quote:It's not. And if Bob had done that, clearly it would have been better. But in the moral intent category, it doesn't seem like a bad moral choice to not check your date's coherency if it doesn't occur to you as a possibility that your date is past the point of coherency.
I understand this. The problem is, thinking your intentions are good is not always a guarantee that they are. Few if any are, after all, ill-intended in their own eyes. If we judged intent by the standards of the individuals who hold them, no one would ever be considered malicious or selfish or bigoted or anything else.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a reasonable mistake because Bob was drunk and not in control of his faculties.
No, he's explicitly said it's a reasonable mistake because:
quote:when Bob then took of Olivia's clothing and then took off his own and she didn't say anything, that sure seemed like consent to him. When she moaned and her arm brushed his back, it sure seemed like consent to him.
quote:The problem is, thinking your intentions are good is not always a guarantee that they are. Few if any are, after all, ill-intended in their own eyes. If we judged intent by the standards of the individuals who hold them, no one would ever be considered malicious or selfish or bigoted or anything else.
I don't see how self-perception can be divorced from intent. If you intended no harm, you intended no harm. Now if you're saying that intent is hardly the only thing that matters, I totally agree.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, he's explicitly said it's a reasonable mistake because:
Yes, I get that. The problem is, the only reason those things are reasonable is because he's drunk. It amounts to the same thing. Bob misinterpreted her signals because he was drunk-therefore under the worldview I'm addressing, it was a reasonable mistake to make because he was drunk.
quote:I don't see how self-perception can be divorced from intent. If you intended no harm, you intended no harm. Now if you're saying that intent is hardly the only thing that matters, I totally agree.
In this scenario, intent is apparently the only thing that matters. Bob didn't intend to do harm, therefore he shouldn't be treated as though he harmed her.
As for how it can be done, it's done all the time: a racist somewhere thinks that it's just better for everyone that his particular race gets hired for a job he's got control over. He doesn't realize he's a racist, he just thinks that's the way the world is. He thinks his intentions are good. Society has no trouble saying to him, "You're wrong, your intentions aren't good." I'm not likening Bob to a racist, just pointing out how very easy it is and how often it's done to reject the 'intent is the primary thing'.
Or, hell, to put it back into sexual terms, a grown man who has sex with a 14 year old because he loves her. His intentions are good. He doens't think he's a bad guy. She even consents, insofar as a 14yr old can consent to that. Society has no problem saying, "Uhhh...no. We don't care what you thought, your intentions were actually bad, you just didn't realize it."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: In this scenario, intent is apparently the only thing that matters. Bob didn't intend to do harm, therefore he shouldn't be treated as though he harmed her.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: B. That Bob only warrants a lessor offense.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Bob should have to deal with repercussions
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ...Now, here's what I think should happen to Bob: he should be charged with the misdemeanor crime "Sexual Misconduct"...
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ...and I think that Bob even well meaning, should suffer legal consequences...
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: For this Bob has done something wrong
I stopped after three pages back.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...a grown man who has sex with a 14 year old because he loves her. His intentions are good. He doens't think he's a bad guy. She even consents, insofar as a 14yr old can consent to that. Society has no problem saying, "Uhhh...no. We don't care what you thought, your intentions were actually bad, you just didn't realize it."
If his intent was selfish gratification and he treated her poorly/forcibly, he would be charged with a more severe crime. Because his intent was "good" in his own mind, he is only charged with statutory rape.
I simply do not know how you can refute the point that intent is taken into consideration when authorities decide which crime to charge people with. It is a fact.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I know. All of those lines you quoted, though? Mixed signals. If we were treating Bob like he harmed her, well, we'd be calling it rape-because that's what rape is to you. Not when someone has sex with another person without their consent, but only when someone intends to have sex with another person without their consent.
Instead we're treating Bob like he didn't mean to harm her but just accidentally did, through no fault of his own. No real fault anyway. He was drunk, so we can't expect him to have known better. I can say that's what you're saying because if he wasn't drunk, you'd be treating him very differently.
