This is topic Militant feminism?+ Rape and Relationships in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=042352

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
First I have virtually zero opinion on this, just a story from the detritis of my life:

In 1925 Henry Cowell the pianist wrote a piece called "The Banshee," where the pianist drags his or her fingernails against the paino strings, to mimick the howling of a banshee. There are other elements to the piece, it sounds pretty neat, but wierd.

A friend of mine, an active feminist and lesbian wrote a thesis a few months ago on how Cowell was a chauvenist, who was treating the Piano as "feminine"" so that he could perform a musical rape on her. She recieve an A, but I didn't get a chance to read the paper unfortunately.

What I'm wondering is, barring the existance of a journal where cowell admits his plot against the feminine, or some other actual evidence besides the piece itself, (I don't think there was any, but I am not 100% sure), is this a justifiable thing to do? I suppose its fair to let a writer pick any subject, and a challenge for her to construct such a radical opinion, however I am wondering if Hatrack thinks it is wrong to construct what amounts to a new reality surrounding a peice that is 80 years old. If so, how would you do this? How would you make it credible?

[ April 04, 2006, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
 
Apparently, Beethoven's 5th is about rape as well, so says the ultra-feminists [Dont Know]
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Speaking as a feminist, I think the people you're talking about need therapy. A lot of it.

Understand: people like this are a tiny (if noxious) minority.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I don't have a problem with people reading something like that into a work--though it sounds absurd to me--but I really have a problem when they say that whatever silly thing they read into a work was deliberate, when they cannot possibly know this. In other words, say "this parallels blah blah blah, as can be seen in <insert textual evidence here>." But when they say something like "So-and-so wrote this piece as a <insert heinous accusation here>," I think it's downright immoral. They're slandering someone, and the fact that the victim, in this case, is dead, does not make it any less reprehensible.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think it's perfectly valid to suggest that an author may have introduced unintended meaning into his work; in fact, I think it's usually LIKELY that this has happened, and one of the jobs of the critic is to identify this meaning. However, I believe it's intellectually dishonest -- and more than a little smug -- to insist that any one specific interpretation must have been a consequence of the author's will or unexamined biases.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I like Militant feminism, makes the work place more interesting, and since I'm harmless never affects me.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'm more than a little leery of judging an academic paper I haven't read. When the person describing how sensationalistically bad it is to me hasn't read it either, I don't see how anyone could expect me to judge.

I written plenty of papers and articles that a brief description of the more sensational aspects often leads people to think I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure these have all been reasonably well researchered and reasoned and, in a few cases, had people who initially thought me off my rocker agree so after a more lengthy exposition.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Not that I am agreeing with her, but without reading the paper, how can you assess her evidence?
 
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
quote:
makes the work place more interesting
Blayne, if that's your true attitude towards feminism I'd say no, y'aren't harmless.

***************

Orincoro, can you get ahold of the paper? And with your friend's permission, post it here? I'm with everyone else; I'll need to at least see whether there's any real evidence before I pass this off as WAY overanalytical or an interesting way of looking at things.

************

Maybe I'm too much of a Clockwork Orange fangeek, but for me it's the 9th Syphony that represents rape.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
I'm struggling to grasp the "militant" aspect of writing obscure literary analysis, but maybe that's just me.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Oh, what Orincoro didn't say is that the conclusion of the paper encourages the audience to rise up and strangle the performer with the piano strings.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Tatiana [ROFL]


I like how the responses assume more and more and get bolder as we go along. Squicky I didn't say it was bad, I haven't read it and I don't have an opinion. I only heard a synopsis of the work from the author herself.

Tom and Icky make a good distinction, its quite possible that the paper suggests a new meaning for the work without asserting whether it was intentional or not. The impression I got was that she thought it was intentional, but I could be mistaken. As for posting the paper, I doubt I will get a chance to do that, so unfortunately the discussion can only go so far. [Frown]
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Not that I am agreeing with her, but without reading the paper, how can you assess her evidence?

Um... because it's a patently stupid premise, maybe? Music is about music.

I hate people who deconstruct works of art in order to bolster an a priori view. It's small.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
"Music is about music" makes no sense to me. Certainly understanding context, style, construction, lives of different composers, etc. has deepen both my appreciation and enhanced my performance of music. I don't even sing folk music without knowing something about the story behind the song and at least some of its history.

I have no idea whether her premise is stupid or not. Without knowing something more about what the woman wrote, all we have is Orincoro's own "a priori" opinion of it.
 
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
I'm glad the topic of this thread is much more obscure than I expected to be.

*quietly extricates herself*
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"Music is about music" makes no sense to me. Certainly understanding context, style, construction, lives of different composers, etc. has deepen both my appreciation and enhanced my performance of music. I don't even sing folk music without knowing something about the story behind the song and at least some of its history.

I have no idea whether her premise is stupid or not. Without knowing something more about what the woman wrote, all we have is Orincoro's own "a priori" opinion of it.

Sorry, Kate. I've just seen too many instances of people pushing their personal agendas onto pieces of art to be willing to take it very seriously. I've created tunes myself, and if I ever heard someone try and put a sociological meaning onto one of them, I'd probably wind up in jail for battery.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Art is so often a mirror. You hold it up, look at it (Or listen to it) and what you see (hear) is just your own reflection.

I think you're Militant friend saw what she wanted to see. Possibly needed to see in order to write a paper and get a good grade.

(The Bible is also a mirror.)

Pix
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:


I have no idea whether her premise is stupid or not. Without knowing something more about what the woman wrote, all we have is Orincoro's own "a priori" opinion of it.

I've said I have no opinion several times, so no. I have judgements I've made about what the work is probably about, but I don't "care" one way or the other. My even asking the question may be contsrued as my caring very much, and in a way I do, but not about whether she is right or not, because I don't know.

my original question for everyone was how they would construct an a priori opinion about an author who is already dead. Is this a fair thing to try, is it constructive? Going only on what I've said and not what I've withheld, I was only trying to start a discussion on the general topic and not the specific situation. The author of the paper is a friend, and an intelligent one, so I have not interest in bashing work I haven't seen.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
]Sorry, Kate. I've just seen too many instances of people pushing their personal agendas onto pieces of art to be willing to take it very seriously. I've created tunes myself, and if I ever heard someone try and put a sociological meaning onto one of them, I'd probably wind up in jail for battery.

Yes this is a good point as well. There is a certain attractiveness to programmatic analysis which people sometimes take to extremes. I have always wondered, even about peices I've done myself, how true those analysis, (done by others) are in fact partly true. I've directed performances of my own work where it has flashed into my mind that such and such a part means more than I thought it did when I wrote it, because I was referencing something which piled unnexpected meaning into the phrase.

It happens, and its an odd feeling when it does. Sometimes people try and push their "personal" agenda in as well, and this can be more annoying than discovering new facets yourself. Sometimes the analysis is just wrong and its that simple, but sometimes the person might know more about you than you do, it can happen.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
What does it even mean to 'rape a piano'? He didn't take it to dinner first? He slipped a pill into its drink? He didn't listen when it said no? I think this is really cheapening the word, and even insulting to actual, living women who indeed have been raped.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
What does it even mean to 'rape a piano'? He didn't take it to dinner first? He slipped a pill into its drink? He didn't listen when it said no? I think this is really cheapening the word, and even insulting to actual, living women who indeed have been raped.

Well we wouldn't want to hurt that word's feelings after all. [Roll Eyes] Its a semantical quibble.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
I've written papers purposing ideas that I didn't necessarily agree with, but were very interesting. Typically they were in regards to literature. I would see something that the author could possible have been intending, but that I didn't particularly think he was, usually something radical, like rape or chauvinism for instance. Then I would comb the work and find every instance where it was possible that the evidence backed up my supposed claim. These papers were actually much more fun for me to write, because I was trying to convince myself as much as anyone else. And they tended to be more interesting as well. I wasn't lying or trying to misrepresent the works, because I made my intention clear from the beginning.

Like they say, art is subjective. So any meaning you find in it is valid if you can back it up with a reasonable argument. If this friend got an A on the paper, I'd say she must have had at least that. or she's sleeping with the professor.
 
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kristen:
Apparently, Beethoven's 5th is about rape as well, so says the ultra-feminists [Dont Know]

[ROFL]
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
What does it even mean to 'rape a piano'? He didn't take it to dinner first? He slipped a pill into its drink? He didn't listen when it said no? I think this is really cheapening the word, and even insulting to actual, living women who indeed have been raped.

Well we wouldn't want to hurt that word's feelings after all. [Roll Eyes] Its a semantical quibble.
I don't think so. And I suspect you've never been raped and don't know anyone has, or you wouldn't say so.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
[/qb]

I don't think so. And I suspect you've never been raped and don't know anyone has, or you wouldn't say so. [/QB][/QUOTE]

No I would, even if I did. That was my point, a rape of a piano is quite obviously not the same thing as a rape of a person, and if there was a word for the rape of an inanimate object, I would use that. In that sense the quibble KOM has is semantical, because he wants to foist his definition of the word on me, and force his interpretation into what I said, so I'll say now that that is not the meaning I wish to employ for the purpose of the discussion.

As it is the person who wrote the paper used that word, and I repeated it as she has used it in her description. If anybody wants to assume I'm being insensitive to rape victims by posting this topic, fine, but this isn't about that at all.

edit: I have also to consider that KOM is talking about the author of the paper, and not me, in which case my same response applies equally, I don't think this was the intended meaning.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
From Dictionary.com:

quote:
rape1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

so, yes, you can rape a piano according to the third defenition.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
I agree with Lisa... I think this is a misuse of the word Rape.

I think Rape needs to be reserved for violent sexual assaults. I dislike it when children use the word "rape" to mean "pwnd" and I dislike it when Militant Feminists use the world to describe any atrocity of the patriarchy...

I don't even like the term "Date Rape."

Rape is one of the most awful things you can do to people. It's assault. It's sexual slavery. It destroys a woman's ego and peace of mind. It can destroy families and haunt the victim and those close to her for years... for the rest of their lives.

Using the word to describe anything else trivializes the word and cheapens the suffering of any woman who has actually been raped.

The Militant Feminists who throw the word around are doing us all (all women) a disservice.

Pix
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Sorry, Kate. I've just seen too many instances of people pushing their personal agendas onto pieces of art to be willing to take it very seriously. I've created tunes myself, and if I ever heard someone try and put a sociological meaning onto one of them, I'd probably wind up in jail for battery.

I agree - often this stuff is off the wall. Drives me crazy, too. All I know about the composer is that he was one of those between the wars, tone cluster guys who had some influence on later composers - Ives, Cage, - and that there was some scandal involved with him.

I think even knowing that much might help me understand his work better. Or at least put me in the proper frame of mind to listen to his music. (For me, probably heavily sedated - I hate those between the wars, tonal cluster guys).

Some analysis is helpful; some is crazy. My only objection here is that we don't even know what she wrote. Not only have we not read it, the guy who started the thread hasn't even read it.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Pixiest, I'm curious, why don't you like the term "date rape?" Would you prefer "acquaintence rape?"

Also, dude, just because she wrote a paper on something...you know, sometimes it's really fun to analyze something from a really obscure perspective. I've written papers on why people commiting violent acts in novels leads to a purification of their spirits and makes them better people. I've written papers on why it's bad to fight against totalitarian governments. It's entirely possible that this person just wanted to analyze something from a certain angle purely for the sake of analyzing it from that viewpoint. Whenever I have to analyze something, if I have enough time to devote to it, I'll deliberately choose something a little off-kilter as a mental exercise.

-pH
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Orinoco,
I appologize if I took what you were saying in the wrong tone. I have to admit, I am curious then, how you think your title goes with what you wrote?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I agree pH, I hope you didn't assume I was inviting only criticism for the idea.

And I was only introducing the idea, not the substance of the paper, since that is not available, everybody.

You must like Nabokov then, like Lolita, making the reader the guilty party and the child molester the avenging hero who cleanses his soul in the blood of another like him... or at least this is one way of looking at it.

Another bit of history I just remembered, my friend the feminist also mentioned that she hated Cowel and she hated "The Banshee." I don't know what effect that had on her paper.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Orinoco,
I appologize if I took what you were saying in the wrong tone. I have to admit, I am curious then, how you think your title goes with what you wrote?

I think the question mark puts it in context. Its a question, and its in the vain of the discussion, since I wrote it first before I developed the question, I would probably change it if I had thought carefuly about it.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
I agree with Lisa... I think this is a misuse of the word Rape.
Pix

Whatever your personal feeling about the word, that it only means one thing, that is not the common definition, so I think we have to accept a certain amount of ambiguity about the matter. There is a certain amount of artistic or literary licence here; a person can use a word to his or her own purposes as long as the meaning is adequately explained in that context.

How could we express ourselves clearly if we needed to go by the strictest definition of every term? In that scenario you would be incorrect as well, since the official definition provided above clearly allows for the rape of innanimate objects. The term "rape" is thus appropriate for situations other than the one most commonly heard, however it mantains an association with the primary definition, which colors its meaning. On the whole we obviously have to adjust our understanding of the term to allow for how it is being used, especially since it is being used in a technically consistent manner.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I agree pH, I hope you didn't assume I was inviting only criticism for the idea.

And I was only introducing the idea, not the substance of the paper, since that is not available, everybody.

You must like Nabokov then, like Lolita, making the reader the guilty party and the child molester the avenging hero who cleanses his soul in the blood of another like him... or at least this is one way of looking at it.

There are plenty of different ways of looking at it, but I haven't read Lolita in a couple of years. The point is, a lot of people on this thread seem to be getting personally offended by the idea of this paper and taking in a, "How can someone believe such a thing?" sort of way. I'm just saying...maybe she doesn't believe it. Maybe she wrote it as a challenge to herself.

-pH
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
Pixiest, I'm curious, why don't you like the term "date rape?" Would you prefer "acquaintence rape?"

I can't speak for Pix, but it seemed to me that she was objecting to the "rape" part of the phrase. Not the "date" part.

And it's true, there's a huge difference between someone willingly walking into a sexually charged situation and things going to far and someone walking down a street and getting yanked into an alleyway. The application of the term "rape" to the former troubles me a little, but at the same time, I can't think of a better one. It is still rape, after all.

