quote: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.
I don't think you are correct, especially legally speaking, but perhaps you can provide some evidence to back up your statement?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:its the legal term for any sort of unconsenting intercourse.
The problem is that we're not only talking about it in a legal sense. "Being a rapist" is not a legal term.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rape Definition - Transitive Verb [Latin rapere to seize and take away by force] : to commit rape on
Definition - Noun : unlawful sexual activity and usu. sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usu. of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception see also statutory rape The common-law crime of rape involved a man having carnal knowledge of a woman not his wife through force and against her will, and required at least slight penetration of the penis into the vagina. While some states maintain essentially this definition of rape, most have broadened its scope esp. in terms of the sex of the persons and the nature of the acts involved. Marital status is usu. irrelevant. Moreover, the crime is codified under various names, including first degree sexual assault sexual battery unlawful sexual intercourse, and first degree sexual abuse.
But that's not even really the point and I'm actually not interested in combing the internet for citations. That's how the word rape is conjugated. Even if a state refers to it as "first degree sexual assault" if a person was penetrated it's rape and the person who did it committed rape. What would you guys call someone who did this instead? The victim has undeniably BEEN raped, regardless of the intentions of the other party, so how is he/she not a rapist?
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The victim has undeniably BEEN raped, regardless of the intentions of the other party
There's the rub -- depending on the circumstances, it's neither obvious nor undeniable.
My point is that in SW's example, Bob's intoxication is irrelevant. The woman in this case has been raped. She did not consent to intercourse, did not want his penis in her vagina, it happened anyway, she has been raped. Bob's intoxication, or intentions or feelings or anything don't make her any less raped. A drunk driver's intentions don't make someone any less dead. She has been raped.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Repeating over and over that my perception of the word is wrong isn't going to cause me to change it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A drunk driver's intentions don't make someone any less dead.
It does (make a difference), if the drunk is trying to kill someone vs accidentally killing people, both legally and morally. In both cases, someone ends up dead, but only in one is someone murdered.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A drunk driver's intentions don't make someone any less dead.
It does, if the drunk is trying to kill someone vs accidentally killing people, both legally and morally. In both cases, someone ends up dead, but only in one is someone murdered.
I didn't say murdered though, I said killed, dead. They ARE still dead.
MPH, Stone Wolf, please tell me how the woman in this example does not fit the definition of rape? She she did not consent to intercourse, did not WANT intercourse but it happened anyway. How is that not rape? What is the proper term for it?
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wanting to water down the word seems like minimizing or lessening the hurt done to the woman who did not consent to sex and was forced to have it anyway.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but dead is a neutral word, where rape is not, like murder.
quote:please tell me how the woman in this example does not fit the definition of rape? She she did not consent to intercourse, did not WANT intercourse but it happened anyway. How is that not rape? What is the proper term for it?
I can't speak for MPH, but for me, a big part of it hinges on Bob's intent. He mistakenly thought he had consent. Most of the time that isn't the end of it, as the other person can make their wants known. In this case she could not, and Bob mistook her groaning and arm movement for enthusiastic participation. I don't doubt that Olivia felt raped. And again, for me, there is no question that something went down that is not kosher. Here's what I said previously:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There is no previous act which in my book counts as prior consent (other then maybe saying "When we get back to my place, let's have sex." and even that could be revoked instantly).
That being said, I think it legitimate in most cases that couples have sex without overt, verbal consent. In cases where judgment is impaired, such as alcohol and drugs are involved, it is a very very good idea to get explicit verbal consent.
Now, here's what I think should happen to Bob: he should be charged with the misdemeanor crime "Sexual Misconduct" which carries with it a suspended sentence of ten years and a non-suspended sentence of 100 hours of community service and having to pay for 100 hours of therapy for the victim, Olivia.
The suspended ten years stay suspended over his head for the next ten years and if during that time he has zero sex related charges to which he is found guilty, are removed. If he is found guilty of any sexual related charges during those ten years, those suspended ten years are added to his other sentence, as well as any further sexually related charges become felonies if they were not before.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Wanting to water down the word seems like minimizing or lessening the hurt done to the woman who did not consent to sex and was forced to have it anyway.