Put another way, it's not that you stopped after three pages back, it's that you've consistently failed to address the contradictions here. For example at this point I have very little hope you'll ever address the point I've brought up repeatedly that it's really not very hard to expect men to behave differently, referencing expectations about birth control and condoms. Once upon a time that wasn't 'how things are done', but then we changed our collective minds about that and now it is.
quote:If his intent was selfish gratification and he treated her poorly/forcibly, he would be charged with a more severe crime. Because his intent was "good" in his own mind, he is only charged with statutory rape.
I simply do not know how you can refute the point that intent is taken into consideration when authorities decide which crime to charge people with. It is a fact.
His intent wasn't 'selfish gratification', it was 'to have sex with a 14 year old.' That is the intent that matters, insofar as intent matters at all. He loves her, his intentions aren't going to be 'selfish gratification'. (Man, who would ever intend that? That's the kind of judgment we make about other people's intentions, not about our own, or at least not very often at all.)
quote:I simply do not know how you can refute the point that intent is taken into consideration when authorities decide which crime to charge people with. It is a fact.
I've said repeatedly I don't refuse the point that intent is taken into account. I'm rejecting the notion that it is of decisive importance. In the statutory rape case, it doesn't matter if he didn't intend to hurt her and his intentions were good. He had sex with a 14 yr old and was a grown man himself. He didn't accidentally have sex with her, so there you go. Statutory rape.
It should be likewise with 'unwelcome sex'. Did Bob intend to have sex with her without being reasonably sure she consented? No, you'll say-he was drunk, and misinterpreted things. But drunkenness that's not an excuse for other things. In this scenario, you're saying Bob couldn't have known any better because he was drunk, and that he didn't know any better should be taken into account.
So. If a drunk driver hits someone, why can't they say, "I didn't mean to! I didn't realize my judgment and reflexes were impaired that badly!" If Bob has sex with someone else and gives or catches a disease, why can't he say, "This isn't my fault, I couldn't have known! I was drunk!" Etc. etc.
Much like your earlier insistence that this isn't rape because rape is violent or over forcible drugging, and then using that definition to say why it isn't rape, there's a disconnect here. You're saying Bob's intentions were good-because he was drunk, and we can't expect him to know any better because to misinterpret things while drunk is just part of the scheme of things.
But...we can expect her, apparently, to plan ahead for Bob's inaccurate reading of intent.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He was drunk, so we can't expect him to have known better. I can say that's what you're saying because if he wasn't drunk, you'd be treating him very differently.
If they were both not drunk, and they had been making out and then heavy petting, and Bob went to take off both their clothing and Olivia didn't want to have sex, she would have said so. The drinking isn't a mitigating factor, it is what made this scenario possible, I've explained this to you many times, and this will be the last.
quote:...I have very little hope you'll ever address the point I've brought up repeatedly that it's really not very hard to expect men to behave differently, referencing expectations about birth control and condoms.
I have addressed this multiple times. He gets no pass, the consequences are his just as they would be for STDs or pregnancy, this is the last time I'll address this.
quote:That's the kind of judgment we make about other people's intentions, not about our own, or at least not very often at all.
While I find you annoying, self righteous and often borderline dishonest in your approach, you are basically a good person as far as I can tell. How is it possible for, say, a serial rapist, who drugs, kidnaps, and tortures his victims to feel his own intentions are pure? I too am a basically good person, and I think we will never understand what motivates evil people. There very well may be a thin veneer of self delusion on top which lets these evil people live on a day to day basis, but maybe there isn't and they just enjoy hurting others.
quote:I've said repeatedly I don't refuse the point that intent is taken into account. I'm rejecting the notion that it is of decisive importance.
So, in the Bob case, despite Bob's intent, despite the fact that you agree he shouldn't be prosecuted for the felony charge of rape, you think it was a rape and he is a rapist. What criteria are you basing this on?
quote:In this scenario, you're saying Bob couldn't have known any better because he was drunk, and that he didn't know any better should be taken into account.