What really irks me is the concept of "statutory rape" [sic]. I get that the law has to be delineated, and that we can't let judges just decide on their own in each situation, but for crying out loud, putting someone in jail and forcing them to register as a sex offender for having consensual sex with someone who is too young based on a technicality... that's horrible.
 
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
Why in the frilly heck does it matter that your friend is a feminist? What does that have to do with whether or not her argument can stand up to anything?
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.

But I'm late for class. More later.

-pH
 
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
Good point, pH.

I feel that it's important to emphasize somehow that most sexual assault isn't done by strangers-- ie, the main risk is not the Rapist hiding in the bushes or some other hazy idea of a predator. Not that being assaulted by a stranger isn't serious, but it's less common. I feel that emphasizing the frequency of "date rape" (as in, how often the offender is some one the victim knows, and likely trusts) is important, and having a seperate term for it is useful.

The implication that it's somehow less serious is WRONG WRONG WRONG, but I don't think it's inherant in the term, but more a result of ignorant and shockingly pervasive victim blamers and the people who keep insisting that a wife cannot be raped by her husband, and by extension, nor can a girlfriend.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
quote:
however I am wondering if Hatrack thinks it is wrong to construct what amounts to a new reality surrounding a peice that is 80 years old. If so, how would you do this? How would you make it credible?
I don't think it is wrong to "construct a new reality" based on a work of art that is any age. Art is perceived by everyone differently, so each individual can choose what that work means to them. If I read a novel, say... Catch 22, I could, conceivably, put together a rather convincing paper arguing that Heller wrote the story to show the lack of training and effective recruitment of American soldiers. Now I know that this is not why he wrote it, but I'm pretty sure I could argue that it is.

As pH said, this is an excellent way to challenge oneself and can be a lot of fun to boot. I think everyone should try to create their own (perhaps outlandish) world surrounding some piece of work. You can learn a lot about a piece and what it means to you, precisely by researching something that is the opposite of what it means to you.

However, in order to do this, one would have to be able to back up their constructed world with valid arguments and evidence. Merely claiming "This is what the writer meant!" without backing it up isn't intelligent analysis, it's attention mongering.

[/desperate attempt to bring thread back to topic]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
I agree with Lisa... I think this is a misuse of the word Rape.

I think Rape needs to be reserved for violent sexual assaults. I dislike it when children use the word "rape" to mean "pwnd" and I dislike it when Militant Feminists use the world to describe any atrocity of the patriarchy...

I don't even like the term "Date Rape."

Rape is one of the most awful things you can do to people. It's assault. It's sexual slavery. It destroys a woman's ego and peace of mind. It can destroy families and haunt the victim and those close to her for years... for the rest of their lives.

Using the word to describe anything else trivializes the word and cheapens the suffering of any woman who has actually been raped.

The Militant Feminists who throw the word around are doing us all (all women) a disservice.

Pix

I disagree, only in the sense that there is no other word that can really replace rape, in its non-sexual context. Make up a word and get it into the dictionary, then use them side by side for 50 years or so until the other word takes on the same powerful meaning of the word rape, and then I'll agree to reserve rape only for its sexual context.

I'm not even sure it CAN be replaced without the sexual context. Even if you're using it in a non-sexual way, such as the "Rape of Nanking" (which yes, does INVOLVE the sexual context, but isn't wholly comprised of it) or "raped the landscape" or "raping the people with injustice," you're still talking about a gross violation and intrusion, and I'm not sure the whole power of the meaning and destruction of that kind of violation can be conveyed with a different word.

Powerful words shouldn't be limited to a single meaning. I guess this is a strange idea to convey. One could easily argue that by broadening their definition, or by refusing to narrowly define it, it's power is lost through overuse or misuse of the word. But I reject that argument, for a few reasons, mostly because I don't think words should be co-opted like that. Rape is a horrible act of aggression, and if you look at the root history of the word, especially if you look at it's usage in earlier languages, it's meaning has usually been used to convey abduction, or the pillage/plundering sort of seizure.

I disagree with it being used solely for sexual acts in the same vein that I disagree with the word holocaust being solely used for what the nazis did to the Jews. I'd probably be okay with capital Holocaust referring to that event, but am not okay with the word holocaust being off limits to anything else. I think that's the way it is supposed to be anyway, but I've heard some argue that the word should be off limits elsewhere.

Genocide is a more apt term I think anyway. Holocaust is used I think for two reasons, because it refers mostly to death by fire, and because it's originally a hebrew word. Maybe less so the second part than the first, but even so, it isn't necessarily a purposeful act, and genocide is. A holocaust could be considered a specific kind of genocide, but I think it depends on which you consider to be more important: How they died, or why they died. If you consider how to be more important, you'd call it a holocaust, if why is more important, you'd call it genocide, or just call it both and have the best of both worlds. But at the end of the day, there are still many situations deserving of the word holocaust as a label.

I suppose I just don't like the definitions of words to be limited. I hate to see words that have been around for thousands of years, with many contexts and connotations to them, removed from the lexicon of common usage and co-opted for a single meaning and single purpose, especially when there is no good word to replace it.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
At first I thought that Pix was saying that rape by an acquaintance shouldn't be considered "really" rape, but then it occurred to me that she might mean something very different: that the terms "date rape" and "acquaintance rape" should be dropped because, by having different names for these things, we imply that they are not truly rape. In other words, if someone is raped, call it rape. Who committs it is not really a factor.

If she means my original interpretation, then I can't agree. But if she means the latter, then I can see it. It parallels my objection to hate crime legislation: vandalism, assault, and murder are already crimes, and we don't need special laws to make them so.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Rereading Pix's post, I see that she does specifically say that "rape" should only be used for violent rape, but that's before bringing up her objection to date rape. The thing is, though, there is no prototypical date rape, and there really is no prototypical rape, either. Many date rapes are violent. And I can think of stranger rapes that are not. If an orderly mounts a coma victim, is that not rape now? What about child rape? That is often not violent.

So while I'm fairly certain that I understand--and disagree with--Pix, I guess I will wait and see if there is a nuance to her position that I have missed.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
Pixiest, I'm curious, why don't you like the term "date rape?" Would you prefer "acquaintence rape?"

I can't speak for Pix, but it seemed to me that she was objecting to the "rape" part of the phrase. Not the "date" part.

And it's true, there's a huge difference between someone willingly walking into a sexually charged situation and things going to far and someone walking down a street and getting yanked into an alleyway. The application of the term "rape" to the former troubles me a little, but at the same time, I can't think of a better one. It is still rape, after all.

What really irks me is the concept of "statutory rape" [sic]. I get that the law has to be delineated, and that we can't let judges just decide on their own in each situation, but for crying out loud, putting someone in jail and forcing them to register as a sex offender for having consensual sex with someone who is too young based on a technicality... that's horrible.

I agreee with you on the statutory rape part.

But not all "date rapes" occur in "sexually charged" situations. And a lot of them don't happen in such a way that people just start fooling around and it "goes too far."

The fact that the victim knows her rapist and willingly agreed to spend time with him does not a sexually charged situation make. After all, I'm sure there's not one person here who wouldn't say that it's absolutely ridiculous for ANYONE, male or female, to expect something sexual out of an outing with another human being, "date" or otherwise. Saying that there's a sort of excuse because the situation was "sexually charged" is like saying, "Oh, well, if she didn't want it, she shouldn't have let him buy her dinner." That's an exaggeration, yes, but it's not really that far from the underlying attitude that I think the "sexually charged situation" explanation expresses. It's like saying that the woman asked to be raped by agreeing to spend time with the guy. What, women have RapistSense(tm) now? I mean, yes, there are certain things that can help a woman identify a man as a potential abuser, sexual or otherwise, but there's no one checklist.

-pH
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Saying that there's a sort of excuse because the situation was "sexually charged"...
Recognizing the differences between different types of rape doesn't mean that one is being "excused," "sort of" or otherwise. Certainly, nothing in Lisa's post can be construed as excusing rape in a sexually charged situation.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
pH- i think the distinction arised from the fairly common occurence in which there is a "misunderstanding" between potential partners, and the rape happens in such a way that the perpetrator somehow thinks, or claims, it is consensual. This surely happens often enough: person passes out at a date's house, maybe while making out, or they black out and don't remember what happened. Some guys are dumb enough to believe it is ok to try and have sex with someone in that situation, and a rape occurs. There is no intent to "rape" per se, however the perpetrator has extremely poor judgement and no self-control, so it happens.

That's a possible situation, which is -somewhat- different from the more overt acts like drugging a date or just attacking them, or knowingly taking advantage of someone who is already passed out. The intent to cause harm is not as aparrent in the first situation, so I would call that date rape. The more obvious, intentional act I would just call rape.

There is a big difference between a given situation in which bad judgment or stupidity cause a guy to do something innapropriate, and a situation where the guy plans and prepares to violate someone. However, there are many degrees of variability, and probably every possible situation is different, so we shouldn't have any hard fast rules on what is what.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.

Don't misunderstand me. "No" means "no". And a guy who disregards a "no" and keeps going is doing something very wrong. But you can't possibly equate that with someone minding her own business when she's attacked by a predator.

Saying that the two things are different does not in any way, shape or form even begin to justify "date rape". But they are not the same thing.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Holocaust is used I think for two reasons, because it refers mostly to death by fire, and because it's originally a hebrew word.

Greek, I think. Maybe Latin. Certainly not Hebrew.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Saying that there's a sort of excuse because the situation was "sexually charged"...
Recognizing the differences between different types of rape doesn't mean that one is being "excused," "sort of" or otherwise. Certainly, nothing in Lisa's post can be construed as excusing rape in a sexually charged situation.
Thank you, Dag.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.

Don't misunderstand me. "No" means "no". And a guy who disregards a "no" and keeps going is doing something very wrong. But you can't possibly equate that with someone minding her own business when she's attacked by a predator.

Assuming it is not a situation of mixed signals or miscommunication, a guy who disregards a clearly stated "no" is a predator, and is attacking her.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.

Don't misunderstand me. "No" means "no". And a guy who disregards a "no" and keeps going is doing something very wrong. But you can't possibly equate that with someone minding her own business when she's attacked by a predator.

Saying that the two things are different does not in any way, shape or form even begin to justify "date rape". But they are not the same thing.

The same thing? No. But at the same time, you seem to be implying that random rape is somehow fundamentally worse, and I don't think that's necessarily the case. I mean, the woman knew this guy. Maybe she was friends with him. Maybe she had a crush on him. Whatever. The point is, she thought he was an okay guy, and he violated her.

I've seen it happen to friends; it's a terrible thing. It makes it impossible to judge ANYONE'S motives. And on top of that, a lot of women don't report those kinds of assaults because they're afraid that someone will say that they weren't as "bad" as someone who was attacked at random.

As to mixed signals or miscommunication:
Some men have the unique ability to interpret just about anything as "she wants me." So I'm very skeptical of the miscommunication or mixed signal angle.

-pH
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Holocaust is used I think for two reasons, because it refers mostly to death by fire, and because it's originally a hebrew word.

Greek, I think. Maybe Latin. Certainly not Hebrew.
That's what I thought too. Greek, anyway. And there is a greek word, " holokauston" which comes out to rougly "That which is totally burnt" but when I looked up the word and traced it's roots, I saw in a couple places that holokauston was a translation of a hebrew word, that I don't know how to type here or pronounce phonetically (I can't read Hebrew), but is translated as "that which goes up" (as in, goes up in smoke).

I'm more than willing to accept that it's of Greek roots, it's what I originally thought. And I'm hesitant to trust random internet searches for the sources of the word, but without any actual text on hand, I just went with what I saw.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I personally wouldn't turn in an acquaintance rape and undergo the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc. Because it was someone I knew, I would have no doubts about the rapist's identity and their intent to rape. What I would do is shoot the rapist dead at point blank range, then turn myself in and explain what I did and why.

If the police then wanted to prosecute me for murder, that would be okay with me, but I would take my chances on that process, rather than the other one. In the meantime, justice would have been done with respect to the original crime.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
Okay, here is a situation that I was not sure how to take:

A guy, lets call him Dick, goes out with a girl, lets call her Jane. On their second or third date Dick and Jane get really really drunk. It would be hard to say who was more drunk. They then go up to his dorm room and have sex. Dick remembers the entire night and said it was great, if sloppy, with very willing partners. Jane wakes up and doesn't remember the night before. She can tell she had sex and says that Dick date raped her. He did not give her any drugs, and she doesn't claim he did. They were both very very drunk.

Now, assuming everything above is true, did he rape her? She was willing, but was so inebriated, she didn't know what was what. But he was just as inebriated. Obviously we can't know exactly what happened, but should we just assume rape and criminalize him?

(Upon re-reading it sounds like i'm talking about myself, i'm not. Dick is a guy i knew in college and Jane was one of our classmates.)

Edited for clarity
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
I personally wouldn't turn in an acquaintance rape and undergo the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc. Because it was someone I knew, I would have no doubts about the rapist's identity and their intent to rape. What I would do is shoot the rapist dead at point blank range, then turn myself in and explain what I did and why.

If the police then wanted to prosecute me for murder, that would be okay with me, but I would take my chances on that process, rather than the other one. In the meantime, justice would have been done with respect to the original crime.

I don't think victim vigilantism is the best course of justice in this case.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
vonk, there's really no way to tell. I mean, if she doesn't remember, it's entirely possible that she DID say no, or it's possible that she was passed out, or it's possible that she consented. But I'm really wary of any guy who gets a girl drunk and has sex with her...it seems like a really predatory thing to do.

-pH
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
vonk, I've heard it said that one is incapable of consent while drunk (and that, therefore, any sex with a drunk woman is date rape). I don't buy it. If a woman is absolved of responsibility when she is drunk, shouldn't the man be as well?

Now, having said that, I think we tend to conflate the moral reality of rape with the legal aspect of it. In the case you describe, we really will never know. It may have been. But whether you can prove it or not is another issue. I would be disinclined to convict in a situation like this, with an absence of proof--or even a clear memory on the part of the victim.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
But I'm really wary of any guy who gets a girl drunk and has sex with her...it seems like a really predatory thing to do.

-pH

"Gets a girl drunk"? Didn't she have a hand in getting drunk? Didn't he get drunk as well?
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Icarus, about absense of proof:
How much proof does a woman really need? I mean, let's say that she DID have a clear memory and clearly remembers saying no, but there isn't any physical evidence to corroborate her story.

