|
DeusExMachinima posted:Statistically, it's extremely unlikely that a woman is lying when she makes a rape accusation. We need to take a serious look at how burden of proof is assessed in these court cases. People talk about how the 2nd Amendment can allow individuals to cost society at large, and likewise the right to plead the 5th can potentially be entirely antisocial, exists solely for the benefit of the individual, and if you look at the rest of the world, not a very common "right." There can be exceptions to every right, there can be one here. A privileged rapist doesn't have a right to be silent about his history in court or his likely future plans to continue victimizing a historically oppressed demographic. Lot of people shitposting in this thread, but I'm singling you out because there's a chance you're actually sincere about this. False rape accusations are uncommon, and probably not actually much higher than false accusations of other crimes, but certainly not unheard of. To say that "A privileged rapist doesn't have a right to be silent" is to question-begging; the whole point of a trial is to determine whether the defendant really is a rapist (or a murderer, or a thief, or any other type of criminal). Edit: Helsing said it a lot better than I did.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
PT6A posted:How in gently caress's name would prohibition solve even the majority of the problem of rape and rape culture? Are you for real
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Statistically, it's extremely unlikely that a woman is lying when she makes a rape accusation. We need to take a serious look at how burden of proof is assessed in these court cases. People talk about how the 2nd Amendment can allow individuals to cost society at large, and likewise the right to plead the 5th can potentially be entirely antisocial, exists solely for the benefit of the individual, and if you look at the rest of the world, not a very common "right." There can be exceptions to every right, there can be one here. A privileged rapist doesn't have a right to be silent about his history in court or his likely future plans to continue victimizing a historically oppressed demographic. Not all rape accusations describe incidents that fulfill the legal definition of sexual assault. Also, not all accusations even have evidence that meets a preponderance of evidence let alone physical evidence. If its too late for physical evidence to be collected and there are no witnesses "He raped me" can be met with "That wasn't me, eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate" and you're still at 50/50 instead of the 50%+delta needed for that preponderance of evidence standard. A false report requires evidence that the report was false not unsubstantiated so yeah the percent is going to be really low and conviction rates are going to be low unless you turn every court into kangaroo court. The culture problem is when even a report can have dire consequences for the reporter and the evidence bar is effective set far higher than reasonable doubt. The US military has a major problem here and so do some countries such as Japan where the over 99% conviction rate is because if theres no confession or a ridiculously overwhelming amount of evidence no cases are pursued. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Are you for real Well, if you're talking about prohibiting rape itself, I think it's pretty clear that hasn't worked. If you're talking about prohibition as in the prohibition of alcohol, which is what I took the original quote to mean, yes: I don't see how one is related to the other. I drink frequently and I've never raped anyone. I've been around drunk women both when I've been drunk and when I've been sober and I've never had sex with anyone who wasn't able to consent. The issues relating to intoxication and consent are a smokescreen to distract from the issues around rape culture which are more difficult to address.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I've been around drunk women both when I've been drunk and when I've been sober and I've never had sex with anyone who wasn't able to consent. Any alcohol at all in your system can render you incapable of consent in some places.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Are you for real I guess they might be thinking that prohibition wouldn't be effective
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I guess they might be thinking that prohibition wouldn't be effective If you outlaw rape then only outlaws will rape.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The issues relating to intoxication and consent are a smokescreen to distract from the issues around rape culture which are more difficult to address. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Consent is the entire issue. Until men understand it rape will not decrease because they cannot tell when they are committing rape. Rape for them is "guy in the bushes with a mask."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Consent is the entire issue. Until men understand it rape will not decrease because they cannot tell when they are committing rape. Rape for them is "guy in the bushes with a mask." I'd add that, if men are purposefully getting women drunk to have sex with them, it's not really a problem with the alcohol so much as the men in question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'd add that, if men are purposefully getting women drunk to have sex with them, it's not really a problem with the alcohol so much as the men in question. that's a big if.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:that's a big if. I'm getting confused about what people think is actually happening. If alcohol is not being used to facilitate pseudo-consensual (by which I mean sex which, while not consensual legally or morally speaking, is not actually resisted) sex, then how does it have any relationship to rape or rape culture whatsoever?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