No, I've flat out said MANY TIMES that getting explicit verbal consent when your judgment is questionable is better better way better, and since he didn't there are consequences he must face. About this there is no disagreement as far as I can tell. Even to the extent which those consequences should punish Bob you agreed. Only the fact that I don't think the word "rape" should be applied do we disagree.
quote:In this scenario, you're saying Bob couldn't have known any better because he was drunk, and that he didn't know any better should be taken into account.
This is the point I can't seem to get you to understand. It is not because he is drunk that it is taken into account. It is because communication can and will break down, and his was an honest, if preventable mistake, and his was not the only one which lead to this scenario being possible.
quote:You're saying Bob's intentions were good-because he was drunk, and we can't expect him to know any better because to misinterpret things while drunk is just part of the scheme of things.
No. I am not saying that. And if you keep insisting that that's my message I'm gunna get angry and call you names and throw poop at your house and deflate your tires!
posted
SW, all of your scenarios places the responsibility on the woman to opt out. Sex is a go unless she plans ahead to declare it isn't.
I've actually had to do that several times. I resent it greatly, because I consider a first or second date to be ruined beyond words if I have to explain that there is no scenario where we will be swapping body fluids. Why on EARTH is it necessary for me to have that conversation? The presumption! I HATE that apparently many men expect sex unless the woman opts out. I hate even more that some men hear someone opting out and think the woman is being "coy" or take it as a challenge. If you asked them, no doubt they consider themselves quite studly for pushing after getting repeated "No"s. I can tell you that getting groped by a stranger immediately after explaining sex isn't happening is absolutely repulsive. Getting insulted after I push him away is even worse. But it has happened, several times. What is wrong with people?
Hearing the hyothetical situation described as a no-fault incident makes me want to throw up. How hard is it to whisper "Are you sure?" and wait for a "Yes?" And if she is so drunk she can't form words to say "Yes", then the default is "No." If you have sex without it, then it is rape. If that ugly word makes you recoil, it's because it is an ugly, harmful act and it should.
This isn't difficult, and it isn't even a mood killer.
What is worse is the comment earlier where if a woman is so drunk she doesn't stop sex even after expressing an earlier desire to not have it, the guy didn't do anything wrong and actually did her a favor because he thinks her reasons for not wanting it were stupid. That's a crime, and not in a metaphorical way.
Based on those experiences, I suspect that only reason I have never been date raped is because I don't drink.
Placing the onus women not to drink because they might be raped is equivelent to saying that women should know that most of the men they'll meet would rape them if they had the chance. That's crappy towards both genders - unfair to women, by far, and disparaging to men who DON'T think the world is their orifice by default.
quote:This is the point I can't seem to get you to understand. It is not because he is drunk that it is taken into account. It is because communication can and will break down, and his was an honest, if preventable mistake, and his was not the only one which lead to this scenario being possible.
Well, alright. Since you're just digging in and not responding directly (for example, the STD/pregnancy not being Bob's fault while drunk-you claim to have addressed that, but I'd love to see just when). Case in point: here's what led to the the scenario being possible.
Bob being drunk, and Bob not getting consent from his intoxicated partner. You are, quite literally, blaming the victim at least in part. You're expecting of women, "Don't get involved with someone who'll take advantage of you!" as though they wear signs or something. Why isn't the expectation instead made of men, "Don't take advantage!" Because...well, apparently just because that's the way things are.
And as for borderline dishonest...well. I think you're probably a nice guy, but you don't reconsider opinions very easily at all. Like in this point, you used a link to the definition of rape and even though that definition contradicts you, you still say, "Well we shouldn't call it rape, because that's not what rape is." How's that for borderline dishonest? But no, I suspect that you'll claim to have addressed that as well and that 'this is the last time'. I wish there'd been a good first time.