-pH
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
That's how I felt too. It's inherently wrong to have sex with someone that is that inebriated. But he was at least as drunk. so, if neither could technically consent, did they rape each other?

pH - I would defenitely agree with you if Dick set out to get her drunk so she wouldn't say no. But if both are out drinking together and they both get drunk and have sex, i'm not sure he would be a predator.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
But I'm really wary of any guy who gets a girl drunk and has sex with her...it seems like a really predatory thing to do.

-pH

"Gets a girl drunk"? Didn't she have a hand in getting drunk? Didn't he get drunk as well?
I'm not saying she didn't have a hand in getting drunk. I'm just saying that, in general, sex with drunk girls creeps me out.

It's like the guys who hang out at the college bars who aren't even in school and hang around to pick up drunk college girls.

Sure, the girls drank. But that doesn't make the men any less creepy.

-pH
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
How much proof does a woman really need? I mean, let's say that she DID have a clear memory and clearly remembers saying no, but there isn't any physical evidence to corroborate her story.
Based on our standard of guilt, I would have a hard time convicting in that situation. "Reasonable doubt" when the only two witnesses disagree is almost inevitable, barring additional evidence.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
pH, in such a case, she has my sympathy, but you cannot convict in the absence of evidence (IMHO). It sucks, but that's the way it is.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
quote:
I'm just saying that, in general, sex with drunk girls creeps me out
so drunk girls can't have sex? i know many many a lush lady that would disagree with you severely. Heck, my girlfriend doesn't really give me a choice if she's riled, randy and ready to go.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
To be precise, her testimony is evidence, and if the guy didn't get up on the stand and deny it, I'd vote to convict in a heartbeat, simply because the only evidence was for guilt (assuming I believed her, of course).
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I didn't say "all drunk girls should never have sex."

I said sex with drunk girls creeps me out.

Which it does, especially in the case of the first time a guy has sex with a girl.

-pH
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
She has my sympathy if it's true. but if it's not and the guy is innocent, then i feel fairly bad for him for the shit he has had to put up with.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
pH, I didn't see your reply to me.

Okay, I can see what you're saying . . . I'd agree, except you make very specific assumptions, and I don't necessarily agree beyond those assumptions. I agree that guys who seek out women in the process of getting drunk, specifically in the hope of getting them to consent more easily to sex, are creepy. But "sex with drunk girls" goes beyond that narrow implication.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Lyrhawn, would you vote to convict me of murder if you were on my jury?

I don't consider it vigilante justice, because the guilt of the party is not in question. I don't drink, so that wouldn't be a confounding factor. I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I think it definitely is, if not vigilanteism, then some sort of private vengeance, and taking the law into your own hands. Does that mean I would vote to convict you? Beats me. I would never be on your jury.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
I can't speak for Pix,

No, but you've done a pretty good job of it anyway.

Thanks =)

Pix
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus:
pH, I didn't see your reply to me.

Okay, I can see what you're saying . . . I'd agree, except you make very specific assumptions, and I don't necessarily agree beyond those assumptions. I agree that guys who seek out women in the process of getting drunk, specifically in the hope of getting them to consent more easily to sex, are creepy. But "sex with drunk girls" goes beyond that narrow implication.

I don't think that men who seek out women in the process of getting drunk is very narrow at all. In fact, I bet it applies to the majority of college-age guys.

I still think that sex with drunk girls in general is creepy. However, the creepiness factor fades if, say, the two are a couple and have had sex before.

If not, though...creepy to the nth degree.

-pH
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
Tatiana - if you killed the guy that raped you and admitted to it on the stand, then yeah, you would get convicted. because you would be tried for murder, not inaccurately executing justice.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
quote:
I don't think that men who seek out women in the process of getting drunk is very narrow at all. In fact, I bet it applies to the majority of college-age guys.
i take extreme umbrage with this. i think it is obscenely inaccurate to say that most males between the ages of 18 and 24 are trying to take advantage of females, and also rather prejudiced. and frankly, insulting. i am of that age and neither I, nor any of my friends, are the kind of people you describe.

and i also know many girls that drink, pick up guys at bars and then go sleep with them. while i think this is unhealthy for a variety of reason, i'm not gonna call the guy creepy or a predator because he didn't say no when a girl came on to him.

I just don't think guys are as bad as you seem to think. yes, there are bad guys out there, very bad guys. and there are also very bad girls. but saying that the majority of guys are like this is not only false, but prejudiced.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Tatiana, I would vote to convict you of murder in that circumstance. For one thing, we would have only your word that the guy raped you. If I didn't vote to convict you of murder, I'd be giving women permission to go kill any man they wanted and then say it was because he raped them. But more importantly, the rule of law only works when people follow it. That means reporting the rape to the police and letting them handle it. I would probably argue to give you a lighter sentence based on the circumstances, if I believed your testimony, but I most certainly would vote to convict.

Now, if you managed to kill him while he was attempting to rape you, I would find you not guilty due to self-defense in a heartbeat, and be happy about it.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
I don't think that men who seek out women in the process of getting drunk is very narrow at all. In fact, I bet it applies to the majority of college-age guys.

A) You misinterpreted me. I'm not saying it's narrow in that it's uncommon, but that your definition is much narrower than the broader "sex with drunk women."

"Sex with drunk women" != "seeking out drunk women to have sex with"

B) I disagree with you opinion that it applies to the majority of college-age guys. It certainly did not apply to me, and I don't think it applies to my friends either. I'm sorry that you see it otherwise. I wonder how other hatrackers, men and women, see it.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
vonk, I don't care if she came onto him or not. It bothers me. Period. A lot.

I don't mind if guys hang out at bars to pick up girls. I mind if guys hang out at bars to pick up girls with whom to have sex that night. There's a huge difference.

It's good that you and your friends aren't like that, but a good portion of the men I've run into are.

-pH
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Icarus, what I'm saying is that I find BOTH of those instances (sex with drunk women and seeking out drunk women to have sex) creepy.

That's all. I, personally, think they're creepy.

-pH
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Lyrhawn, would you vote to convict me of murder if you were on my jury?

I don't consider it vigilante justice, because the guilt of the party is not in question. I don't drink, so that wouldn't be a confounding factor. I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.

Absent of any specifics or even a hypothetical, I'm loathe to make a blanket "yes" or "no." However, if you were raped, then totally sidestepped the legal process and murdered the man, or woman for that matter, who did it, then yes I'd probably be compelled to vote you guilty. If it was a violent, horribly traumatizing assault on you, then I'd feel very badly, but I'd still vote you guilty of murder. I'd be just as equally sad that you decided NOT to use the justice system, because it was either inconvenient or painful for you to do so.

It IS vigilante justice, becuase you are sidestepping the established justice system, and are acting as judge, jury and executioner, literally. You alone define the violation, it's severity, and the necessary punishment, which you then carry out. I'd say that's a posterchild example of vigilantism.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I don't consider it vigilante justice, because the guilt of the party is not in question. I don't drink, so that wouldn't be a confounding factor. I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.
Oh, it's definitely vigilante justice. Chance of error is only one of many problems with personal justice.

For one, the death penalty is unlikely to be warranted (under current 8th amendment jurisdprudence), so you don't even have the bad excuse of merely getting around an evidentiary problem. You're exacting a penalty specifically prohibited by law.

Second, there are mental elements to crimes, not just physical. As the victim, you're utterly incapable of evaluating those elements.

Third, one of the purposes of criminal law is to affect future behavior. ElJay elaborated quite thoroughly why such behavior must be discouraged.

Fourth, if you're going to have to detail the rape in your murder trial, what, exactly, are you gaining by going this route?

I would almost certainly vote to convict, although, like ElJay, I might argue for seriously lighter sentence.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
Icarus, what I'm saying is that I find BOTH of those instances (sex with drunk women and seeking out drunk women to have sex) creepy.

That's all. I, personally, think they're creepy.

-pH

Well, I think you said a bit more than that, but that's fine. [Wink]

I don't think it's inherently creepy to have sex with drunk women--with the understanding that it can easily be creepy or worse, under certain circumstances--and it seems to me that you are holding men to a higher standard than women.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I think it assumes a certain inherent predatory nature in men that I don't think many here would agree is true of all, or even a majority of men.

Is sex with drunk men creepy? Is sex with ANYONE under the influence of ANY mind altering substance creepy?

Edit to add: I'm in that college age guy bracket, and a lot of my friends, and guys at work fall into that same category. None of them hang out at bars hoping to score a drunk girl. Some of them might go out to bars, and over the course of a night might get drunk with a girl and they end up sleeping together, but as far as I'm concerned, the grand majority of those cases aren't premeditated. And the premeditation is I think what you are taking the umbrage with.

But then, I know just as many (actually twice as many) girls at work who go to bars, get drunk and then go home with guys who come into work the next day feeling stupid, or satisfied with their decision. Thus, I don't like the double standard that if women are okay with it, it's okay, but when they feel it was a mistake, they are absolved of guilt and it must be the man's fault for taking advantage of her. Assume some personal responsibility already.

I'm wondering if men who get drunk and have sex, only to regret/deny it was consenual the next day for whatever reasons have the same grounds for levelling rape against a woman that women have against men. I'm fairly sure they don't. And while I'll agree that this is mostly a moot point (how often does it happen?), the fact that it might even happen once, and there's no recourse, is too much an injustice for me to accept as okay.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.

Don't misunderstand me. "No" means "no". And a guy who disregards a "no" and keeps going is doing something very wrong. But you can't possibly equate that with someone minding her own business when she's attacked by a predator.

Assuming it is not a situation of mixed signals or miscommunication, a guy who disregards a clearly stated "no" is a predator, and is attacking her.
Yes, he is. And no, it's not the same thing. Good God, has everyone lost perspective entirely? You don't have to say it's the same thing to make the case that it's utterly horrendous and unjustiable.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Holocaust is used I think for two reasons, because it refers mostly to death by fire, and because it's originally a hebrew word.

Greek, I think. Maybe Latin. Certainly not Hebrew.
That's what I thought too. Greek, anyway. And there is a greek word, " holokauston" which comes out to rougly "That which is totally burnt" but when I looked up the word and traced it's roots, I saw in a couple places that holokauston was a translation of a hebrew word, that I don't know how to type here or pronounce phonetically (I can't read Hebrew), but is translated as "that which goes up" (as in, goes up in smoke).

I'm more than willing to accept that it's of Greek roots, it's what I originally thought. And I'm hesitant to trust random internet searches for the sources of the word, but without any actual text on hand, I just went with what I saw.

Yes, holocaust is used as a translation for the olah offering, in which the sacrifice was burned completely.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
I personally wouldn't turn in an acquaintance rape and undergo the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc. Because it was someone I knew, I would have no doubts about the rapist's identity and their intent to rape. What I would do is shoot the rapist dead at point blank range, then turn myself in and explain what I did and why.

If the police then wanted to prosecute me for murder, that would be okay with me, but I would take my chances on that process, rather than the other one. In the meantime, justice would have been done with respect to the original crime.

I don't think victim vigilantism is the best course of justice in this case.
I do.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't think it is justice. At all.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
I personally wouldn't turn in an acquaintance rape and undergo the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc. Because it was someone I knew, I would have no doubts about the rapist's identity and their intent to rape. What I would do is shoot the rapist dead at point blank range, then turn myself in and explain what I did and why.

If the police then wanted to prosecute me for murder, that would be okay with me, but I would take my chances on that process, rather than the other one. In the meantime, justice would have been done with respect to the original crime.

I don't think victim vigilantism is the best course of justice in this case.
I do.
Really? You think women should have the right to kill men whenever they feel violated? Why do you think this is the best course of action?

Should men be allowed to kidnap the children of their ex-wives if they feel they aren't being treated right? or just because they feel they could be better parents?

Totally different situation, but I'm curious as to what your feelings on the matter are.

Dag -

I'd call it justice, if you like the term "vigilante justice" anyway. I'd call it justice only in the sense that it is justice as defined in the eye of the beholder. It's not my justice, it certainly isn't American justice. But then again, what happens in tribal Africa or under Islamic Sharia law isn't really what I'd call justice either, though it is to them.

It's Tatiana, and apparently starLisa justice. It's not American justice. It's certainly not fair justice. I wouldn't call it moral justice either.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Icarus, I honestly don't think that all men are evil. I like guys. Typically, I have more male friends than female friends.

To tell you the truth, I'm just very...annoyed. Because I've had some bad, bad experiences, and I've been LUCKY in that nothing completely awful has happened, knock on wood. And I'm pissed because it's only recently that I've discovered that like...wow, some guys really don't think it's a huge, big favor to me to avoid pressing the sex issue.

Maybe I'm just a creep magnet. I remember one night, I ran into a classmate while I was out at a pub two blocks from my house. He offered to drive me home. I figured it was safer than walking, even though it wasn't very far. He went all the way out of his way to drop his friend off first (I, for some reaason, figured that this meant that maybe it meant less driving for him...like maybe it was a straight shot from the friend's house to my house to his house). When he got to my apartment building, I thanked him, told him I'd see him in class, and got out of the car.

He told me during the next class that he was absolutely shocked that I hadn't invited him up. After all, he'd driven me home!

Naturally, he also worded it in a way that would be completely inappropriate for this forum.

I am still baffled by this line of thinking. I just really cannot wrap my mind around such a concept. [Eek!]

And that's only one of the many, many unpleasant experiences I've had with college-age men.

Unfortunately, a lot of girls also seemed to reinforce those kinds of assumptions.

-pH
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:

As to mixed signals or miscommunication:
Some men have the unique ability to interpret just about anything as "she wants me." So I'm very skeptical of the miscommunication or mixed signal angle.

-pH

I wish I was one of those guys, life would be simpler. (maybe)

So pH makes an equally good point, the fact that a date rape is done by someone who knows the victim has the added element of shattered trust involved. A random act would be easier to rationalize in your mind, because it could have happened to anyone, it just happened to you by accident. A rape by someone who knows the victim will haunt the victim in a different way because they might feel that it was in some way their fault, since they misjudged the person who did it. That's likely part of why these things are reported less often.

I agree with your last point, that's why I said "misunderstandings," with quotes. Its possible that a man could be stupid enough to think that the victim "wanted it," you only need to look at a few darwin award winners to know that. However there is a greater likelihood that this is simply the justification/excuse constructed afterward.
 