Is it possible that the victim of violent rape by a stranger would find that using the same word to describe what happened to Olivia is "watering down the word" when compared to what they went through?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I HATE that apparently many men expect sex unless the woman opts out.
There is a wide, wide variance of when various sexual activities are considered permissible or expected. Given this, I don't really have an issue with the more agressive party subtly signaling what they want to happen and interpreting a non-negative response as consent. Personally, I am not bothered by making my boundaries clear if I get signals that I think my partner might cross them. Although if a person was extremely chaste, I could see how obnoxious (although not harmful) this system could be.
quote:I hate even more that some men hear someone opting out and think the woman is being "coy" or take it as a challenge.
This sounds heinous. I have never encountered that and I'm sure that shapes our different perspectives of men. Experiences like Tom's and yours remind me that there are lots of people in the world who are not respectful and that is something we need to change.
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?
I 100% agree with Kat's answer.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is that not rape? What is the proper term for it?
You're seeing semantic arguments because you're asking semantic questions.
It all comes down to "what does the word rape mean"? You talk about "the" definition of rape, but it has different definitions in different people's lexicons.
As I've said before, I'm not entirely comfortable using the word rape (unmodified by by terms such as 'statutory' or 'legal') to describe any and all unwanted intercourse, just like I'd be uncomfortable using murder or killing to describe any and all traumatic death caused by the actions of another person. To me, all three words involve a certain degree of volition.
I haven't objected to anybody using the term that way, because I know it's very common. And I don't have a better term, except for including qualifiers such as the ones I mentioned above.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: If a person has intercourse with another person who has not consented, they have been raped.
Consider the following statements:
1. Does not consent 2. Unable to give consent 3. Has not expressly given consent
These are all very similar statements, yet they are subtly different. I would consider the first statement to always involve rape. The second would as well, except with certain exceptions, like minors that are technically unable to give consent in certain situations.. The third statement would only be rape if sex is unwanted, which isn't always the case.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given this, I don't really have an issue with the more agressive party subtly signaling what they want to happen and interpreting a non-negative response as consent.
Depending on how subtle the signal, it may not even be interpreted as an invitation to sex.
For instance, one of the guys who took my emphatic opting out as me being "coy" asked me if I was a romantic. To me, that is asking if I am more Elinor or more Marianne (from Sense and Sensibility). Am I more inclined to flights of fancy and need moonlight and poetry, or am I more practical about love? Well, I'm more practical than Marianne, although poetry and moonlight sure don't hurt. So I answered No, I'm not particularly romantic.
He took that as me saying that I don't need to be in a relationship or even formally dating someone in order to have sex with him. And this is AFTER I had said that I was 1) old-fashioned, and 2) interested only in conversation that evening. Apparently that wasn't clear enough, and I was forced to have both a sex and religion conversation on a FIRST DATE. Which he STILL didn't believe.
The guy was cool - that was why I had said I was only interested in conversation, because that conversation was awesome and we had serious chemistry and hit it off in several slightly obscure ways (Latin, Doctor Who). He wasn't after just conversation, though, and his opinion of me apparently went down, because he was cruel when he found out that I wasn't going to have sex with him and I didn't actually find him pinning me against a brick wall and reaching up my skirt to be a turn on.
If you're sending subtle signals, it had better be someone you know well enough to know they get the signals, because you don't know if those signals are getting across. You think you're asking if someone is up for a one night stand, and she's saying that Yes, dating with her eyes open is her style.
Thank heavens I wasn't drinking. Looks like if I were, some people here would be blaming me if I got raped. In fact, they wouldn't even call it rape. Because that's a BAD thing. And at least one guy in this thread thinks he would have been doing me a favor.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The general result is that I don't go on dates with non-members anymore. Not that I haven't had similar experiences with a few Mormons, but those been thankfully a much lower percentage. I hate that it has happened often enough I can actually talk about porportions. I'm sure someone would blame me for that - I'm friendly and open and a good conversationalist, who can blame a guy for taking that to mean I want their body parts in me? If I say otherwise, I must simply want to be chased and to "technically" make an effort at being chaste. But surely that doesn't apply to HIM, because he's awesome, and how cool would that be to be the guy who gets the Mormon girl to break her standards.