As for self-righteous, please note that in this thread you're the one that's already exploded and gotten really angry, repeatedly. Spoken about how furious rape makes you, etc. Insisted on being apologized to, etc. *shrug* But yeah, as you say.
quote:I have addressed this multiple times. He gets no pass, the consequences are his just as they would be for STDs or pregnancy, this is the last time I'll address this.
You've said repeatedly the consequences are 'theirs'. That they both did things that led up to it. That women need to share the responsibility for changing the message. So on and so forth. You're just all over the dang place.
quote:How is it possible for, say, a serial rapist, who drugs, kidnaps, and tortures his victims to feel his own intentions are pure?
That's simple. He might think that women in general aren't people. He might feel that his particular victim has wronged him in some way and deserves it. He might feel his victim actually wants that sort of treatment. Who knows? The point is, to himself, he's probably not an evil scumbag villain. That's a judgment society makes of him. We do it all the time. Your suggestions that intent should be paramount in this scenario are ridiculous. Society disregards intent as far as exoneration from worse things all the time. We just need to decide that this is another one of those areas.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, if Bob had been sober and Olivia was drunk to the point of not being able to speak as in your scenario, would this change anything in your mind?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then you are excusing Bob because he was drunk.
If Bob has a propensity to rape women (have sex without their consent), then he shouldn't drink. He should plan ahead to make sure he doesn't commit a crime.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets change this up, maybe get on the same page.
Sam and Sue are on a date, they are having a good time. They go back to Sam's house and make out. Sam whispers in Sue's ear, "Can I make love to you?" She says yes, and rips off his cloths.
Halfway through coitus Sue has a stroke, and disparately wants Sam to stop, but is incapable of communicating it. Sam continues to have sex with her for fifteen minutes completely unaware that anything is wrong, but when he discovers it immediately calls 911.
How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?
AND
If it's rape when he's sober, then saying it isn't rape because drunk makes being drunk an excuse for comitting a crime. Why do you say that?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?
It would change things quite a bit, at least for me. Bob would be having some pretty unfair ideas about the roles of the genders, but if she's fully awake and aware I don't think it's unreasonable - legally speaking, anyway - for Bob to have made the assumption that if she wanted him to stop she would ask him.
Bob still should've asked, though. And I think the attitude in that scenario - go as far as you can until actively stopped - is deeply problematic and many times more than a little sleazy.
quote:Sam and Sue are on a date, they are having a good time. They go back to Sam's house and make out. Sam whispers in Sue's ear, "Can I make love to you?" She says yes, and rips off his cloths.
Halfway through coitus Sue has a stroke, and disparately wants Sam to stop, but is incapable of communicating it. Sam continues to have sex with her for fifteen minutes completely unaware that anything is wrong, but when he discovers it immediately calls 911.
This is a radically different scenario. For one thing, Sam has, y'know, a sober partner who actively, verbally consents. So let's just get on board with that right away: this is drastically different. It's also pretty silly scenario, one crafted specifically to make your point and not so much to reflect likely real-world scenarios.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Lets change this up, maybe get on the same page.
Sam and Sue are on a date, they are having a good time. They go back to Sam's house and make out. Sam whispers in Sue's ear, "Can I make love to you?" She says yes, and rips off his cloths.
Halfway through coitus Sue has a stroke, and disparately wants Sam to stop, but is incapable of communicating it. Sam continues to have sex with her for fifteen minutes completely unaware that anything is wrong, but when he discovers it immediately calls 911.
Is it rape?
I don't see the disparity in wanting Sam to stop.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an absurd scenario. It exists almost to never, and it is designed specifically to elicit an answer that will be used to excuse Bob. It is nothing like the original, because verbal consent was given.
It does make me think poorly of Sam as a lover, because he doesn't notice for fifteen minutes that she had a stroke?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder, if a stone sober woman took a sloppy drunk guy back to her place and sexed him up, would it be considered rape?
If you reversed the genders in the above statement, would it be rape?
Yes. No doubt.
quote:I don't see the disparity in wanting Sam to stop.