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
pH, we're not all creeps. Really.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I know, Swampjedi. [Wink]

-pH
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Quothe Ph:

"To tell you the truth, I'm just very...annoyed. Because I've had some bad, bad experiences, and I've been LUCKY in that nothing completely awful has happened, knock on wood. And I'm pissed because it's only recently that I've discovered that like...wow, some guys really don't think it's a huge, big favor to me to avoid pressing the sex issue."

This isn't going to sound fair, because it isn't entirely the case, but I think you may have some bad judgement about who you date/hang out with. Not to sound like a criticism, what I mean is that you are probably attracted to a quality in people which presents itself as positive, but turns out not be so great. This is an unconscious process if it does happen, but I imagine you might find something alluring or endeaoring in a type of person who would also treat you badly. In a way we all have these things about our personalities, we like things that are different and exciting, except different and exciting often turns into scary and aggressive when you need the person to be a little more understanding and rational.

Its like the old lament: "girls only like jerks, why?" Because the guys that treat some women badly are also attractive in some other un-specific way, like they are spontaneous, or they are more physically demonstative, or more confident. So a confident guy makes a good first impression and it turns out later that he isn't confident at all, he just treats everyone like they don't matter, he's a total jerk.

I often notice that when a girl flirts with me the first time we meet, it will turn out she doesn't really like me that much. This isn't the fault of the girl, but I have learned that I give people an initial impression that is different from my lasting interactions, I am a different person when you get to know me. I still have alot of friends, but my real friends know me in a different way, and though I can seem attractive on first meeting to some girls, the qualities they see in me will turn out to be the part of me that talks to people I don't know. I don't have alot of romantic relationships, but when I do, they are with people who didn't actually start out liking me, these are the people who actually connect with me more over time.

So my advice after all that is to distrust your first instinct and maybe spend time with people who you wouldn't normally. This sounds dumb, but spend time with people who bore you, safe people, because its likely you are attracted to a quality in people that makes them exciting, but also too agressive.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
pH, you spend a lot of time in bars, and with bandmembers? And you meet people in the bars or clubs, rather than going to the bars with people you already know?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
That is one thing I may never get. The idea of going to a bar to try and meet someone is just awful sounding to me. Can't see how people do it, or why they'd want to.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Okay, thanks, everyone! I'll take my lighter sentence. That works for me. Though perhaps the fact that I was unrepentant, and would feel I did the right thing, and would be glad I had done it, and willing to do it again in the same circumstances, might make you reluctant to go easy on me. However, it's quite easy for anyone to be safe from me, just don't rape me. I would feel sad for the poor guy, I suppose, but still would believe I did the right thing.

The reason why bringing out the details of the rape at my trial for murder would be okay is that he would already be dead by then. What's not acceptable is for me to be essentially raped again (virtually) by the police, judge, jury, etc. and then for him to be let off.

I expect if it ever happened, there would be lots of physical evidence backing up my story, as I tend to shift quickly into all-out fight-back mode nowadays when abused or threatened with physical violence. And yes, ElJay, I would do my best to kill him right then, rather than waiting until later, but if I couldn't for some reason, then I would go back and kill him as soon as I could.

[ April 04, 2006, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
So you'd kill him to save yourself from the invonvenience and uncertainty of a trial?

Besides, afterwards, not only will you have to live with being raped, AND having killed him. You'll do it in a small cell, shared with dozens of other women, where you face a very real possibility of having further sexual wrongdoing inflicted upon you. Not to mention the fact that you will STILL be 'virtually raped' by the court during your murder trial.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
No, Lyrhawn, I'd kill him because he raped me.

I think if I'm known as someone who kills (at whatever cost to herself) anyone who rapes her, then I should be fairly safe in prison.

The court is welcome to second guess me after he's dead. I will know I did the right thing, so it won't be particularly traumatic for me. What would be wrong is for them to be given stewardship over the justice for the rape, because that justice is mine.

Dags, you're right that my own limited abilities to discern his mental competence, etc. will be what is used, rather than the court's. I feel he forfeits his right to be judged by anyone but me by raping me. I might extend mercy based on incompetence or some other extenuating circumstances. Or I might not.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus:
pH, you spend a lot of time in bars, and with bandmembers? And you meet people in the bars or clubs, rather than going to the bars with people you already know?

Bandmembers, yes. I spend a lot of time with bandmembers and other individuals who are involved in music. But I don't DATE bandmembers, and bad experiences in that particular area of my life are very, very, very, very rare. They do happen, but the ratio of bad band boy experiences to good band boy experiences is much lower than the ratio of bad college boy experiences to good college boy experiences.

Bars? *shrug* Not anymore. I went out to bars with friends a lot more often when I still lived on campus. If I met people, cool. I like to socialize, and I like to talk to people. I didn't generally go out there specifically to meet people to DATE, and I certainly didn't go out there to find people to start relationships with. I don't do that anyway; I'm not a boyfriend-hunter by nature.

As for the types of guys I date...I don't have a type. That's the thing. There's not any one personality or one look or one ANYTHING that's common among the guys I've dated. There's not even that much in common among the ones who actually became my boyfriends. And I've had bad experiences with guys I wasn't even dating, e.g. that classmate who gave me a ride home.

Also, I don't really think people at Hatrack are representative of the general population. [Wink]

-pH
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
No, I don't think so. But I also don't think any goup of people with a given commonality can be representative of the general population.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
No, Lyrhawn, I'd kill him because he raped me.

I think if I'm known as someone who kills (at whatever cost to herself) anyone who rapes her, then I should be fairly safe in prison.

The court is welcome to second guess me after he's dead. I will know I did the right thing, so it won't be particularly traumatic for me. What would be wrong is for them to be given stewardship over the justice for the rape, because that justice is mine.

Do you see how this:

quote:
What would be wrong is for them to be given stewardship over the justice for the rape, because that justice is mine.
Undermines this:

quote:
I don't consider it vigilante justice, because the guilt of the party is not in question. I don't drink, so that wouldn't be a confounding factor. I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.
And by the way. You're going to be in jail with other murderers. I don't think you're going to be safe from people that've killed other people, just because you did too. It just levels the playing field.

You don't get to decide what the law is, anymore than me getting to execute you if you rearended my car. You could argue that a fender bender isn't the same thing as sexual assault, and you'd be right. But you'd only be trying to justify your vigilantism by arguing semantic degrees of severity.

You know, my mom was hit by a wreckless driver a few years ago, and lives in intense pain everyday from bone chips that were lodged in her spine as a result of the accident. He had crap insurance, and declared banktrupcy when she threatened to sue him. Now by Tatiana law, we should be able to find his new house, and rob it, and then burn it to the ground, after taking a sledgehammer to his back so he can live out his life as a paraplegic. Sound fair to you? Well I don't care if it does, because that's MY justice.

You might think you are justified because you were violated, but really you're just advocating a system worse than Draconian law, where everyone can act as their own judge, jury and executioner, and can take the law into their own hands.

Final question: Let's say the man who raped you, and who you killed, has a family. Can his wife kill you? Can his children? Can his parents? Can his brothers and sisters? I'd say by the Tatiana system of law, they'd be well within their rights.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I don't see why private justice is inconsistant with saying that justice is under the stewardship of the victim for this particular crime. Only if the perpetrator was personally known to the victim, so that no mistake of identity could have been possible, I would never vote to convict a rape victim of murder in that situation, because I would myself do the same thing.

I don't claim private justice is appropriate for all crimes, but it is for this one. Actually, I don't even go so far as to judge in advance what is appropriate for other people. I just have stewarship over choosing my own reponse to such a crime, and that's what I would choose. It might not be the right choice for other people, but it would be the right choice for me.

There is no Tatiana system of law. There's just my individual response to that situation. I would kill him. Then I would accept any consequences that arose.

I would not choose to administer justice myself, for instance, for the murder of a family member. I have faith in the system, and the law of the land obviously has stewardship in such cases. What I'm saying is that the natural stewardship for justice for rape by someone well-known to the victim (so that there is no danger of mistaken identity) doesn't rightfully belong to the courts, but instead to the victim. Then the stewardship over whether to prosecute the victim for murder or not, belongs to the state.

I don't know how much you know about prison. I have some friends who have worked in various prisons (including maximum security, and death row prisons, as well as general population type prisons) for several decades. I have a fair idea of what things are like there. Of course nothing is sure, but if it's well known that you will fight fiercely if bothered, and if you don't bother anyone first, you should be okay.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Sorry Tatiana, but that still registers rather high on my crazy-o-meter.

I'm not saying there is necessarily a Tatiana system of law there, but you're still promoting a culture of vigilantism, and you don't seem to care about the damage that could do if say, every person in America decided to do the same thing, so long as they were willing to accept the consequences for their actions. There is a general restraint however, and belief in the rule of law in this country. You're suggesting there should be a departure from that restraint and belief whenever you happen to think that you should be in charge of administering justice.

You seem to be at a point now where you're okay with it being vigilante justice, so long as the person doing it is perfectly willing to accept the consequences, and that kind of advocacy is wrong, and dangerous.

If this all came out during the trial, whereas before I would have said to give you the lighter of possible sentences, now I'd recommend to give you the harshest possible sentence, if only to deter others from taking matters into their own hands.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I don't think Tatiana is advocating seeking justice on her own in ALL cases, which is the way you seem to be interpreting what she's saying.

I think she's saying that IN THE SPECIFIC CASE OF RAPE by a person known to her, she herself would take those actions. Unless I'm mistaken, she hasn't indicated any other possible situation.

-pH
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
pH, yes, you're exactly right! [Smile]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I caught that. And actually I don't recall, other than in her last post (though I may have missed it) her adding that it would be the case if she knew the person. Not that it matters.

Regardless, I still don't agree with it. Vigilante justice, and murderous vengeance is wrong, not matter what your qualifiers are. I'm certain there are cases where that is what I'd like to do as well, but I still wouldn't. Trust in the rule of law is part of what makes us function as a society.

I never really thought she meant for ALL cases, but my problem with it is that she thinks she is perfectly justified and right to do so, but it's because of her own personal criteria. And others, using their own personal criteria could use that as a rationale to do a whole host of evil things, so long as they are willing to accept the punishment for it.

I don't care how far reaching, or how limited she's suggesting it be, the very basis of her position is something I fundamentally disagree with.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
As do I. But I've had this arguement here before, and am too weary to have it again. Suffice it to say I hope greatly that Tatiana never has to make that decision. [Smile]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Now how would Tatiana feel if Henry Cowel raped her piano? Would she shoot his guitar? Break his fingers? If your going to prescribe an end result for a given scenario, you might as well work out in advance what you plan to do when anything bad happens to you. Only that would be rather morbid.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The court is welcome to second guess me after he's dead. I will know I did the right thing, so it won't be particularly traumatic for me. What would be wrong is for them to be given stewardship over the justice for the rape, because that justice is mine.
Nope, that's not justice. Impartiality is a necessary component of justice, and that is the element you strive to remove.

I might be persuaded that a vigilence committee holding a private trial could reach a form of justice. Maybe. But never victim-initiated murder.

quote:
Dags, you're right that my own limited abilities to discern his mental competence, etc. will be what is used, rather than the court's. I feel he forfeits his right to be judged by anyone but me by raping me. I might extend mercy based on incompetence or some other extenuating circumstances. Or I might not.
This speech, if given in court, would quickly make me forget any possibility of a lighter sentence.

Further, there's lots of people who think a particular crime forfeits the right to impartial justice. Your scenario is simply at the more appealling end of a spectrum that includes some of the worst ugliness in history.

quote:
I think she's saying that IN THE SPECIFIC CASE OF RAPE by a person known to her, she herself would take those actions. Unless I'm mistaken, she hasn't indicated any other possible situation.
But she's basing that specificity on the general principle that the victim gets to choose how "justice" is done, based on the victim's own criteria.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Tatiana, you know I think very highly of you, and your sentiments are understandable, but I have to say that I would classify what you are describing as vengence, not justice. You are making yourself judge, jury, and most importantly, executioner. It appears to be important to you, not only that the person be repaid for their actions, but that you be the one to do the repayment since you were the one primarily offended. It's worth noting that you also seem willing to pay whatever punishment society deems appropriate for your actions.

I certainly can understand the desire, and would be lying to you if I didn't admit to having similar ones, so I am not trying to condemn you. It's not uncommon for victims of rape and other intimidating violence to feel that they have no recourse but superior violence. I am also a firm believer in a person's right to defend themselves. It is my hope that were you ever in this terrible situation, you would see that you do, in fact, have other recourse and that our society would come to your defense and aid if you let them. If we did not... if we were unable to prosecute the rapist for some reason, for example, or if the sentence was a slap on the wrist by a foolish judge... I would be much more sympathetic to the actions you describe.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
The thing is, you can kill somebody and not get caught, which would be ideal for Tatiana.

Personally, I think I'd do my best to seriously injure the person attacking me, which might or might not be impossible depending on the circumstances.

Seek him out afterward and kill him? Probably not. I'd go for maiming, if I thought I could get away with it. Gouge out the eyes, maybe, or break his neck just low enough not to kill him. Let him be at the mercy of some woman just to get his butt wiped for the rest of his life. Give him a chance to consider his life. Might be good for his soul.

This reminds me of discussions on this topic I've had with Slash, who always said, "A man who rapes my wife or sister has simply committed an elaborate form of suicide."
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Vengeance and justice can I believe be the same thing, sometimes. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, at least not in the physical result meted out.

But what Tatiana is describing is obviously, undeniably vengeance first and justice a distance second. Even though the vengeance is merited, it's still vengeance.

I'm not in favor of executing rapists. I waver on the issue of the death penalty sometimes (currently I'm on the 'against' side of things), but execution in response to rape seems ill merited in my opinion because...well, the victim isn't dead. Horribly wronged, violeted, abused, pick your awful adjective and the victim is probably that as well. But not dead. Not beyond any hope of recovery.

Things change, of course, when there is a fear of future or (even worse) repeated rape. Killing in the defense of an innocent is something I have little if any moral problem with.

