this case, is the same end result.

captaintyinknots
Just because the perpetrator thinks to him or herself "well, they are saying no, but they actually want it" doesnt change a thing.

Women resisting, only to eventually relent, is a common part of the human physiological and cultural sexual-courtship cycle, and some of this relates to the genetic species (we are always pretending we aren't from the animal kingdom or that our thin layer of civilization should make all that moot, but it does not).

That doesn't mean it's ok to rape someone with that claim obviously, but the issue is context and degree, and whether a man should be criminalized and incarcerated vs. counseled and fined for example. This is one of several areas of context.

Maslo
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Im not so sure about that. Does a person who possesses stolen property stand to be punished, even if they dont know it was stolen?

Of course not.

They dont? Then why are there laws against possessing stolen property?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Well this is the meat and potatoes of the issue. Obviously the victim is the plaintiff and the perpetrator is the defendant. The state is the prosecutor. How can the victim/plaintiff get sentenced for being partially guilty? If she shares any blame it will be reflected in the verdict against the defendant, either in a reduced sentence or if she was faking the case, the defendant will be set free.

So, disregarding the attempt to take it back to a false accusation conversation, can you provide one piece of evidence to back up the claim that judges have reduced sentences in rape cases because the victim was partially to blame?

A judge may take into account the circumstances of the situation, but i have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, seen a judge give a lighter sentence because the girl was 'asking for it'.

If there were no gray areas, then everyone charged with rape would ALSO be convicted of rape.

This is a completely fallacious argument. Being charged with something is not the same things as having actually done the thing (which, again, is what we are talking about)

reply to post by RedCairo

No, you are hearing "what you think I mean by what I said" as opposed to what I said.

In case you missed it, that was a question, not a statement. I asked you to clarify, and specifically stated that I didnt understand your position. So, no, I didnt hear what I think you mean. I asked a question. No need to get snotty.

There are many things in our reality which are not deserved, and may involve another person being at fault, but are sometimes brought upon oneself anyway. I think recognition of these contexts is required for anything with the word 'justice' in it.

Which I have already discussed in this thread. Responsibility vs. fault.

What I am saying is that this is sometimes a complex and contextual situation and there are circumstances which ought to merit a spectrum of semantic and legal definition, and not just the polarization of rape vs. not-rape as if one is either a heinous criminal or not, because for most humans, there is definitely a spectrum.

There IS a TON of semantic and legal definition. Thats the reason why there is such a thing in most places as "unlawful penetration", or "molestation" laws, which are not the same as rape laws.

However to address your specific question, while I do not consider anything a binding contract except a binding contract, I do consider making out with drunk men to be self-endangerment. While we are teaching men about how everything they ever even thought about is rape, we should be teaching women that if you don't want to get laid, don't make out with drunk men.

Thats great. A bad choice by someone leads to her getting raped. How is the fact that a person decided to rape her her fault?