men can get drunk and have sex they regret as well. it's part of getting drunk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:men can get drunk and have sex they regret as well. You're correct, I shouldn't have assumed men were the ones using alcohol to bypass consent and that women were the ones being taken advantage of, because it happens both ways and presumably with homosexual relationships as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
what the gently caress is bypassing consent? I mean I've got drunk and done some stupid poo poo, that's part of getting too drunk - it always seems like a good idea at the time. if someone is passed out or unable to speak then they're not able to give consent, but if you're both rather drunk but still conscious and making decisions? are you both raped and rapists?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:what the gently caress is bypassing consent? I mean I've got drunk and done some stupid poo poo, that's part of getting too drunk - it always seems like a good idea at the time. It's not an advisable situation, and you should have your friends get you out of it due to the possiblity that you'll either be accused of rape or raped.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Consent is the entire issue. Until men understand it rape will not decrease because they cannot tell when they are committing rape. Rape for them is "guy in the bushes with a mask." This is easy enough to agree with abstractly but it often seems to lead to a vision of affirmative consent in which every single sexual escalation requires the man to stop and ask the woman if he can continue, and kissing your partners head while they sleep technically meets the requirements for sexual assault. I'm not denying the existence of rape culture or the need for change and perhaps I'm being suckered in by right wing scare stories but some of the discussions I hear about how consent is being defined in some school curriculums sound like they are entirely premised on men being the only initiator of sexual contact, and call for the removal of any spontaneity from love making or physical affection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:if someone is passed out or unable to speak then they're not able to give consent, but if you're both drunk then what happens if you're both unable to give consent? are you both raped and rapists? I think it is dependent on the situation. I don't think it ought to be a strict liability crime in the same way that drunk driving is, but if both people feel that they did not consent to sex, then I suppose they could theoretically both be rapists. I'd also say that, just because someone feels they got taken advantage of sexually while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, in terms of doing something they otherwise would not have done, doesn't mean they actually have to consider themselves a victim of rape or sexual assault -- it simply means they can and should be taken seriously. As for "bypassing consent" I'm referring to constructing or seeking a situation where someone consents inasmuch as they appear to consent, but are legally and/or morally unable to actually do so. To be honest, I was a lot more worried about "grey areas" before I was actually in a situation where I could've had sex with someone who'd drank themselves into near-oblivion. It is the least sexy thing I can possibly imagine, and in that moment, I was crystal clear on the fact that, if we'd have had sex, it would've been morally and legally wrong. If you really have to ask yourself if something is consensual or not, or if the other person is actually able to give consent, maybe you should just avoid it altogether at that point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not denying the existence of rape culture or the need for change and perhaps I'm being suckered in by right wing scare stories but some of the discussions I hear about how consent is being defined in some school curriculums sound like they are entirely premised on men being the only initiator of sexual contact, and call for the removal of any spontaneity from love making or physical affection. These are worrying and make me glad I'm already married and comfortable. Though for the sake of my son I hope things don't get that awkward. I was always worried about consent (though not as the academic concept, rather than "does she want me to X or would that make her uncomfortable?") as a teenager, which held me back a bit too much, according to ex-girlfriends. Hopefully more female empowerment will lead to more women taking the lead. God knows I was relieved that my wife did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Are you suggesting that we should lower the burden of proof for all criminal cases or that there should specifically be a lower standard for proving sexual assault? Cause I don't really like the idea of setting a precedent that the government can now legislate itself to a lower burden of proof on certain categories of crime, and justifying it by saying that at the statistical level false rape reports are false doesn't really change the fact that the system was designed so that its much easier for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be convicted. I'm not talking about making it guilty til proven innocent across the board. We make common sense regulations and exceptions for other rights in unusual high-risk situations, why not here? Has innocent til proven guilty for specific charges of rape (idk about less extreme types of sexual assault) done anything for actual rape victims, not some hypothetical one in a thousand defendant?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:46