Of course this reasoning applies to my calm, thoughtful form of reasoning. Things would be quite different if it were a loved one of mine that were raped. I suspect bordering on certainty that much of what I've said would go the way of the dodo. However, as a society I believe we must recognize that as one of the big reasons why vigilante justice is something to be condemned, not endorsed.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
For the majority of this thread I thought that I was against Tatiana's killing the rapist scenario. But Olivet's comment changed my mind. If someone raped my mom or sisters, or dad or brothers for that matter, and I had a way to find them, I would most certainly kill them. And if possible, I would clone them first, then kill them, then clone them, then kill them, then clone them... and so on, as in "A Thousand Deaths" in Flux by OSC.

So I've changed my mind. I don't care what society says, or anything else for that matter. Community bonds are a large part of what makes us human. And the family bond is the strongest there is. If someone rapes a member of my family, and it is in my power to do so, I will exact vengeance.

"There's nothing like revenge for getting back at people." - Carl

"I dunno, vengeance is pretty good." - Lenny
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Vengeance and justice can I believe be the same thing, sometimes. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, at least not in the physical result meted out.
I think I agree with what your saying here. Do you mean that the same act can sometimes result in both justice and vengeance? If so, I agree. But I don't think this means they are the same thing. Rather, they are two different ends sometimes served by the same means.

quote:
Of course this reasoning applies to my calm, thoughtful form of reasoning. Things would be quite different if it were a loved one of mine that were raped. I suspect bordering on certainty that much of what I've said would go the way of the dodo. However, as a society I believe we must recognize that as one of the big reasons why vigilante justice is something to be condemned, not endorsed.
Exactly. It's the fact that so many people can see themselves doing it (including me) which makes strong condemnation necessary.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
My neighborhood used to be really bad, with gang activity, and hard drugs being dealt in the streets. Then a group of the neighborhood dads started picking up baseball bats and crowbars and wandering the streets in droves beating the ever loving crap out of anyone they thought even might be a gang banger. it was a frightening time and I hid from them. However, due to the vigilantes, the cops started coming to the neighborhood and they cracked down on the gang activity as well as the fathers. so now, because of vengeance I live in a very nice neighborhood. So sometimes, vengeance is a great way to get the authorities to notice that there is a problem and they need to pay attention.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
It doesn't sound that *great*, but perhaps it was, at least, effective [Smile]
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
See? Slash and I see this the same way. "A man who rapes my wife or sister has simply committed an elaborate form of suicide." It's not vengeance to me at all. Just a completion of the act the rapist decided to commit.

I think the difference here comes (and like ElJay, I feel we've had this discussion on hatrack many times before) from the difference in the way the world looks to people who have been for long periods of time in situations where civilization is powerless to protect them. For instance, policemen, prison guards, soldiers in combat, or abused children. One begins to see a few things differently, and one of them is this.

In the end, the teacher is not going to protect you, civilization is not going to protect you. The thing that protects you is your own refusal to allow yourself to be victimized. That comes at a cost sometimes, but it's worth the cost. And you realize at some point that because there isn't any authority that will protect you, there likewise is not any authority whose permission you need to obtain before you can take steps to protect yourself.
 
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
 
How do you reconcile this with your religious beliefes?
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
(For the record, I don't believe I've had it with you, Tatiana. I was thinking specifically about having it with Lalo. [Smile] )
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
In the end, the teacher is not going to protect you, civilization is not going to protect you. The thing that protects you is your own refusal to allow yourself to be victimized.

Agreed with a few caveats:

1) They will often protect you if you let them-- spurning help is not strength.

2) Refusing to allow yourself to be victimized means learning how to fight back in the moment you are attacked and being prepared (especially mentally) to do so. This is much more effective than coming behind after the fact and "making sure the B@$t@rd never does it again."

3) Refusing to allow yourself to be victimized also means learning and taking reasonable precautions to avoid such instances. Not at all to blame the victim, but there are things you can do to hedge your bets against being one without living behind an armed and defended perimiter. [Smile]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Dagonee,

quote:
I think I agree with what your saying here. Do you mean that the same act can sometimes result in both justice and vengeance? If so, I agree. But I don't think this means they are the same thing. Rather, they are two different ends sometimes served by the same means.
That's more or less what I mean. Sometimes, justice and vengeance can both (I believe) call for the same physical action to be done but because there is more to either of those things than just what was physically done, they cannot exactly be called the same.

----------

vonk,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My neighborhood used to be really bad, with gang activity, and hard drugs being dealt in the streets. Then a group of the neighborhood dads started picking up baseball bats and crowbars and wandering the streets in droves beating the ever loving crap out of anyone they thought even might be a gang banger. it was a frightening time and I hid from them. However, due to the vigilantes, the cops started coming to the neighborhood and they cracked down on the gang activity as well as the fathers. so now, because of vengeance I live in a very nice neighborhood. So sometimes, vengeance is a great way to get the authorities to notice that there is a problem and they need to pay attention.

I wouldn't call issuing a mob beating to anyone who might be a gang banger a great way of letting the authorities know there's a serious problem in the hood. The cops came running probably for reasons including a concern that some innocent kid might be beaten to death by the mob who just might go a little too far one night, and see someone who was just wearing the latest fashions and give them a nice beating.

Which, for all you know, may actually have happened. Or come quite close to happening, if they were using baseball bats and crowbars to beat their victims as a group. There were other ways to get the cops out there.

----------

Tatiana,

quote:
See? Slash and I see this the same way. "A man who rapes my wife or sister has simply committed an elaborate form of suicide." It's not vengeance to me at all. Just a completion of the act the rapist decided to commit.
Oh come now, that's a dodge. You aren't a lever and the rapist isn't applying force on you to do work or something. You do have a choice. As I have said, I think I would probably do something very similar were I in that emotional situation. But it's still vengeance, it's not something that just happens.

quote:
In the end, the teacher is not going to protect you, civilization is not going to protect you. The thing that protects you is your own refusal to allow yourself to be victimized. That comes at a cost sometimes, but it's worth the cost. And you realize at some point that because there isn't any authority that will protect you, there likewise is not any authority whose permission you need to obtain before you can take steps to protect yourself.
This doens't have anything to do, really, with your vengeance scenario because you've already been victimized. It's not about the future, as you suggest when you say 'refusal to be victimized', it's about the past, when you say 'a man who's raped my loved one has just committed delayed suicide.'
 
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
quote:
Slash and I see this the same way. "A man who rapes my wife or sister has simply committed an elaborate form of suicide." It's not vengeance to me at all. Just a completion of the act the rapist decided to commit.
That's very pithy, and a convenient abrogation of personal responsibility. It's essentially saying "I have no choice. He did this, so I must do that." which is what keeps feuds going. He might be a rapist, but you're a murderer.

Personally, I'd pick rape over murder if I were going to choose.

Lately, rape is made out to be the worst thing that can happen to a person. But it's not. You live. And life is sweet, even when it's hard.

My best friend's daughter was raped last December. She's my favorite of their three daughters, and I was devestated when I found out. She's doing the brave, hard thing. She's pursuing charges, though it has subjected her to ridicule and torment by some of the girls at school. I'm so impressed with how this has helped her grow, how this has brought their family together, and how justice will be served. That boy will not just go on to his next victim. And his family is being forced to see what they raised.

quote:
The thing that protects you is your own refusal to allow yourself to be victimized.
Pressing charges on rape is a as clear a refusal to be a victim as I can think of. Murdering your rapist simply perpetuates victimization: You raping me turned me into a murderer. Pressing charges says: you raping me will not make me ashamed or powerless -- I will take the highest road there is and see society punish you for what you did.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
In the end, the teacher is not going to protect you, civilization is not going to protect you. The thing that protects you is your own refusal to allow yourself to be victimized. That comes at a cost sometimes, but it's worth the cost. And you realize at some point that because there isn't any authority that will protect you, there likewise is not any authority whose permission you need to obtain before you can take steps to protect yourself.
I agree with Rakeesh: the scenario you described in this thread isn't about protection.

Further, anyone you ever accuse of rape would be, by your own philosophy, perfectly justified in blowing you away if they can't convince you that you've made a mistake.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Dagonee, she was referring to an instance in which she knew that a man with whom she was already acquainted had raped her.

I don't think there's really much room for doubt in that particular situation.

-pH
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jeniwren:
Personally, I'd pick rape over murder if I were going to choose.

You mean you'd rather be a rapist than a murderer?

Interesting.

Not me.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dagonee, she was referring to an instance in which she knew that a man with whom she was already acquainted had raped her.

I don't think there's really much room for doubt in that particular situation.

Which means that the accused rapist wouldn't even have to try to convince her according to Tatiania's philosophy.

Further, I don't concede that she has the ability to be certain about it, nor do I trust from her attitude that she would limit it to the situation she says she would. Tatania has announced the intention of actively violating the law to commit murder, even if she could have the person convicted instead. As a person who has announced that she does not feel bound by the most important and serious protections granted by criminal law, I very much don't trust her as a member of society.

It doesn't matter if she's right about the identity of her attacker. Her killing him would be illegal and immoral whether he raped her or not, and he would have every right to defend himself. And, because Tatiana does not limit the instances where deadly force can be used for "protection" to situations where the attack is imminent, he would, under her philosophy, be justified in hunting her down as soon as the accusation was made.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus:
You mean you'd rather be a rapist than a murderer?

um... can I choose "neither"?

this:
quote:
She's pursuing charges, though it has subjected her to ridicule and torment by some of the girls at school.
sickened me terribly.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I can think of a circumstance in which I could willingly take another person's life, but I find an appalling lack of creativity on my part when I try to apply the same "what if" backwards thinking to a rape scenario.

I mean, unless you create a whole new world in which Our Hero must rape someone in order to save the world... and even then the idea leaves a plastic-y taste in my mouth.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I can think of a circumstance in which I could willingly take another person's life, but I find an appalling lack of creativity on my part when I try to apply the same "what if" backwards thinking to a rape scenario.
I think you have to either change "taking someone's life" to "murder someone" or "rape scenario" to "have sex with someone" for the comparison to be directly relevant to whether one would rather be a rapist or a murderer.

For example, self-defense, a situation where many would be willing to take a life, isn't murder.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I would totally be willing to take another person's life in a non-self-defensive way. I know myself well enough to realize that I am mentally and physically capable of murder. When it comes to rape, I do not believe I am either.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
*nod*

That was my read as well.
 
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Jim-Me, me too when I talked with her a couple of weeks ago. I was pretty outraged. The harrassment has been coming from the boy's sister and her girlfriends, who are in the same grade as my friend's daughter. The girl was going to pursue a complaint on the classmates, as the investigating detective on the case told her that harrassment for having pressed charges is illegal and should also be prosecuted.

As for the rapist vs murderer question, I didn't really mean it that way, but yes, if I were forced to choose to be one or the other, I'd choose rapist. But I can't imagine a circumstance in which I'd choose to be either. If I were going to choose to be victim of one or the other, I'd choose rape. Which is how I meant it initially.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Good for her on standing up for herself! that's heartening news...
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
If the harrassment is severe enough and accompanied by threats to not testify, the girls could be in VERY serious trouble.

I watched a 7 year old girl testify about abuse at the hands of her aunt. People like her and the jeniwren's friend are the people I want to be worthy of as a prosecutor.
 
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Dag, that's one of the biggest things I've learned out of my friend's experience. There are so many reasons not to press charges and it seems like there's almost no positive at all for the victim. That's what I thought before going through this with them. But that's a lie. The huge intangible positive is the empowerment of not being a victim. It's doing the brave, hard thing and being the better for it. It's shining a huge bright light on a dark and murky wrong, which our natural instincts recoil against. It shoves aside the natural shame that comes from being raped. Still, it's not easy, and I'm hugely impressed that how the whole family is handling it.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jeniwren:
It's doing the brave, hard thing and being the better for it. It's shining a huge bright light on a dark and murky wrong, which our natural instincts recoil against. It shoves aside the natural shame that comes from being raped.

Bravo... her for doing it and you and her family for getting it.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:
I would totally be willing to take another person's life in a non-self-defensive way. I know myself well enough to realize that I am mentally and physically capable of murder. When it comes to rape, I do not believe I am either.

If I were faced with a situation like the chance to kill a mass murderer or an Achilles or something, I'd probably do it. Of course, in such a circumstance the consequences would be in doubt; I might be a hero for it.

Personal revenge though? Why give your victimizer the posthumous satisfaction of ruining your own life, sacrificing your place in society just to get even? Maybe your not a victim if you simply refuse to let your life and dignity be taken away? (easy to say perhaps, but an honest question).

Jeniwren: I can see how seeking proper justice can help make things "complete" for the victim. I wonder though if for some people this process can become too much a part of their lives. For instance, what if they become eternal victims, defining their lives and relationships, molding their lives around carrying this ultra-important scar around for everyone to see. I have known people like this, people who suffered some hardship and now make it the most important part of who they are; and I wonder if that kind of existance isn't a little empty. After all it can glorify the victimizer and romanticize the crime, in a way having an even bigger impact, making the attacker even more powerful over time. I don't know, I don't think this would happen to everyone, but I could see some people taking it in this direction.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Jeniwren: I can see how seeking proper justice can help make things "complete" for the victim. I wonder though if for some people this process can become too much a part of their lives. For instance, what if they become eternal victims, defining their lives and relationships, molding their lives around carrying this ultra-important scar around for everyone to see?

Orincoro, I know you didn't address me on this, but I want to answer as someone who used to agree with you. I felt that was exactly what most victims were doing.

The truth of the matter, in my case, at least, and I think most LPCs would back me up here, is that it is precisely the attempt to *not* let it define your life, as you say, which allows it to do so.

It was like this: I knew I had been abused, but I didn't want to make my life about that so I hid from it-- didn't talk about it, didn't get any help. I was strong. I could go on. I didn't need to be a whiner about my own situation. Besides, most people had it worse.

Except copping this attitude was precisely what allowed it to fester and spoil. I see whole segments of my life now that would have been so much different if I had dealt with this earlier. Three decades of pain needlessly endured and, to be fair, inflicted. Because what happens is, it *does* dominate your life-- refusing to acknowledge it robs you of the ability to control the effect it has on your life (if you are like I was, and most victims, they say, are).

I don't doubt that people can get "stuck", and I certainly have a tendency to project-- to see my own patterns of thinking in other people. In fact, I'm probably doing some of that right now with you. I get involved in threads like this because I have a strong, irrational desire for other people to benefit from my experience.