Do you see the difference is wanting to stop what you've already said yes to and wanting to stop something you never agreed to in the first place?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder, if a stone sober woman took a sloppy drunk guy back to her place and sexed him up, would it be considered rape?
Well...yes. I mean, that's easy. Is that a serious question? Now it's quite possible that, after the fact, the drunken guy will be happy about what happened. Doesn't impact at all the 'sex without consent' part. If you're relying on consent ex post facto, well, you might just be accused of rape. That's one of the hazards of assumptions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:...one crafted specifically to make your point and not so much to reflect likely real-world scenarios.
You guys can't get passed the point that Bob's drunkenness was a factor, but won't hold Olivia's drunkenness as anything but more reason that Bob needs to be held even more accountable.
The Sam Scenario isn't me proving a point, it's a thought exercise for discussion. Exactly what point am I trying to prove?
Here is a scenario which consent has been given, but in which consent is wished to be removed, but unable to do so. Similar to Bob, but not the same.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Answer the question, SW.
How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?
Would you mind answering that question as well, Kat? I actually meaning to ask you.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You guys can't get passed the point that Bob's drunkenness was a factor, but won't hold Olivia's drunkenness as anything but more reason that Bob needs to be held even more accountable.
Well, yes. Again because to say her intoxication was a factor relies on it being her responsibility to opt-out of sex for one. Bob is justified in going as far as he can go without being stopped, in your scenario-because he was drunk. It wouldn't be a valid assumption to make while sober, but it is while drunk.
As for Bob being held more accountable, you've said yourself that Bob would be held more accountable if he were sober. But he's not because he's drunk. But...being drunk isn't an excuse for other things, even other sex-related things! So we again come back to the point you've failed to answer: why is intoxication an excuse to not get full consent, but it's not an excuse when you run someone over with a car?
quote:The Sam Scenario isn't me proving a point, it's a thought exercise for discussion. Exactly what point am I trying to prove?
It's a thought exercise designed to prove a point. Or are you going to claim you just happened upon that very elaborate, specific, unlikely chain of events just because it was interesting?
quote:Here is a scenario which consent has been given, but in which consent is wished to be removed, but unable to do so. Similar to Bob, but not the same.
It's not similar. She couldn't give consent in the previous scenario. That is the decisive factor in the other scenario.
The answer is, it varies. It might be an amalgam of eye contact, tone of voice, body language, etc. You might be right about when you've got nonverbal consent. You might not. That's, y'know, one of the costs of assumptions: you might be wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I wonder, if a stone sober woman took a sloppy drunk guy back to her place and sexed him up, would it be considered rape?
If you reversed the genders in the above statement, would it be rape?
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Answer the question, SW.
First off, if you would be so kind as to not give me orders, I would greatly appreciate it. Adding a "please" to the first part makes it a courteous request and not a command.
quote:How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?
It would not be rape, I think it would not be "Sexual Misconduct" either. As much as you guys would like the "opt out" system to not be the current norm, it is.
quote:If it's rape when he's sober, then saying it isn't rape because drunk makes being drunk an excuse for committing a crime. Why do you say that?
I think that them both being drunk, and the miscommunication and misconceptions which made the Bob scenario possible make it not rape, but instead a very unfortunate misunderstanding which requires legal ramifications because the law must protect people and give weight of consequences.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't posted on this topic because the way I lost my virginity was actually oddly close to one of these ridiculous hypotheticals. And because I have been wrongfully accused of rape. So let me share my stories.
An Internet acquaintance of mine who lived in Hawaii visited her aunt (who lived just a few miles away from my house) just a couple weeks after my first fiancee left me. (Note: I had turned eighteen three months earlier.) We decided to meet for coffee and a matinee, and there were instant sparks; Amanda was incredibly lovely, and I can only assume that she had terrible taste in men.