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Helsing posted:This is easy enough to agree with abstractly but it often seems to lead to a vision of affirmative consent in which every single sexual escalation requires the man to stop and ask the woman if he can continue, and kissing your partners head while they sleep technically meets the requirements for sexual assault. That is fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Yeah all joking aside, basically this. And not only what rape and consent are, but also what makes it wrong and teach empathy. I agree with this. Rape is, by its nature and not by a failure of the system, hard to prosecute. We have a duty to see the accused is treated as innocent until proven guilty. The only way that we could prove more people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is through undesirable means such as surveillance culture, and lowering the burden of proof would lead to the MRA bogeyman of people being thrown in jail on terrible evidence becoming a genuine threat. I would feel very enraged and powerless if I got raped by some sneaky character who was able to cover his tracks well enough to avoid conviction, and I'm sure this happens relatively frequently, but there's not much to be done about it. So the answer is to prevent as much rape as possible. You can do this partially by providing a deterrent (having proven cases of rape be punished extremely harshly) and helping women/vulnerable men defend themselves in various ways (guns, self defence, situational awareness, impress on them they always have the right to say no, and structural improvements in prison). That is basically what the right wing suggests, and while it could help a bit, deterrence sentencing actually has a relatively weak effect and relying exclusively on the latter puts an unfair burden on the potential victims. That's why combating rape culture is important. Interviews with convicted rapists show that, contrary to what some people insist, most of them believe that they are doing something that is accepted or even celebrated (in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge manner) by society. They do this in a way that suggests it isn't just an attempt to dodge responsibility for knowingly offending. Others don't see themselves as rapists because a rapist is just a scary man in a dark alley, and forcing your wife to have sex with you is a good way to enforce the marriage contract. Though some people who want to combat it get a bit extremist and want an unnecessary level of censorship, the fact is that the concept of rape culture itself is valid. There's also some indication that the much-ridiculed "Don't Be That Guy" campaign in Edmonton may have been successful, because there was a 10% drop in reported sexual assaults in Vancouver following it, although correlation isn't causation so take it with a grain of salt. Weldon Pemberton fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm not talking about making it guilty til proven innocent across the board. We make common sense regulations and exceptions for other rights in unusual high-risk situations, why not here? Has innocent til proven guilty for specific charges of rape (idk about less extreme types of sexual assault) done anything for actual rape victims, not some hypothetical one in a thousand defendant? Jesus Christ you're suggesting we drop both the right to silence and the presumption of innocence? SedanChair posted:That is fine. This answer doesn't really make it any clearer to me what you are advocating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Jesus Christ you're suggesting we drop both the right to silence and the presumption of innocence? How else do you think we're supposed to deal with
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That is fine. No it's ridiculous and completely unfeasible
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Jesus Christ you're suggesting we drop both the right to silence and the presumption of innocence? DeusExMachinima posted:Has innocent til proven guilty for specific charges of rape (idk about less extreme types of sexual assault) done anything for actual rape victims, not some hypothetical one in a thousand defendant? Stop pretending to be shocked in place of making an actual argument. Show your work, show me the results. How many more years of innocent until proven guilty for rape charges will we need until rapists are rarely able to re-offend? How many rapes is your way going to directly prevent?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
So, you believe it's better to send an innocent person to prison and likely ruin their lives rather than let a guilty person go free -- literally the exact opposite of the founding concept of American criminal jurisprudence? That's kind of hosed up. Rape is bad, but I don't think suspending due process is a good way of fixing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not denying the existence of rape culture or the need for change and perhaps I'm being suckered in by right wing scare stories but some of the discussions I hear about how consent is being defined in some school curriculums sound like they are entirely premised on men being the only initiator of sexual contact, and call for the removal of any spontaneity from love making or physical affection. Consent doesn't have to be a legally bound written contract. "I want you to gently caress me" is a pretty good one. That's one the woman can use, too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
the arguments about affirmative consent are funny, to me, because it's a bunch of people who look at the concept of a safeword and go, "hwuuuhh? bwuuuhhh??"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