It's empowering to acknowledge my victimhood because I need to remind myself that it *wasn't my fault*. It's not like the support groups in "Fight Club" where everyone hugs each other and tells each other happy things which they don't believe (though I love that movie). It's important because victims of abuse commonly, near invariably, blame themselves for the abuse. So that's why, sometimes, people can seem prideful when they say "I am a victim!"... it's a huge part of regaining their self-esteem to remind themselves that they didn't "ask for it."
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jim-Me:
[QUOTE]
It's empowering to acknowledge my victimhood because I need to remind myself that it *wasn't my fault*. It's not like the support groups in "Fight Club" where everyone hugs each other and tells each other happy things which they don't believe (though I love that movie). It's important because victims of abuse commonly, near invariably, blame themselves for the abuse. So that's why, sometimes, people can seem prideful when they say "I am a victim!"... it's a huge part of regaining their self-esteem to remind themselves that they didn't "ask for it."

So we really do agree then, because we want the same things! [Wink]

You simply point out that trying to hide from it is a very unhealthy way of letting it affect your life. I read Drew Pinsky's book "Crack'd" about a year ago, its about addiction treatment, and the nature of addiction. He makes an interesting point that many addicts do this same thing, they make the power of their battle with addiction the center of all their interactions, talking about it constantly and stroking their sense of accomplishment and power: they become addicted to sobriety!

I am not quite sure how it applies to victims; its a different thing surely, but related. Maybe if people draw power from their victimhood, they grow stronger; but what if they become addicted to the power this scar provides, and they re-traumatize themselves over and over in order to feel that lack of control, coupled with the power of overcoming it. I don't know, I've never suffered a truly serious victimization, just teasing and a few fights that come with being a slightly strange child.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Orincoro - personal revenge, no. For revenge purposes I would perfer maiming - a long life with horrible disfigurement or diability would be best. This also gives the person the perfect opportunity to repent, change their ways, etc.

That would be ideal, as would not getting caught. If you're going to get caught, it might be better just to kill them, I don't know.

I hope I never face that kind of decision -- I doubt I will. If someone made a threat to my children, a credible threat that would be difficult to do anything about other than restraining orders or whatever...

I can't unlearn what I have learned. I cannot claim I am not capapble of violence any more then I can claim I cannot ride a bike. I can choose not to ride a bike and make necessary adjustments in my life to reduce the likelihood of me ever being tempted to ride a bike, but I can't say I am not capapble of it.

That is the distinction I'm making.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Right, Orincoro, I'm just saying that what can be mistaken for reveling in victimhood can be, and more often than not is, healthy, courageous dealing with an issue. I've seen, and even made, intimations that people are just wallowing in their own problems. I'm willing to categorically state that I was dead wrong about a lot of it and that it happens far less than you might think. I don't doubt, however, that it does happen.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Again, it's not revenge but protection. By killing him, I would be protecting his future victims, I would be protecting myself from being raped by him again (how many acquaintence rapists repeatedly rape the same victim), and if I were in a situation where I was vulnerable to other rapists, I would make the probability that I would be raped again by someone else negligible (because they would know what happened to the last guy).

Dagonee, it always does outrage the authorities if a victim of repeated abuse will ever learn to fight back. Nevermind that the authorities tolerated and even tacitly approved the repeated abuse over a long period of time. Victims learning not to take it any more is always a violation of the status quo, an overturning of established power structures, and as such it outrages the authority in charge.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Nevermind that the authorities tolerated and even tacitly approved the repeated abuse over a long period of time.

Unless I missed something, this was not a part of your initial scenario.

In a case where you were denied justice by the relevant authorities, I would take an entirely differnt view of your actions and said as much early on.
 
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
For those who do wallow in it, this is something to be pitied, not condemned. They are choosing a prison.

I agree with everything Jim-Me said, and am having a hard time really formulating a complete reply because it is as equally personal as what he shared. Suffice it to say that I think it's a lot healthier to say out loud, without cringing or shame "I was raped." than it is to say nothing and think you're going on with your life. I don't know about other people, but, IMO, it comes back no matter how well you process it.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I want to remind everyone who is outraged by my attitude that I would never want nor seek out this situation, and that every potential attacker can be safe from the terror that is Tatiana by the simple expedient of not attacking and raping me. You seem not to trust me to know when I've been attacked and raped, but I assure you there would be no doubt about the matter. You seem to think it is a matter that is easy to be mistaken about, but that won't be the case. It's been a long time since I tolerated abuse without fighting back. The attacker could always run away at any point. I'm talking about someone who overcame the most violent defense I was able to muster, in whatever situation I found myself. Nowadays, I get angry and cold and vicious when attacked, rather than becoming afraid or timid (until afterward), so I assure you that only a determined and quite violent attacker would be able to carry through.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Again, it's not revenge but protection. By killing him, I would be protecting his future victims, I would be protecting myself from being raped by him again (how many acquaintence rapists repeatedly rape the same victim), and if I were in a situation where I was vulnerable to other rapists, I would make the probability that I would be raped again by someone else negligible (because they would know what happened to the last guy).
None of which you have even asserted isn't available under our current system of justice.

quote:
Dagonee, it always does outrage the authorities if a victim of repeated abuse will ever learn to fight back.
This doesn't outrage me as an "authority." It outrages me as a citizen.

quote:
Victims learning not to take it any more is always a violation of the status quo, an overturning of established power structures, and as such it outrages the authority in charge.
And yet, you've specifically acknowledged that you wouldn't be doing this because the status quo wouldn't seek justice. You would be doing it to avoid the trauma of the investigation and the jury trial.

You can dress this up in victimology all you want - it's still murder, you'd still be a murderer, and you're still a danger to the rights of others.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I want to remind everyone who is outraged by my attitude that I would never want nor seek out this situation, and that every potential attacker can be safe from the terror that is Tatiana by the simple expedient of not attacking and raping me. You seem not to trust me to know when I've been attacked and raped, but I assure you there would be no doubt about the matter. You seem to think it is a matter that is easy to be mistaken about, but that won't be the case. It's been a long time since I tolerated abuse without fighting back. The attacker could always run away at any point. I'm talking about someone who overcame the most violent defense I was able to muster, in whatever situation I found myself. Nowadays, I get angry and cold and vicious when attacked, rather than becoming afraid or timid (until afterward), so I assure you that only a determined and quite violent attacker would be able to carry through.
1.) No one here has argued that you don't have the right to use all force needed to stop the attack. Your original scenario has nothing to do with whether or not the violent attacker would be able to carry through. You've asserted that, were you to be raped, you would shoot the person afterwards. If you're merely advocating self defense during the attack, I doubt anyone here opposes that.

2.) It's not your right to take violent action based upon your determination as to whether someone else raped you. You have a right to defend yourself, violently if need be. You don't have a right to use violence to punish.

3.) None of the stuff specific to you matters to the morality of this decision. You are claiming authority you don't have.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Jim-Me, I'm explaining the typical response of authorities to such situations, which encompasses many more stories and events than just the single scenario I outlined.

From the civil rights movement, to kids being beaten up in school, to domestic abuse, to stalker ex-bfs, to child abuse, to child molestation, heck, even to multinational corporations' abuse and exploitation of third world workers, the authorities nearly always react in the same way, to protect the aggressors and maintain the power structure status quo.

I agree that eternal victimhood is a low quality response. That's why I don't recommend that path, but rather, prefer a strong determined refusal to be made a victim of. Such a refusal always angers the authorites. However, that's to be expected and accepted as part of it.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
From the civil rights movement, to kids being beaten up in school, to domestic abuse, to stalker ex-bfs, to child abuse, to child molestation, heck, even to multinational corporations' abuse and exploitation of third world workers, the authorities nearly always react in the same way, to protect the aggressors and maintain the power structure status quo.

That's far from categorically true... for one, without the intervention of due authority, the civil rights movement would likely have ended the way Martin Luther King jr. did.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Lyrhawn: "Sorry Tatiana, but that still registers rather high on my crazy-o-meter."

Lyr, it does seem rather crazy to people who have not been exposed to violent harsh environments for long periods of time. Perhaps the best take-away lesson for those people (let's call them civilians), is "don't ever attack a (non-civilian)".
 
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
ak, I think you underestimate the myriad subtlties of the crime of acquaintance rape. It's often not violent at all. It's a mind game and afterward, the victim is left wondering if it was really rape, or did they ask for it? The guilt isn't some psychological symptom, like a sniffly nose comes with a cold. It's because you were very effectively manipulated. Your weaknesses were exploited.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Jim-Me: "That's far from categorically true... for one, without the intervention of due authority, the civil rights movement would likely have ended the way Martin Luther King jr. did."

And if they had waited for the authorities to bring about justice, we would all still be waiting.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Again, it's not revenge but protection. By killing him, I would be protecting his future victims, I would be protecting myself from being raped by him again (how many acquaintence rapists repeatedly rape the same victim), and if I were in a situation where I was vulnerable to other rapists, I would make the probability that I would be raped again by someone else negligible (because they would know what happened to the last guy).

So now you're judge, jury, executioner AND fortune teller?

And I highly doubt if you murder a man, that you'll see another man (that isn't a guard) for a long, long time. And by that point, they won't even know who you are to the point where your previous warning to all mankind about the good idea/bad idea of raping you wouldn't matter at all.

And your earlier words said nothing about protection. You said that justice for rape should be in your hands alone, meaning it's your job to issue his sentence for the crime he commmitted, and that isn't about the future protection of others, that's about your own personal vengeance. You keep changing or adding on details and reasonings into the scenario to try and make it more palatable as this discussion goes on and they don't all mesh together.

I'm curious to hear you answer the earlier asked question of how this jives with your religious beliefs. Not to mention where you get off punishing someone for crimes they haven't even considered committing yet.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Jim-Me: "That's far from categorically true... for one, without the intervention of due authority, the civil rights movement would likely have ended the way Martin Luther King jr. did."

And if they had waited for the authorities to bring about justice, we would all still be waiting.

This is the point where I confess that, were such a thing possible, I would totally have Tatiana's babies.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
jeniwren, the situation for many people, and for myself at an earlier time in my life, might be ambiguous as you describe. I understand that introduces a lot of complications to the scenario.

However, I know that sort of ambiguity would not be the case for me now. I have rather strong views now and am not easily abused or exploited anymore. I would definitely be in full-out self-defense mode, unless taken completely by surprise and instantly totally incapacitated. Either way it would be a definite, unambiguous, and quite violent attack that would be required to succeed.

[ April 05, 2006, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
From the civil rights movement, to kids being beaten up in school, to domestic abuse, to stalker ex-bfs, to child abuse, to child molestation, heck, even to multinational corporations' abuse and exploitation of third world workers, the authorities nearly always react in the same way, to protect the aggressors and maintain the power structure status quo.
"Nearly always"?

Then how do you explain the authorities' use of military force to integrate a university in Alabama (based on a decision made by the authority of the Supreme Court)? How do you explain the use of federal authority to attack state indifference to assaults and murder of civil rights activists?

How do you explain the thousands of convictions for domestic assault, stalking, child abuse, and child molestation each year?

quote:
it does seem rather crazy to people who have not been exposed to violent harsh environments for long periods of time.
You are making unwarranted assumptions.

quote:
Jim-Me: "That's far from categorically true... for one, without the intervention of due authority, the civil rights movement would likely have ended the way Martin Luther King jr. did."

And if they had waited for the authorities to bring about justice, we would all still be waiting.

MLK violated and advocated violating unjust laws. You advocate violating a just law. And make no mistake, the law criminalizing murder of ones assailants is just.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Dagonee, the federal authorities quite reluctantly, and very tardily, stepped in to enforce federal law only AFTER the state authorities had time and again acted contrary to the law in order to maintain the unjust status quo, and only AFTER the activists had precipitated a national crisis by their actions refusing to allow themselves to continue to be victimized. The authorities at all levels urged the activists to wait, to slow down, to hold on, and not to press things. "Give us time" they said, while countless lynchings, bombings, and terrorist attacks were carried out (unprosecuted) against innocent citizens of our country.

Also, the federal law that they finally stepped in to enforce came about only after the activists finally won some key court cases through intense and prolonged effort and expense to bring them before the courts. And even then, they would never have been enforced without the activists' concerted efforts to precipitate situations in which they either had to be enforced, or else very publicly repudiated.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Have you listened to the tapes of JFK speaking to the Governors of Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia at the time of the various crises?

Have you listened to the tapes of LBJ speaking to MLK? They're fascinating and very instructive.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dagonee, the federal authorities quite reluctantly, and very tardily, stepped in to enforce federal law only AFTER the state authorities had time and again acted contrary to the law in order to maintain the unjust status quo, and only AFTER the activists had precipitated a national crisis by their actions refusing to allow themselves to continue to be victimized. The authorities at all levels urged the activists to wait, to slow down, to hold on, and not to press things. "Give us time" they said, while countless lynchings, bombings, and terrorist attacks were carried out (unprosecuted) against innocent citizens of our country.
That doesn't support your "nearly always" language. Further, the successful activists (as in, the activists who actually effected systemic change) did not advocate murder nor claim the right to commit it.

There is nothing in your philosophy to condemn the murder of abortion doctors - you specifically use protection of others from future actions of the person to be murdered in your justification, and there's no difficulty about knowing whether or not the person commits the acts.

quote:
Also, the federal law that they finally stepped in to enforce came about only after the activists finally won some key court cases through intense and prolonged effort and expense to bring them before the courts. And even then, they would never have been enforced without the activists' concerted efforts to precipitate situations in which they either had to be enforced, or else very publicly repudiated.
How, exactly, is this like your murdering someone else without giving them a fair trial first?
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
It is refusing to hear the authorities' insistence that you should take no action yourself, but wait for them to see justice done on your behalf, and prevent future attacks on you.

Why do you keep trying to twist my view to make it seem that I say things I do not say? I don't believe in murdering abortion doctors.

The key to effecting change is to have both a violent and non-violent response available. As the civil rights movement played out, the authorities responded to the militancy of blacks who did not advocate non-violence (something that actually frightened them and make them take notice) by actually dealing in good faith for the first time with those who did advocate non-violence.