Anyway, she came back to my place for dinner, which turned into an evening walk on the beach and a late-night make-out session in front of a small fire, and....Well, she asked if she could stay the night, and I said sure -- with a couple caveats. I told her I was okay with everything up to third base, but I'd been able to retain a certain amount of technical virginity up to that point (and didn't even own any condoms, and was naive enough at that point in my life that I hadn't even considered buying some) and wanted to try to hang onto it. She said she was cool with that, and we headed inside to fall asleep.
I woke up just before dawn; she was, to put it bluntly, riding me. I was stunned, but it felt very, very nice and I -- after subtly verifying that I was in fact wearing a condom, something that mystified me a bit -- just let it go. Later, I asked her about it; she said that she woke up horny and took the happy little moans I made when she put the condom on as an indication that I'd probably be okay with waking up to sex. And while I was a bit shaken, I conceded that it had been good. We got up, made breakfast, and had sex a few more times over the next three days of her visit (although she stayed with her aunt for the remainder of the trip). We both agreed that given our youth and the relative distance, a real relationship wouldn't work, so I've never seen her since; in fact, she married somebody about twelve years ago, and I haven't heard from her in eight.
But was I raped? Broadly, the answer is yes. I told her I didn't want sex, laid down the ground rules for her stay, etc. And although she was (surprisingly) thoughtful enough to put some protection on me, what if she hadn't? Does the fact that I conceded to sexual contact once it began constitute approval in the first place? Obviously, I'm conflicted. It falls right into a grey area, I suspect. I would not have chosen to lose my virginity in that way, but on the other hand do not feel that I was personally harmed; still, I should have been the person to make that decision.
Just a month or so later, I was dating a girl at my college who went psychotic after the second week; she told everyone I'd raped her, tried to arrange to have me fired as a Res Life employee, and demanded that I marry her. This whole episode was absurd; we hadn't done more than kissing and a little light fondling by that point, and she was as far as I knew a virgin herself. I came this close to actually being expelled from school on the strength of her assertion alone, and did lose my job; it wasn't until I threatened to countersue that she retracted her claim, but the college never reversed any of its early findings even though she fully recanted her story.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Brian and Barbra are at Brian's house after a date and are making out and heavy petting. Barbra has a stroke in the middle of petting. Brian thinks her twitching and groaning is encouragement and has sex with her. Only later to find out that she was incapable of consent and in need of medical help, and dials 911 as soon as he understands.
This is more close to Bob - alcohol.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How for goodness sake does someone not realize that their partner has had a stroke? Are there really men out there who pay so little attention to their partners.
Geez, maybe I have been really, really, lucky but I am sure that no one I have ever had sex with has been so oblivious.
Yes, Stone_Wolf, Brian has a duty to find out if Barbara is capable of consent. If she isn't, she is being raped.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, thanks for sharing, I doubt that was easy.
Rakeesh, so, you are saying that if you do not have explicit verbal consent, you are risking raping someone, but that it's okay and a normal thing to do?
Boots, there is a lot of grunting and thrashing around possible with both strokes and sex.
I think it is just obvious to all present that we disagree about the use of the word "rape" although, not too much other stuff.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?
It depends on whether she felt threatened. I can say that when the creepy jackass tried groping me on our first (last) date after I had explained that I didn't want to be alone or physically intimate with him, we were in a STARBUCKS by the WINDOW and I still felt afraid for myself - justified because he got mean when I pulled away.
That, however, is definitely a grayer area. Any "no", though - any pulling back, pushing away, whispered no, whatever, and he still proceeds - guys can be scary - it's definitely rape.
quote:I think it is just obvious to all present that we disagree about the use of the word "rape" although, not too much other stuff.
Why do you not agree with the use of the word "rape"? It seems like it is because rape is something bad guys do, and you don't Bob to be a bad guy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh Kat, we've been talking about this for days and pages. We've boiled down our differences and explored theoretical concepts which push credible reality and through out all this we have been unable to communicate with each other this one thing clearly. I don't know if I have it in me to start all over again.