If it was once, I'd write him off as a sociopath. That it has happened, oh, at least six times means there is something wrong with the "norm." It isn't like I pick up guys down at the docks or answer "sexy time" personal ads. These are perfectly normal guys I meet at parties or even sometimes at church.
I would like to give a shout out to the gentlemen who DON'T see women as their personal sex toys. In addition to the entitled almost-rapists, there have also been several who were respectful, gentlemenly, and scrupulous about my morals to the point that I not only felt but was completely safe with them. I love and appreciate them for it.
posted
Kat, I'm very sorry that so many of your dates have been bastard/jerk/assbags. I sure hope this comment...
quote:And at least one guy in this thread thinks he would have been doing me a favor.
...wasn't aimed at me, although I don't know who it would be aimed at. If it is, then I'm very sorry our ability to communicate has broken down so much that you could possibly think that I believe that.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it wasn't at you. I don't remember who it was now, but someone on the first couple pages talked about some reasons for not wanting to have sex (religious, traditional) are stupid and breaking them for someone is a good thing.
The thing is about the horrible dates, I don't think any of them thought they were being jerks. Well, maybe a couple of the Mormons, who definitely knew better. But for the non-members who didn't have the same expectations for themselves, I think they genuinely didn't believe me when I said I didn't want it.
Why on earth? Did they not consider it possible for someone to enjoy their company and conversation and yet not want to strip naked with them? Do women actually protest and not mean it? Is it outlandish senses of entitlement (I've definitely heard the "No means yes; yes means..." phrase before)? Too much porn? WTH? One guy worked at the Pentagon in campaign strategy and another worked at the British embassy. They weren't fresh out of prison. There's a serious problem with the concept of consent when "No"s are so often ignored or blown off.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, I think she was referring to jebus. She is slightly misstating his position, but yeah, I believe he is the only person that suggested anything remotely close to what she was referring to.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Thank heavens I wasn't drinking. Looks like if I were, some people here would be blaming me if I got raped. In fact, they wouldn't even call it rape. Because that's a BAD thing. And at least one guy in this thread thinks he would have been doing me a favor.
I don't think this is at all a fair assessment of the past 8 pages of discussion.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I think (hope) that you have had exceedingly bad luck with getting so many cavemen, and that most women do not have to deal with as many a-holes as you have had to deal with.
Correct me if I'm wrong here ladies.
Considering this, I can see how it would tip your perspective to a more rigid definition of rape.
For us guys who would rather chop off their willy with a rusty tuna can lid then rape someone, the idea that you could rape someone because of a misunderstanding (that is, without intent) is very scary and therefore rejected.
We are seeing this issue from across the grand canyon divide of gender. You see the Bob scenario from Olivia's perspective, we see it from Bob's.
quote:Thank heavens I wasn't drinking. Looks like if I were, some people here would be blaming me if I got raped.
I know I for one do not believe that alcohol relieves all responsibility sexually. Bob's case is extreme, specifically stretched so we may evaluate our morals when at the fringe of possibility. Throughout this whole discussion I and others have always maintained that no means no, 100%, and that nonverbal nonexplicit consent (while the norm) can be a dangerous assumption, with very negative consequences.
If I may risk commenting on your personal life...don't give up on us men folk, we aren't all asshats.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think it is a fair assessment. People (here I do mean you, SW) have been bending over backwards to come up with another word for penetrating a woman without her consent who is not able to even speak that isn't "rape", because "rape" is an ugly word.
ETA: Edited to make it clear who the "I do" was directed towards.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kat, I think (hope) that you have had exceedingly bad luck with getting so many cavemen, and that most women do not have to deal with as many a-holes as you have had to deal with.
Correct me if I'm wrong here ladies.
Do you know the incidence of date rape? Do you imagine you're going to get an honest response to the question in a thread where people have already decried false accusations of rape and women have been told that they bear some of the responsiblity if they dare to drink in public around a man?
I'm saying it isn't that the men I've encountered have been especially bad. They weren't. They were normal. I'm saying that the normal sucks, and that needs to change.