In other words, you can deal with Martin and SNCC and the SCLC, who are civilized, or you can refuse, and be left with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers and the Watts riots. It's your choice.

Similarly, a potential attacker/rapist can act civilized, choose not to attack, and be treated with restraint and civilization by me, or they can choose to attack me and invoke deadly force. There is no repudiation of civilization on my part, only a willingness to return violence appropriately, and a refusal to put the attackers' rights and safety above my own, or that of his future victims.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Why do you keep trying to twist my view to make it seem that I say things I do not say? I don't believe in murdering abortion doctors.
I assumed that you don't believe in murdering abortion doctors. But your philosophy - that it ismorally correct for private persons to use lethal force to protect innocent people from future (non-imminent) crimes - can easily be used to justify it.

quote:
Similarly, a potential attacker/rapist can act civilized, choose not to attack, and be treated with restraint and civilization by me, or they can choose to attack me and invoke deadly force. There is no repudiation of civilization on my part, only a willingness to return violence appropriately, and a refusal to put the attackers' rights and safety above my own, or that of his future victims.
You are absolutely repudiating civilization. You are claiming the right to be police officer, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner for yourself. You are essentially creating a short-term mini-tyrany based on your capability to deliver lethal force.

That's not civilization.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win. You like arguing because you find it fun. That's a great trait for an attorney to have, but I don't enjoy arguing because it's fun. I'm trying to give and receive information, and to understand other people's points of view, and hopefully to allow them to understand mine.

I don't have any stake in winning, here. I'm just explaining what I would do in a certain situation. It isn't necessary for me to convince anyone of anything.

I think it's very good that you have so much faith in authority, and I do support and sustain the authorities, when they act in accordance with what is right. I don't see them as being able to fix everything, and don't ask them to. It's a shame that they so often act to impede what's right instead of upholding it, but they are imperfect human systems, and so will always be lurching uncertainly toward some ideal, rather than actually attaining it. I do believe in the ideal that they are reaching for, but I also know pragmatically that it's often a struggle to keep them pointed in the right direction. I feel it is our responsibility as citizens to keep trying and not give up on them, and I will continue to do so.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
You ascribe to me some philosophy of your own making. I only state what I would do in a certain situation.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win. You like arguing because you find it fun. That's a great trait for an attorney to have, but I don't enjoy arguing because it's fun. I'm trying to give and receive information, and to understand other people's points of view, and hopefully to allow them to understand mine.
You have quite freely addressed points I have made and disagreed with those points. You have also made positive assertions that many people here disagree with. Somehow that's different than what I've been doing?

I'm responding because I find your position to be extraordinarily dangerous - both to society and to individuals. Sacrificing the natural state of freely available force is one of the central tenets of civilization. You have stated that you are retaining the right to use lethal force without even giving the authorities a chance to convict the rapist. Therefore I find you to be dangerous, and not just to rapists.

This isn't the first time you've advocated using what I consider to be disproportionate force, although last time it was only a kick in the crotch, not premeditated murder.

quote:
I think it's very good that you have so much faith in authority, and I do support and sustain the authorities, when they act in accordance with what is right.
In your scenario, you aren't even giving them a chance to do what's right.

quote:
I feel it is our responsibility as citizens to keep trying and not give up on them, and I will continue to do so.
And murder to avoid the suffering caused by a trial is not a viable way to try to keep "authorities" from "impeding" what's right.

quote:
You ascribe to me some philosophy of your own making. I only state what I would do in a certain situation.
Actually, you also assert that it would be "the right thing." That's not a statement of what you would do, that's a statement of moral philosophy.

Points you have used to justify your use of lethal force:

Avoiding "the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc."

That "the guilt of the party is not in question."

That "the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation."

That "he forfeits his right to be judged by anyone but me by raping me."

That "it's not revenge but protection."

That "there would be no doubt about the matter."

Unless for some reason this is limited just to rape, you've left a lot of situations open to personal choice with regards to capital punishment of offenders.

You've done far more than simply state what you will do in certain situations.
 
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win...

No, he's asking that you not redefine what is clearly "personal vengence" as "justice".

quote:

I think it's very good that you have so much faith in authority, and I do support and sustain the authorities, when they act in accordance with what is right.

Except that in your example you are clearly giving them no respect, no support, and no chance to act whatsoever.

In my experience with this, which is not negligible, the authorities have always been ready to prosecute. It has been the parents of the abused or the abused themselves, who have interfered with and prevented the authorities from doing their job. Are you prepared to dismiss parenthood as readily as you have dismissed the legitimate policing power of governments?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win. You like arguing because you find it fun. That's a great trait for an attorney to have, but I don't enjoy arguing because it's fun. I'm trying to give and receive information, and to understand other people's points of view, and hopefully to allow them to understand mine.

I agree, let's not start bullying each other over it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I find it very, very ironic that you're referencing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an endorsement of your stance on "what a woman should do if she's raped".

Of the Civil Rights movement, your approach has only refusal to be victimized in common with Dr. M.L.K. Jr. Everything else is more in common with Malcolm X, for instance. And there are times when I admire Malcolm X more than Dr. M.L.K. Jr., just so you know. All I'm saying is, don't equate your approach with peaceful nonviolent resistence-which although there were other elements, was what really made the movement so successful-to evil, because that's definitely not what it is.

Furthermore I think your little talking-down lecture to Dagonee is pretty...inaccurate. For one thing, whether or not he enjoys arguing for fun has nothing to do with whether or not he's arguing now for fun, nor is it relevant. The way you state it, it also comes off as a criticism. You also insinuate that while Dagonee is just having some laughs, you're doing the worthwhile and beneficial thing.

I can't speak to whether or not that was your intent. But it certainly read that way.

quote:
Similarly, a potential attacker/rapist can act civilized, choose not to attack, and be treated with restraint and civilization by me, or they can choose to attack me and invoke deadly force. There is no repudiation of civilization on my part, only a willingness to return violence appropriately, and a refusal to put the attackers' rights and safety above my own, or that of his future victims.
When did it become a certainty that a man who rapes once, will rape again? Or a woman, for that matter? Furthermore in what way is killing a man after the fact an appropriate return of violence? Rape does not equal death. The rape victim is still alive. They can go on to hopefully recover from the terrible ordeal and its many consquences, long- and short-term, and lead a joyous, productive, worthy life. A dead person has nothing left in this life.

The difference between your approach and that of the American Civil Rights movement is one of degree. Yes, they weren't willing to wait, you're not willing to wait. But while they were willing to keep forcing the issue, demanding change, getting in authority's face and not permitting them to forget them...you just murder the criminal, and that's that.

quote:
As the civil rights movement played out, the authorities responded to the militancy of blacks who did not advocate non-violence (something that actually frightened them and make them take notice) by actually dealing in good faith for the first time with those who did advocate non-violence.
This is a matter of interpretation, one which does not coincide very well with the views of authority at the time. Authority despised blacks, viewed them as sub-class citizens and treated them as such. And authority had all the guns. In this situation, were their concern over the potential violence of blacks their primary motivation, they would likely have become more oppressive, not less.

No, it was guilt over seeing good and honorable and peaceful human beings in the newspapers and on the TV, in diners and on the streets, murdered along with their comrades in some of the most hatefully racist places and the resulting shame, that had most to do with the movement's success.

You can examine India if you like, for another nation in which an oppressed minority successfully changed the status quo without violence. Except in India, they had tried violence, and didn't succeed.

I'm actually pretty annoyed. Here I am, defending rapists. It's upsetting.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win. You like arguing because you find it fun. That's a great trait for an attorney to have, but I don't enjoy arguing because it's fun. I'm trying to give and receive information, and to understand other people's points of view, and hopefully to allow them to understand mine.

I agree, let's not start bullying each other over it.
::scratches head::

You think Dagonee is being a bully??
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
If I could just chime in here - Tatiana is absolutely right. I, myself, would gladly kill any number of theists on the grounds that they might be a danger in the future. I am restrained only by their ability to deliver effective retaliation, since they do rather outnumber me.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus:
::scratches head::

You think Dagonee is being a bully??

I know its crazy [Wink]
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Tell the truth, KoM: you rather enjoy your ability to sink a given side of an argument through agreeing with them, don't you? [Wink]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
*Looks innocent*
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
[ROFL]

[Hail] KoM and Icarus!

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I am become death, the destroyer of threads...
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I think it is totally different to say, "This is what I will do in this situation, if these events occur, and here are the reasons I would choose to do it" than to say, "I think all women in this situation should do this because my personal moral decision is absolutely valid in all situations."

I think Tatiana is saying the first thing and you guys are hearing the second.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Well everybody is assuming the second because nobody can argue effectively against the first one, since its personal [Wink]
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.
quote:
What would be wrong is for them to be given stewardship over the justice for the rape, because that justice is mine.

quote:
I feel he forfeits his right to be judged by anyone but me by raping me.
quote:
What I'm saying is that the natural stewardship for justice for rape by someone well-known to the victim (so that there is no danger of mistaken identity) doesn't rightfully belong to the courts, but instead to the victim.
quote:
the authorities nearly always react in the same way, to protect the aggressors and maintain the power structure status quo.

I agree that eternal victimhood is a low quality response. That's why I don't recommend that path, but rather, prefer a strong determined refusal to be made a victim of. Such a refusal always angers the authorites. However, that's to be expected and accepted as part of it.

quote:
The key to effecting change is to have both a violent and non-violent response available.
I don't think so, Olivet.
 
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Other than the usual rebuttal of 'you couldn't possibly know what you'd really do until you go in that situation'. Which is the one I ascribe to, with rape or abuse. Who ever thinks it's going to happen to them really? People who say 'I'd kill the guy' are just blowing smoke if they've never been there, never been really close to that kind of a situation.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
You ascribe to that one do you? [Wink]
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Icky, I can see all of those statements as her stating her reasons for deciding that that is what she would do, and explaining her reasons for it. She has reasons, historical and personal, to distust authority, and has explained some of them. You are assuming she is suggesting universals or absolutes, but I simply am not reading that in what she says. I could be wrong.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
[Dont Know]

She quite specifically says that the stewardship for justice for acquaintance rape belongs to "the victim"--a generic. I don't understand where the confusion it. She is not saying all women should do this, but, as far as I can see, she is saying she believes that any woman that did would be morally justified.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Which is what she believes. It is the victim's decision whether to prosecute, in most cases. She's just saying she sees athird option, one she would personally take. I think she also realizes that anyone taking that option would be tried for murder. Doesn't mean it isn't an option, just because most people would agree it isn't the best option.

"Morally justified" is her opinion, which is distinct from "legal". I don't get "where the confusion it" either. She is saying she would choose to act outside the accepted authority because she doesn't trust that authority for whatever reason.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
She has also said that she would vote to aquit, were she on a jury panel for a woman in this situation, and seemed to expect that the majority of other people would, too, when she posed the question. So again, while she has never said she believes this should be the regular response, she certainly sees it as okay for women other than herself.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
She has not said it would be legal, and nobody has said that she has said this, as far as I can tell. What people have said is that it is wrong. She thinks it's not. Hence the disagreement. I don't think people are hearing anything other than what she has said.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Well, people don't make decisions that they think are "morally justified" without thinking that others might agree with them.

People choose to have premarital sex (always have, even when it was a legally punishable offense) and probably expect some others would choose similarly. I don't think that means that she expects that choice to be the norm.

I have overstepped my bounds in speaking for her, perhaps. She has said that the she would ignore authority in that circumstance and face whatever consequences.

Which is still a far cry from, "This is how I think the world should work."

Luckily for us, no single individual gets to make those decisions for everyone in our society, so I don't see why everyone is so upset that an individual would choose to break a law, and justify it in their own mind to their satisfaction.

Maybe everyone would feel better if she said, "I would do this, but I know it's wrong." It would be dishonest of her to say that, though, if that is not what she believes.

I continue to be baffled by the shock this seems to cause. [Confused]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Which is still a far cry from, "This is how I think the world should work."
I've been taking it as a given that this is what she believes, since she's thought about it so thoroughly and defended it in such a non-...heat-of-the-moment kind of way.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
She didn't seem to be saying that to me, though I admit my perceptions may be off at the moment.

I just don't fully understand the shock and outrage. It almost never shocks me to learn that someone has different moral sensibilities than I do.

Irami once told me that a friend of his was dating a 13 year old, and I remember being surprised that he was totally cool with it. Perhaps it shouldn't have been a surprise, when you consider that some cultures would have considered me marriagable before my age was in the double-digits.

I'm a little put off by the exisitence of, say, the Man/Boy Society (or whatever you call it). What they advocate is illegal (and rightly so, to my way of thinking) but to argue with someone about their (somewhat unique) deeply-held beliefs (especially ones wrapped in so many layers of hypotheticals) seems pointless to me.

Tatiana has a atypical belief, arrived by her experiences (and to some extent created or rationalized by those experiences) that she claims would dictate her actions in a very narrow set of circumstances (I think it is unlikely that a rapist would perservere through the kind of fight she likely to put up, but what do I know).

She's fairly certain what she would do, but hopefully it will never come to that. If it does and this thread is still around, she'll probably fry.

I have, in this thread, hypothetically "advocated" maiming someone who raped me and it didn't upset anyone, which amuses me.

quote:
I've been taking it as a given that this is what she believes, since she's thought about it so thoroughly and defended it in such a non-...heat-of-the-moment kind of way.
A lot of people have also taken that as a given -- I'm only saying that she hasn't sctually articulated this. She may intend you to infer it, I don't know. Textually, it's a leap, if a small one.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Olivet, I am neither shocked nor outraged by Tatiana's attitude. I disagree with her. I specifically and emphatically disagree that her proposed scenario *justifies* her proposed action and with her statement "the natural stewardship for justice for rape by someone well-known to the victim (so that there is no danger of mistaken identity) doesn't rightfully belong to the courts, but instead to the victim."

Do I see her hypothetical situation as mitigating circumstances? Yes.

But she certainly appears to be making the case, with the quoted statement, that she has a *right* to take her proposed course of action and, more than that, that she would be *in the right* and *entirely justified* in doing so.

I can't dispute whether she may be able to do so with a clear conscience-- if she says so I have to take her word for it-- but in the abstract moral case I can and do maintain that she isn't correct.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
What Jim-Me said. I am also not shocked or outraged, and I can certainly see wanting to do the same. And you know what? I can't say I wouldn't. But I would do it with the full knowledge that it is wrong, and is harmful to society. Sometimes I make the choice to do what is necessary for me even when it's wrong for society. But I do it with the full knowledge that I am doing wrong.

