|
JFairfax posted:has anyone considered making rape legal on Private Property? blowfish posted:
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
gobbagool posted:Millennials and post-millennials are so hosed up on gender politics and proving that their snowflake-kin is superior to all other non unique-kin that nobody will have sex any more, and all rape can be reclassified is another one of those goddamned weirdo things that kids in fox costumes do, problem solved Ok, whatever you say, grandpa. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Asking "are you down to gently caress?" is not as hard as you're making it out to be.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:This is what I'm getting from it, and that's a bad road to go down. It reeks of victim blaming and slut shaming. It takes only seconds to get affirmative consent. How loving spontaneous are these hypothetical sexual encounters that you can't stop to ask "are you ready for a trip to the bone zone, baby?"? Are you literally just sprinting dick-first into some women? Do you rip off breakaway pants the moment you lock eyes with a stranger and just start humping as vigorously as you can? Because that's the only conceivable scenario I can think of where you don't have time to get affirmative consent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:No no, I'm talking specifically about the "don't have casual sex" vibe we were getting. Affirmative consent is good. That vibe seems to be entirely of your own devising.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also lets get real with consent here: the average person knows what it looks like when they see it. Literally every single poll and study about this proves that this is falseC and yet idiots keep claiming it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
This is the exact argument used to justify spousal rape and used by date rapists to justify their actions. "She was going along with what was happening. She didn't fight it. That must be consent!" But it's not, not always anyway. Someone might be going along with it because they feel intimidated by what they believe the other person's reaction will be. Or have been coerced or emotionally blackmailed or browbeaten into accepting it. And people are really good at seeing what they want to see, and can easily ignore signs that show the partner isn't fully willing while inventing cues that never actually happened in their memories. That's why clear, enthusiastic consent from your partners is important. John Oliver did a video about this and sex ed a few months back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0jQz6jqQS0 (The part about consent starts at around 14:36) Edit: wateroverfire posted:I followed up on your other post but I think what I wrote is more responsive to this. This is literally a half-step away, at most, for blaming rape victims for not fighting back and screaming at the top of their lungs. That is super hosed up. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Isn't this just pointless worrying when the result is the same? Lack of consent is only an issue when one party feels violated. And how do you know that one party doesn't few violated? Again, this is the exact same excuse used to justify spousal and some kinds of date rape; "They didn't fight back, they went along with it, what's the big deal?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's saying "If you don't want to be involved in a thing, indicate somehow you don't want to be involved. Part of your responsibility as a being with agency is exercising that agency." Not "your rapist is not at fault because you didn't protest hard enough", which would be a pretty hosed up thing to say. And what if a person is being intimidated by their partner, and fear their reaction or retaliation if they don't go along with the sexual activity? Are they still at fault for not taking what they see as a very real risk? Edit: wateroverfire posted:I would say that if my SO asks me to take out the garbage and I do it without pushing back even a little, even if in my own mind I'm not enthusiastic about doing it (which I'm usually not), I have consented to take out the garbage and it would be pretty hosed up of me to claim she forced me later. This is the exact reason given by some rape victims for why they didn't report that they were violated. They didn't fight it, so they must have consented. This is why understanding what consent is or isn't is important. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:None of this equates to "no consent = rape", though. This seems to be SedanChair's angle. SedanChair already addressed this, but it's "no consent = no consent", and if you don't have consent for sex then it's rape. wateroverfire posted:Perhaps we could look at the context and conclude that if their partner is being intimidating or threatening violence or and conclude there is an intervening issue there? You do know that intimidation and coercion do not begin and end with literal verbal threats to punch you in the face if you don't get ready to gently caress, right? It can be as simple as a 6'5", heavily muscled guy towering over a 5'3" woman he meets at a party. He might never directly threaten her or even act aggressively, but it's still possible that in the woman's mind that she's very worried that this seemingly great guy could still effortlessly overpower her if he wanted to, and so she feels pressured to go along with hooking up with him. Now, according