I haven't given up on men. I have, however, given up on non-Mormon men, because it isn't worth it. It seems like men who don't have the same standards for themselves as I do for myself don't respect my own in enough of a percentage to make them worth the hassle and the fright. The Pentagon guy was a muscley soldier (he was the one who groped me in the Starbucks). That was SCARY.
Do you get what situation is created by not getting verbal consent? Expecting the woman to stop you if it goes too far = "Let me know when I'm raping you."
Not if, but when, unless the woman is up for any and everything. Relying on the woman to say when she's uncomfortable = the date is going to be uncomfortable for her. At least a little bit, and if "No" isn't what he wants to hear, possibly a lot, to the point of scary.
quote:I'm saying it isn't that the men I've encountered have been especially bad. They weren't. They were normal. I'm saying that the normal sucks, and that needs to change.
I strongly disagree with this. Of course I could be wrong, as I don't know even a very small percent of the populace, but I know that every single male I am friends/acquaintances with would never do anything like this (except maybe my brother in law, but he is an a-hole).
quote:Do you get what situation is created by not getting verbal consent? Expecting the woman to stop you if it goes too far = "Let me know when I'm raping you."
Only if they guy is moving too fast, which we don't all do. If the guy is perceptive and patient and appropriate, then it can be a natural and harmonic experience where you feel you belong and you are safe, and comfortable.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the guy is perceptive and patient and appropriate, then it can be a natural and harmonic experience where you feel you belong and you are safe, and comfortable.
Considering the soldier guy responded to my opting out with asking what makes me feel "romantic" -"Candles? Do you like candles?" - I'm pretty this is exactly what he thought he was. While part of me thought it was hysterically amusing to have someone brag about his sensitivity in an attempt to seduce someone who was sitting on the other side of the table with her arms crossed and a frown on her face, it wasn't funny enough to be worth it.
ETA: Because I remembered it was candles and not flowers. That's even sadly funnier, because at this point I'm imagining a stash for just such occasions.
To end the story, I said I needed to get home (it was barely 10:00.) and got up to leave. He wanted to walk me back to my car. I agreed, trying to make the smoothest getaway possible. I was so upset and flustered I forgot where I parked, and we ended up wandering around for 20 minutes trying to find. When I finally found it, he tried to stop me from getting in and pressed me up against the car again. This time we were completely alone in a dark parking garage. I had to slip away from him.
No doubt he thought it all went great and was just a prelude and I was shy. In fact, he called me pretty steady for the next few weeks. I never answered or called back, and he finally stopped. I'm usually not that rude and give a direct answer if I don't want to go out again, but I think 50 "No's" is enough for one guy, and he scared me. Thank heavens I drove myself and we met in public.
posted
All I'm asking for is to get verbal consent. It is much, much more comfortable to say "No" or "Not really" than it is to say "Please don't." or "Don't reach under my clothes.", or "No, I don't want that. Please stop."
The first is rejection. Apparently the second feels like an accusation on top of a rejection. Oh, for crying out loud. Just get verbal permission first. Someone can thoroughly enjoying kissing without wanting take her clothes off.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, honestly. Making sure you don't accidentally rape someone is really, really easy. Make sure your date is coherent. Ask and make sure she is capable of answering.
Really. It is not a lot to expect.
Kat's experience is not at all unusual.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots...you are talking to the wrong guy. I don't drink (never really did) and I don't date (never really did) and I don't sex up anyone but my wife (never really did) and certainly don't sex up people where there is even a chance of it being considered rape with or without explicit verbal consent (never really did).
I've never hooked up (or wanted to) with someone I didn't know, or just met, or had only gone on a couple dates with. I like to actually know (and like, or better) the people I have sex with.
So, please don't make this about me.
I'm really sorry to hear that that is what you both think of as common. I hope that it isn't true.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Kat's experiences are especially unusual. (I wish they were.) It's not a problem I encounter much, for a number of reasons, but it very much matches what I've heard from other female friends who want to date but weren't interested in sex until the relationship grew more serious and/or became a marriage. A lot of men, particularly outside of religious communities, seem to find this inconceivable and treat it as a challenge or a game. Having to explicitly "opt out" over and over again is exhausting.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: If a person has intercourse with another person who has not consented, they have been raped.