Olivet, your hypothetical advocation of maiming was very clearly hypothetical, and did not look to me like you were seriously saying you'd do it. So no, hyperbole doesn't upset me. [Smile]
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I agree that "the natural stewardship for justice for rape by someone well-known to the victim (so that there is no danger of mistaken identity) doesn't rightfully belong to the courts, but instead to the victim."

After all, the victim gets to make the decision whether to prosecute or not. If the courts prosecuted rapes without the victim's consent that would be another can of worms.

She believes she has the "right" to do something she has decided she would do, which doesn't seem strange to me. People have reasons and justifications for all kinds of weird shite.

I don't believe that killing your attacker is morally right - in fact, I believe it will do more harm than good to the victim.

But it is so utterly pointless to argue about it. She understands the disagreement and won't change her mind. She's free to think what she wants, and hand-wringing from internet people isn't going to change that.

Please, continue to *strenuously* maintain that she's wrong, as is your perogative. I believe she will not change her mind.

It's a waste of energy, but it amuses me to post. (I confess my arguments in this thread have been mostly for my own entertainment, as I enjoy putting on the hyper-literalist hat occassionally.)

There are lots of things in the world that people believe that I believe are wrong, but arguing about them on the internet seems the definition of pointless.

I think I've justtalked myself right out of this thread. [ROFL]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
After all, the victim gets to make the decision whether to prosecute or not. If the courts prosecuted rapes without the victim's consent that would be another can of worms.
Prosecutors do prosecute rapists without the victim's consent. Not often, and there are evidentiary problems when they do so, but it is NOT the victim's decision.

quote:
But it is so utterly pointless to argue about it. She understands the disagreement and won't change her mind. She's free to think what she wants, and hand-wringing from internet people isn't going to change that.
Sure she is. And I don't think I will change her mind. That's not the point.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
*grin* I think you did, too. But you can stay anyway, no one will mind.

I know that Tatiana will not change her mind based on anything posted here. I feel it is important to voice my disagreements with her justifications anyway.

First, that's how society works. When someone expresses a belief and intent to do an action in a certain circumstances that is so clearly morally wrong by the standards of society, it is necessary for the community to condem it. If for no other reason than because the person needs to know that they will not be supported, should they ever be in the situation and chose to follow through. Tatiana seemed, at the beginning of this conversation, to believe that no one would vote to convict her if she ever had to do this. It's better for her to go into it knowing that most people don't believe the same as her, and that she'd quite likely be facing real prison time in this scenario.

Second, if we are quiet, other people who may be reading and not participating may see Tatiana's stance, not see anyone object to it, and decide it must be okay, and adopt it for their own. Also detrimental to society. The more people feel this way, the more likely one is to end up in the situation and follow through, and have to deal with the trauma of a murder trial and prison sentence along with the trauma of the rape.

Plus, you know, it's a discussion board. We're here to discuss things. She's posting things I think are wrong. I'm disagreeing with her. It's what we do here. [Smile]
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
In practice, it IS the victim's call whether the police even get involved. Don't be naive.

This is why society sucks. This is why I don't like Hatrack anymore. The point of arguing is to argue. Discussion boards are pointless.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
quote:
I continue to be baffled by the shock this seems to cause.
Really, Olivia? ak is advocating the murder of another human being, and if I'm reading it right she says it's okay to do so because the authorities won't do their job right.

That's an insult to the large number of cops and firefighters and prosecutors like Dag will be one day who work very hard for justice on the part of the victims of rape and other crimes.

To her original question about whether I'd convict her if I were on her jury - in a heartbeat.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Mmmm, I think I phrased that last part poorly. I'm not trying to say I'm arguing just to argue. But I don't think I can rephrase without being unacceptably insulting to other members of this conversation.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
She's advocating KILLING another human being, not MURDERING him. She doesn't see it as murder. YOU are calling it murder.

I'm not really the killing type. I'm more the prolonged psychological torture until you wish you were dead type. But to each her own.

-pH
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
I would feel sad for the poor guy, I suppose, but still would believe I did the right thing.
I think you would be well aware that you did the wrong thing, and would regret it.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Belle, I am almost never shocked when someone claims to be morally justified when advocating something I find morally wrong. I won't say nothing shocks me, but no, I do not find it all startling that a person with Tatiana's experiences would say they would kill someone in cold blood under those circumstances, and I do not find it shocking that she has managed a rather tight little rationalization to justify it. Especially when you consider that she seems a person who needs a moral reason for any of her actions.

Me, I might be tempted to kill or maim the perp (if I was fairly sure I could get away with it and other options had been exhausted - yes, I'd prosecute the mofo) but I would never claim an absolute moral right to do so.

I'd vote to convict her, too (though I think a decent lawyer could still make a case for her being in not the most rational state of mind) but I wouldn't reccommend a heavy sentence. She wouldn't be a threat to anybody who didn't rape her.

Eljay, I overstated my point when I said "Discussion boards are pointless" too. I have gleaned a lot of news and useful information from all sides of many issues from places like this.

I just think this *particular* discussion has become pointless, since it's beginning to repeat itself and go all meta.

(also... my hypothetical of maiming was just as hypothetical as hers of killing. I know how to maim, and I believe, under certain highly improbable but not impossible circumstances, that I would do it, which is really much oogier, if you think about it. The main difference is that my only justification was that it would give them time to think on the error of their ways. I did not claim the moral right to maim anybody after the fact. I believe I have the moral right to maim anyone trying to hurt me or mine at the time of the maiming.)
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
In practice, it IS the victim's call whether the police even get involved. Don't be naive.

This is why society sucks. This is why I don't like Hatrack anymore. The point of arguing is to argue. Discussion boards are pointless.

First, while it is the victim's call as to whether the police get involved, it is still incorrect to say that prosecution doesn't happen without the victim's consent. I'm not being naive, I'm being precise.

Second, I'm a little astounded that you would complain about the "the point of arguing" being "to argue" after calling me naive for being precise. Maybe the only reason you join these discussions is to argue. However, since you were basing your defense/explanation of Tatiana's view on the fact that prosecution requires the victim's consent, my correction was relevant to the discussion.

I'm trying to find a way to look at your posts today in any light other than "I want to have my say about what other people have posted but then bitch about them trying to have their say about what I've posted."

So far I'm having difficulty doing so.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Seeing as how Tatiana is advocating the murder of her (or her loved one's) rapist whether or not she knew another victim was in imminent danger of being raped, it's undeniably murder, pH. At least, by my definition which pretty much includes all killing outside the realm of self-defense or defense of an innocent. Neither the self nor the loved one is defended by killing a rapist after the rape is committed. What definition of 'murder' are you using?

quote:
Please, continue to *strenuously* maintain that she's wrong, as is your perogative. I believe she will not change her mind.
Why is this standard being maintained in only one direction?

Unfortunately I would have no choice but to convict her, were I serving on a jury and she was on trial for murdering a rapist after the fact, and without imminent threat to herself or another victim. I guess I just don't understand why the rights and responsibilities we owe to society are less worth maintaining, more worth casting aside, than the ones we make to ourselves.

I mean, if you're going to reap the benefits of living in a civilized society, you're implicitly agreeing to live by its rules. You don't get to cherry-pick, and there is no moral acrobatics that makes doing so right and worthwhile if you know you're going to be doing that from the start.

And, you know, there is one thing that hasn't really been mentioned yet. Another reason why it's a poor idea to take the law into your own hands. That reason is that criminals are usually more experienced, willing, and knowledgeable in the application of violence. Brains don't always matter so much when it comes to life-and-death situations like this one.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, random violence in a bar is one thing; but a gun sneaking up from behind is one hell of an equaliser.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:
This is why I don't like Hatrack anymore. The point of arguing is to argue. Discussion boards are pointless.

I confess I don't understand at all why it's a bad thing for people to discuss right and wrong abstractly... to say that there's no point in so doing is not only a stretch, but demonstrably wrong.

Olivet, pretty much everyone here has expressed empathy for Tatiana's position. It's not that we don't understand or that we can't see why someone would feel the desire, even the need, to avenge themselves that way. Everyone saying it is wrong is saying it's important to recognize it as wrong precisely because it does feel so right.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Dagonee, the second bit was directed at what Eljay said, not you. That was my bad for not being specific. I should have quoted her, but it was right above me when I posted, so I thought it was obvious I was responding to "We aregue, because that is what we do."

So the "I want to have my say about what other people have posted but then bitch about them trying to have their say about what I've posted" makes sense in the way you misread it. My bad. I have learned a lot from various discussions here, and I respect you. I know you have a deep faith in the law, and that's an asset for what you do. I apreciate your insight, really.

I was aying that a victim has to first let it be known she is a victim before the authorities can do anything. This happens a lot, unless they are arresting boys because a girl they went out with the night before has been crying a lot this morning.

quote:

In practice, it IS the victim's call whether the police even get involved. Don't be naive.

What I meant was that it is naive to think that the authorities somehow magically know about crimes. I know at least three women who have been raped, who went through rape crisis counselling and all that without the police ever even knowing a crime occurred.

That's what I meant, not that people are never prosecuted without victim testimony. I don't know much about the law, but I DO know that people are sometimes prosecuted without witness/victim testimony.


If prosecution doesn't happen unless the authorities know about it, then the victim has to tell them about it. If the victim doesn't tell them about it, it doesn't usually happen, I'm guessing. I know it isn't impossible to prosecute a date rapist without the victim's help, but I've heard enough women talk about the rape crisis thing that I know they have to consent to the "rape kit" and so forth.

I don't think we're actually arguing, so I'm not being huffy. I was just saying that the first step in justice belongs to victim - either she tells or she doesn't. Is that safe to say?

I have been tired and a bit addled, so I'm sorry I came off as insulting you. I can see clearly that the naive comment offended you (the other did too, but it wasn't directed at you in the first place), and I'm sorry. It was never my intention to hurt anybody's feelings or be deliberately insulting.

I haope you can forgive me.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Jin-Me I didn't say "it's a bad thing for people to discuss right and wrong abstractly", I said I'm tired of it, and it is why I don't like coming here as much anymore.

quote:
to say that there's no point in so doing is not only a stretch, but demonstrably wrong
Okay, okay. This discussion no longer has any point FOR ME. As in, there is no point for me to continue, because it has nothing to offer me, personally. (I'm only in it now because I think I've made people angry, which I didn't mean to do.)

"Everyone saying it is wrong is saying it's important to recognize it as wrong precisely because it does feel so right. "

But after the eithtieth time, it becomes boring and repetative, is all. <----OPINION, for those who can't tell without handy notes [Wink]

I just want to smoth things over, assure everyone that I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings and move on to something remotely enjoyable.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Sorry it's been such a rough discussion for you Olivet. Honestly this is a part of hatrack I've missed terribly-- where people can go back and forth with respect and courtesy, even when emotions are riled and points are contentious. Threads like this and Enochville's are a part of Hatrack at it's best, for me.

Just to offer another point of view [Smile] .
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Olivet, thank you for the explanation and the apology. I can now see your posts in a light other than the one I was seeing them in before. I'm sorry I misintepreted it.

A little more on prosecution against victim wishes, offered merely as information:

Date rape will seldom be prosecuted without the victim's willing participation. Sometimes victim's are subpoened against their will and still respond, even though almost no prosecutor would seek to sanctions if they refused. I would not consider that consent, but it does involve cooperation.

The only other scenarios I can think of are far-fetched but certainly possible. For example, the victim reports the crime, refuses to testify, but the defendant has confessed (probably as a form of bragging) either in front of multiple reliable witnesses or on tape. As of now, the victim's excited utterences to policy might get in (this may change very soon in a soon-to-be decided SCOTUS case). Or, an accomplice could plead guilty out of remorse and testify against the defendant. That would be very believable testimony.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Jim- me I agree that both these threads have been good, but this one has gotten a bit hamster-wheelish for me.

I think it's because I sympathize with and understand all sides. In trying to help explain one side to the other I came off harsh without meaning to. My bad, yes. Maybe the last 20 post have been all about explaining the last few before that, and it's wearing to try to re-explain what you meant. Over and over. Because you were suffering from insomnia when you wrote them in the first place.

I was actually arguing from a point of trying to explain how I understood the opposing side, while agreeing that, you know, killing people is a bad thing. But that didn't come across, and offended a 'racker I truly, deeply respect (maybe more than one...) because I was careless. [Frown] Kinda took the fun out of it for me.

The only thing really important to me about the rape issue is that victims realize they have the power to make their own decisions. Rape is a loss of power over your body, but victims still have choices. Kill the mofo and go to jail, work with prosecutors to see justice done, go to France and raise roses... whatever.

Edit : Dag: I am so relieved! I was sleep deprived an fully thinking I was being clear when I was actually being terse and sounding nasty. [Frown]

I think I had heard of most of those scenarios. I also have heard that some places now arrest men for spousal abuse even if the spouse doesn't testify, if the cops and neighbors saw/heard enough. I think that's cool, because witness intimidation is a big part of domestic abuse crimes.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I also have heard that some places now arrest men for spousal abuse even if the spouse doesn't testify, if the cops and neighbors saw/heard enough. I think that's cool, because witness intimidation is a big part of domestic abuse crimes.
All the convictions I've won at trial (OK, only three [Smile] ) for domestic assault and battery have been without victim testimony, and one was with the victim testifying for the defendant.

There's an unfortunate trend in some prosecutors officers to charge women who recant (not just refuse to testify) with filing a false police report, something I can understand but find to be ultimately counterproductive.

I don't have a problem with the idea that prosecutors can compel victims to testify - prosecutors represent more than the victim - but the power must be exercised extremely carefully.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:
The only thing really important to me about the rape issue is that victims realize they have the power to make their own decisions. Rape is a loss of power over your body, but victims still have choices. Kill the mofo and go to jail, work with prosecutors to see justice done, go to France and raise roses... whatever.

Me too, which is why I answered Jeniwren and Orincoro the way I did [Smile] .

As for the "offense" done, I wouldn't worry so much. We Jatraqueros are really much tougher than even we let ourselves think. [Smile]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2