to you, even though she's afraid of what might happen if she does (whether or not that fear is justified doesn't matter) she still holds responsibility for not fighting against his advances? How is that not victim blaming, again? quote:But it's also literally a thing that happens in every marriage at some point, to spouses of both sexes, without anyone feeling worked up about it or feeling like a victim. So there must be some kind of intervening thing that makes it rape, right? Spousal rape is a real thing, holy poo poo. I thought you at least understood that. Edit: wateroverfire posted:Seriously, though, it trivializes the concept of rape to classify letting it happen because "fine, it's only 2 minutes and you're happy and I can go to bed" as rape. Jeeeeeeeezus Christ Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So... he's respectful, not being threatening, doing nothing except presumably hitting on her at a party and being big? In what way would she be a victim if she leaves with him and they have sex? So do you believe that it's only rape if there are explicit threats or actual violence? Edit: She's a victim if he fucks her when she didn't actually want him to. Goddamn, dude, how is that so hard to understand? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I think whether it's rape can't solely depend on the mindstate of the alleged victim. In your own example: In the sense he had sex with her when she did not want him to. You know, in the sense of rape's literal definition. quote:Or put it another way, if we accept that her feeling pressured despite not being pressured was enough to make it rape, is it just impossible for the two of them to have consensual sex? No, it's not rape if they both give enthusiastic affirmative consent. Just because a person isn't looking for a weapon to fight you off with does not mean they want to bone you, it's not hard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:I mostly agree with the "why even bother" sentiment, but capitulating to sex for the sake of gratifying one's partner as part of the overall give and take in a relationship is hardly the same thing as marital rape. It doesn't seem all that different from giving your SO a massage when you'd rather be doing something else, but they asked and you care about them and it's a relatively simple thing that you can do to make them feel loved and appreciated. The importance of obtaining clear, enthusiastic consent is dependent on the actual act in question, and it's much more important regarding sexual acts than non-sexual acts. Enthused consent doesn't need to be literally jumping up and down screaming, "gently caress yeah, take me to Poundtown, stud!", but it should be clearly given and unforced. A spouse weighing their options and deciding that, yes, they're willing to have sex isn't marital rape. But hounding your partner, constantly dry-humping them in bed, and badgering them for sex until they give up and give you what you want very much is. And no, that second scenario doesn't mean you have to feel violated or like a victim, or get a divorce, or press charges, but that also doesn't mean that it's right and should just be accepted as "the way things are".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Mmmk. The scenario as laid out was that she went along with him and didn't say no. The whole "non-verbal actions" thing people keep talking about. But if you do get a yes that was only because the other person felt like they were in danger if they said no, that's rape, yeah. That's where the "clear and enthusiastic" part of it comes in. the trump tutelage posted:Is the man criminally culpable in this example? Almost certainly not. But not being a crime doesn't also make it right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:This is a problem because rape is always, forever a crime. Anything that is called rape that isn't actually legally rape is demeaning the term, and watering down the definition. Pretending you didn't commit "real" rape because you weren't prosecuted for it is something actual rapists tell themselves to justify sexually assaulting people. the trump tutelage posted:But the accusation alone is life destroying in financial if not social terms. If someone can decide at any point, including after the fact, that a rape has taken place, even if the alleged perpetrator has no reason to believe they are acting criminally (and in the example above, actually have affirmative consent as far as they know), then every sexual encounter is a game of Russian Roulette. That's why it's important to get clear, affirmative, enthusiastic consent and not think "Well, she hasn't called for help yet, obviously this is ok!" the trump tutelage posted:Is this a "personal truths" thing? Because this seems to only be wrong for the woman in this example. The man does not have access to her inner world. It would be helpful for the woman to not blame herself for it. Unfortunately people who say that if you don't actively resist then you wateroverfire posted:...ok. Possibly, yes. Rapists are not literal boogeyman who jump out of dark corners to pin you down and go in dry, and it's harmful to frame it like that. quote:At what point was he supposed to say to himself "She doesn't seem quiiite as enthusiastic as she should, better shut the whole thing down"? At the point where her consent isn't clear and enthusiastic. If you aren't 100% sure a person wants to be hosed then you probably shouldn't gently caress them, this isn't hard. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, OwlFancier, you've gone so far around the bend here that you're saying there's no problem with a 1-in-15 chance of a wrongful conviction. What is your acceptable amount? A thousand? A million? A bajillionty serial-rapists walking the streets so long as no innocents are jailed?! Wampa, why would you be ok with that many rapists being free?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I think the problem you're having is that rape has to be a strictly plain, legal definition The hell it does.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Of course it does. Rape is a crime. Crimes need a defined boundary of offence. This can be amended, but it does have to be stated. Simply because something is not a crime does not make it morally correct. Megachurchs who bilk the elderly for every penny they have are committing theft, full stop, despite the fact that what they're doing can't actually be prosecuted as theft. I'm not sure if anyone has ever sat you down and explained this, but legal definitions are not the only definitions that exist. I'm sorry that it's taken so long for someone to tell you this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Well, you can call anything rape if you want to. But for it to be prosecuted as a crime it sure as hell does need a clear legal definition that will apply in every case. Not at all rapes will be prosecuted, so it's also important that people be properly educated on what consent actually is. Otherwise you're going to have people going around sexually assaulting people and saying, "what I'm doing can't technically get me convicted, ergo it's completely ok!" and that's bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Rape is an extremely serious accusation and that you seem to think its okay for people to be able to accuse others of rape on unproven but 'moral' grounds is deeply disturbing. And then you compare rape accusations to accusations of petty theft. I've never once said anything about making accusations, boyo. And if you think the elderly and other vulnerable people in our society being fleeced until they're homeless and on the streets is the same thing as petty theft then you're hosed in the head. Rakosi posted:You're still equating consent with rape and I have already demonstrated many instances where a lack of affirmative consent is not only acceptable and usual, but not in any world rape. I'm sure you think you have, but all you've really shown is that you have no issue forcing yourself on someone so long as it wouldn't get you hit with a guilty verdict. Edit: Damnit, awfulapp.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:sedanchair, talking about the concept someone having sex for the partner's enjoyment only Do you think you've caught him in some sort of contradiction here or something? Because in both cases SedanChair is talking about how the issue is one of consent, not whether something can be prosecuted as rape. Despite what multiple posters have insinuated and outright said simply because it won't be found guilty in a court of law does not make what's happening not a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Right, but the topic of this thread is how to address the problem via the legal system. So pointing out that someone's proposed definition is too broad or nebulous to be applied in the legal context is on topic. Preventing cases from occurring at all arguably is as well, and so is making sure juries and judges understand what consent actually is. Edit: Control Volume posted:no one in that conversation chain was talking about the legal definition, there's only one weirdo in the thread focusing on that Ok, but I still don't understand what inconsistency you think you've pointed out there. Again, what he's saying is that the problem is on a scale and is not simply the binary of "raped vs not raped".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:"The Court hereby finds you guilty of rape... kinda? Like definitely on the rape spectrum but maybe not a hard 10." I give literally no fucks about whether or not something would be convicted in a court of law in this context.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion: You Are Racist > How do we fix the way rape is handled legally? Who What Now posted:Preventing cases from occurring at all arguably is as well, and so is making sure juries and judges understand what consent actually is. Reading six entire posts up is just so hard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You look very wise trotting out this old joke. You don't look guilty of reductio ad absurdum, and hence minimizing rape, at all. If it doesn't get you 10-20 in the clink then it wasnt rape. If you don't have an airtight, slamdunk case don't you loving dare to call it rape, because that's an insult to people who were victims of convicted, and thus real, rapists. Discendo Vox posted:I'm, um, really not taking a stance on any of this- I was actually trying to give you or others the opportunity to crack one of a couple immediately available jokes about my wanting witnesses. Try doing better than stealing the unfunniest jokes from South Park.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's loving stupid and disingenuous, not being able to convict someone is not the same thing as there wasn't a crime. I should have made it clearer I was mocking posts like this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 00:40
|
|