Consider the following statements:
1. Does not consent 2. Unable to give consent 3. Has not expressly given consent
These are all very similar statements, yet they are subtly different. I would consider the first statement to always involve rape. The second would as well, except with certain exceptions, like minors that are technically unable to give consent in certain situations.. The third statement would only be rape if sex is unwanted, which isn't always the case.
Relationships are complicated. People play all kinds of games and there are a myriad reasons why it might be unclear whether someone is actually consenting. Who is responsible for making sure there is consent? That's the question at the bottom line isn't it.
I guess what many of us are saying is that "you" are, when ever you are engaging in sex by free choice, its your responsibility to make sure the other party is truly consenting. Its your responsibility to make sure that when choose to have sex you do it people who are genuinely consenting. Its your responsibility to make sure that they are mature enough and sober enough and coherent enough and alert enough to make that decision. You are responsible for being certain that consent is really present.
Certainly the other person also has some responsibility to let you know what is acceptable and unacceptable, but that doesn't change the fact that you also have responsibility.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW, are you familiar with statistics on rape? They would lead most to conclude that, in fact, women *do* have to deal with...'a-holes'...(the term is actually 'rapists', even by the link you offered) quite a lot more than most people, particularly men, realize.
quote:I know I for one do not believe that alcohol relieves all responsibility sexually. Bob's case is extreme, specifically stretched so we may evaluate our morals when at the fringe of possibility. Throughout this whole discussion I and others have always maintained that no means no, 100%, and that nonverbal nonexplicit consent (while the norm) can be a dangerous assumption, with very negative consequences.
*shrug* You believe it absolves of a great deal of responsibility. What would be rape, even by your lights, is not because Bob is drunk. You don't like to be called on it, but that's in fact what you believe. You also believe that if she drinks too much, she bears some of the responsibility for the 'very negative consequences' if Bob is also drunk. .
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the percentage of bad actors varies with age. Kat, what age range of dudes have you had this problem with? Did you notice it less or more at an earlier age?
I suppose I'd expect that as the age range gets older, more of the chivalrous guys will have gotten married or coupled up, and the percentage of sleaze will commensurately increase.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All age ranges. The first was when I was 18, new on campus, and the guy was Mormon. (He's married now and has been for a while.) The latest - the Pentagon soldier and the British embassy guy - were both in 2010. The soldier was older than me, and the British guy quite a bit younger.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Boots...you are talking to the wrong guy. I don't drink (never really did) and I don't date (never really did) and I don't sex up anyone but my wife (never really did) and certainly don't sex up people where there is even a chance of it being considered rape with or without explicit verbal consent (never really did).
I've never hooked up (or wanted to) with someone I didn't know, or just met, or had only gone on a couple dates with. I like to actually know (and like, or better) the people I have sex with.
So, please don't make this about me.
I'm really sorry to hear that that is what you both think of as common. I hope that it isn't true.
I was responding to this.
quote: For us guys who would rather chop off their willy with a rusty tuna can lid then rape someone, the idea that you could rape someone because of a misunderstanding (that is, without intent) is very scary and therefore rejected.
No need to be scared. It is easy to avoid. If you don't want it to be about you, then all that Bob has to do is make sure his date is capable of speech.
quote: I'm really sorry to hear that that is what you both think of as common. I hope that it isn't true.
Please stop hoping that this isn't true and recognize that it is true. If women as different as kat and I are (different ages, experience, level of attractiveness, dating pool) find such experiences common, it is a good bet that they are. We probably deal with it differently - I have likely had more practice - but it is still pretty uncomfortable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rabbit, are your "you" genderless everyone or aimed at men?
I meant, you, whoever you are regardless of gender. We are all morally responsible to make sure our sex partners are genuinely consenting.