That's like asking how the presumption of innocence helps mugging victims. It doesn't, except indirectly insofar as it protects them from being improperly convicted of some future crime they might be accused of. The justice system is set up to err on the side of not convicting an innocent person. That's a fairly basic tenant of the system and has been for a long time. You're suggesting we could just magically erase that premise for a single category of crimes, as though this is either 1) feasible without a constitutional amendment in most legal systems and 2) can be done without inevitably having ripple effects that would likely reduce the burden of evidence in other types of crimes. What you're suggesting is that we should single out a particular category of crimes and place every onus on the defendant to prove their innocence. I guess I'm shocked because this is a position I thought mostly only existed in right wing caricatures of the left, not something that people were actually advocating for. That is not the kind of sweeping power I do think think it is wise to give to the police and court system. More than anything though, I just don't get how you think its sustainable to essentially eliminate constitutional provisions for one particular crime without that influencing the overall criminal justice system. What you're saying feels like the equivalent of "we should have executions, but only for guilty people" or "we should have a bill of rights, but only for people not accused of crimes". The whole purpose of a trial is to establish whether someone is guilty, and you're suggesting we change that, and then acting as if this is a minor change without any real consequence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Consent doesn't have to be a legally bound written contract. OK, but if I understand it correctly if she says "I want you to gently caress me" and then she grabs me by my shirt, pulls me into a passionate embrace, pulls off my clothes and fucks me, technically she never gained my "affirmative consent" and I could later say that I was raped by her? Or, implicitly, is it just the man who needs to get consent here? I recognize that this sounds like right wing concern trolling but I am quite sympathetic to feminist critiques of rape culture, have personally known victims of sexual assault, and am very concerned not to come off as treating this problem flippantly. If there's some kind of well established FAQ or essay on this topic you can refer me to that'd be fine as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:the arguments about affirmative consent are funny, to me, because it's a bunch of people who look at the concept of a safeword and go, "hwuuuhh? bwuuuhhh??" To be fair, talking about safewords (not to mention the need for them...) for the first time with your parter is an awkward as gently caress conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Helsing posted:OK, but if I understand it correctly if she says "I want you to gently caress me" and then she grabs me by my shirt, pulls me into a passionate embrace, pulls off my clothes and fucks me, technically she never gained my "affirmative consent" and I could later say that I was raped by her? Or, implicitly, is it just the man who needs to get consent here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Stop pretending to be shocked in place of making an actual argument. Show your work, show me the results. How many more years of innocent until proven guilty for rape charges will we need until rapists are rarely able to re-offend? How many rapes is your way going to directly prevent? No, what you are saying is outrageous enough that shock and incredulity seem like a totally appropriate response. You want to strip every last American citizen of fundamental rights rather than accepting the reality that many crimes go unpunished. You want us to live in a society where citizens can be totally stripped of liberty for the failure to prove a negative. It truly is an appalling proposition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:OK, but if I understand it correctly if she says "I want you to gently caress me" and then she grabs me by my shirt, pulls me into a passionate embrace, pulls off my clothes and fucks me, technically she never gained my "affirmative consent" and I could later say that I was raped by her? Or, implicitly, is it just the man who needs to get consent here? Only the most hardcore would demand all affirmative consent to be verbal. Wikipedia (yes, I know) has a pretty good article on consent: quote:Affirmative consent (explicit yes) is when both parties agree to sexual conduct, either through clear, verbal communication or nonverbal cues or gestures.[15] So to answer your question, in that scenario if you, say, took your pants off or stuck your tongue down her throat, congratulations, you've affirmatively consented! Likewise if you push her away, run screaming or say "Not tonight, dear" at any point then that's a clear and unambiguous denial of consent and if she doesn't respect that and continues anyway, you've been raped.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:So to answer your question, in that scenario if you, say, took your pants off or stuck your tongue down her throat, congratulations, you've affirmatively consented! good luck legislating that poo poo lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:Prior to the "I want you to gently caress me" moment, the people involved should have had an adult conversation about whether they want to have a sexual relationship, and nature and borders of what that would entail. Having that knowledge, you should be able to figure out whether passive compliance constitutes consent or not. This doesn't seem so easy to do. It seems really awkward, and would be very difficult for anyone with any kind of anxiety or confidence issues to do. How does such a conversation start anyhow? I'm used to the progression of "the bases" to put it crudely. Things get heavy on their own. Someone takes the lead, and if the other isn't into it, they stop it. If it doesn't stop there, it's rape.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
I've also never known "whatcha thinkin" with bedroom eyes to be an involved, mature conversation but heck, maybe i'm wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
I'm not really sure it would be possible to have more rape convictions without eliminating the presumption of innocence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
Helsing posted:OK, but if I understand it correctly if she says "I want you to gently caress me" and then she grabs me by my shirt, pulls me into a passionate embrace, pulls off my clothes and fucks me, technically she never gained my "affirmative consent" and I could later say that I was raped by her? For affirmative consent, she should say "I want you to gently caress me" and then wait for you to say "gently caress yes" before proceeding with the shirt grabbing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:20
|
|