How about this: killing doesn't always equal murder, legally or ethically. I think that not all sex which has not been explicitly consented to are rape. I think that somethings should mean only one thing, just as murder only means killing with intent, so should rape mean unwelcome sex with intent.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then we don't agree on what rape is, which I wonder if it is a gender difference. Sex something that is done "to" women a great deal more often than it is done to men (though it sometimes is, per Tom's story). If I were raped by someone I trusted who took advantage of my inability to say no, the hurt done to me happens regardless of whether or not he considers himself a bad guy.
---
For the comparison to murder, death can happen a lot of ways that don't involve pulling a trigger on a gun you know is loaded that is pointed at someone's head. That's why there are more shades.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
A man with a gun takes a male and a female prisoner and threatens to kill them both if they do not have sex. Clearly both are being raped, but would the male be raping the female, the female raping the male, or the man with the gun raping them both?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the point of this? It seems like you're trying to find any excuse to avoid Bob having comitted rape. How does that relate?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you not agree with the use of the word "rape"?
*raises hand*
I'm not Wolf, but to me, the word is similar to "murder" -- it implies a certain amount of intent. Even if the legal definition of murder were changed to include manslaughter or accidental death, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable using the unalloyed word to describe those situations. If somebody in describing a manslaughter said "Clearly, we all agree that this is murder", I would likely not be in agreement unless qualifiers like "legal" were included.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were raped by someone I trusted who took advantage of my inability to say no, the hurt done to me happens regardless of whether or not he considers himself a bad guy.
Do you imagine that there would be any difference in the harm done if he did it purposely and maliciously?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: mph, how do you feel about "statutory rape"?
Heh. That sounds like a loaded question.
Despite the technical meaning of the words, I don't think I've ever heard that phrase used exept to describe having sex with somebody that is too young.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the point of this? It seems like you're trying to find any excuse to avoid Bob having comitted rape. How does that relate?
It doesn't relate to Bob at all. It's just more thought exercises about rape for discussion.
The idea that someone mentioned earlier about two fifteen year olds who willingly have sex with each other, "raping" each other I find ridiculous. How far can this "sex with out consent = rape" idea be pushed?
I'm with you mph.
quote:For the comparison to murder, death can happen a lot of ways that don't involve pulling a trigger on a gun you know is loaded that is pointed at someone's head. That's why there are more shades.
Think of "death" for murder as "sex" is for rape.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were raped by someone I trusted who took advantage of my inability to say no, the hurt done to me happens regardless of whether or not he considers himself a bad guy.
Do you imagine that there would be any difference in the harm done if he did it purposely and maliciously?
Those are two separate things. It would certainly be done purposefully - very little to no sex is accidental. Anyone who knows me at all would have to imagine I'm the world's biggest liar to think that it was secretly welcome.
The hurt would be different if it were malicious, but not less. If it was someone I knew and trusted and it was done maliciously, he'd have to be a psychopath, faking everything to get me in a position where I was vulnerable, or else so unbelievably twisted in his psyche that he acted out of revenge for an imagined hurt.
But short of being a pyschopath, it would mean that someone I trusted turned out to have so little respect for me and felt so entitled that he'd hurt me like that. That is the kind of hurt that would make all men a little suspect and untrustworthy, because anyone could turn out to be a rapist, which is a tragedy in and of itself.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh, semantics arguments. The problem is that when a person is dead because of someone else's actions, they have been killed. They may have also been murdered but even if they haven't the person has been killed. The person who did it may or may not be a murderer but they are a killer, because that's what they've done- killed someone. Someone is dead, they have been killed.
If a person has intercourse with another person who has not consented, they have been raped. Even if the rapist didn't know the victim couldn't consent the victim has still been raped- not surprise sexed, or any other awkward and inaccurate term. Therefore, if a victim has been raped, the person who did it has committed rape and is a rapist. You can't say its the wrong word to use just because it makes you uncomfortable, its the legal term for any sort of unconsenting intercourse.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