Although, frankly, there are numerous biological reasons why men and women simply aren't equal in this equation and its sort of silly to pretend they are. A woman is simply far less likely to be able to have sex with a man who isn't consenting. Its not impossible, just a lot less likely. Still there are a lot of things that make a man vulnerable and some women do take advantage of men who are drunk or lonely or teenagers. There is lots of gray area when it comes to consent.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:the idea that you could rape someone because of a misunderstanding (that is, without intent) is very scary and therefore rejected.
I know why this bothers me. The idea is scary, and therefore the assertion is rejected. As opposed to, the idea is scary, and therefore "normal" modes of operations are modified to avoid it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Destineer: I had to reread your post 4 times..."What does "low quality thespians" have to do with anything?" I wondered as I read it the first time. Heh.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rabbit, are your "you" genderless everyone or aimed at men?
I meant, you, whoever you are regardless of gender. We are all morally responsible to make sure our sex partners are genuinely consenting.
Although, frankly, there are numerous biological reasons why men and women simply aren't equal in this equation and its sort of silly to pretend they are. A woman is simply far less likely to be able to have sex with a man who isn't consenting. Its not impossible, just a lot less likely.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I wonder if the percentage of bad actors varies with age. Kat, what age range of dudes have you had this problem with? Did you notice it less or more at an earlier age?
I suppose I'd expect that as the age range gets older, more of the chivalrous guys will have gotten married or coupled up, and the percentage of sleaze will commensurately increase.
I have not found this to be the case. At my age, though, I am often dating men who are divorced and who have learned a bit about women and are somewhat less driven by their hormones than they were 20 or 30 years earlier.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the idea that you could rape someone because of a misunderstanding (that is, without intent) is very scary and therefore rejected.
I know why this bothers me. The idea is scary, and therefore the assertion is rejected. As opposed to, the idea is scary, and therefore "normal" modes of operations are modified to avoid it.
Exactly. Its like saying, "I think its very scary to think that I might go to jail for killing someone unintentionally with my car, therefore no one should ever held responsible for automobile accidents"
rather than
"I think its very scary to think that I might kill someone unintentionally with my car, so I've taken a defensive driving course, never drive when I've been drinking and go out of my way to drive safely and legally"
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far we agree that Bob should have checked more thoroughly, as it is easier to make a mistake when intoxicated. We agree that he did wrong by Olivia. We agree that he shouldn't be prosecuted to the extent that a violent rapist should be, but that he should have charges brought against him.
We disagree that Bob is a rapist. We (some of us) disagree that the lessor charge on Bob should include the title "sex offender". We disagree that Olivia should share some responsibility for getting black out drunk with a stranger.
Did I miss any major points on the Bob scenario?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you consider that Bob committed a crime?
Not just "did wrong", which could be anything including being rude. But an actual crime - do you agree that Bob committed a crime?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Did I miss any major points on the Bob scenario?
Well...yes. You still seem to be saying that Bob's state of inebriation is a mitigating factor. Nor is Olivia's inebriation an invitation (though it was stupid). Olivia was "responsible" for being raped the same way that a woman waking in a bad neighborhood is "responsible" for being raped. That can get pretty ugly as a concept.
Edited to be clearer about the question I was answering.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*snort* Stone_Wolf, nothing I said in that post you responded angrily and flippantly to was untrue. Your response just illustrates my point: you don't like to hear it.
I think I understand why a little better now, though: you like to believe, and are even in this thread just now quite resistant to learning otherwise, that rape is less common than it is.
This took about three seconds on Google to find. Put simply, according to such organizations as the CDC and NIJ, about 1/6 women are the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetimes.
What does that mean? It means it's highly unlikely you don't know a woman who's been the victim of a rape or an attempted rape. Furthermore, given that about 2/3s of the perpetrators were known to the victim, it's highly unlikely you don't know-personally or by passing acquaintance-at least one man who is a rapist.
It's scary, it's unsettling, and it makes all men look bad. But that's the world we live in. You can either get on board with that, or just sit back and say that's it's scary to consider being falsely accused of rape, and that you hope rape isn't as common as you're being told it is.
(While we're talking about scary, personally while I agree it is scary to consider being falsely accused, I sort of prioritize my fears. Which is scarier? The possibility of false accusation, or the 1/6 possibility that I might be raped in my lifetime?)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
