|
If I don't want my boyfriend to kiss me for whatever reason, I'll move away and tell him. That doesn't mean I never want to be randomly kissed ever again, and it also doesn't mean that I would be okay with him grabbing me and holding me in place as he did it. Establishing where the boundaries are in a relationship is a part of what intimacy is. It's a good feeling for me to be close enough where explicit and repeated consent isn't necessary. If you disagree, that's okay, because I'm not going to demand that you live up to a certain standards of consent in your own relationships, just as I would appreciate not having the unexpected touch of my partner be labeled sexual assault by anyone who isn't me.Who What Now posted: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? This is a horrible situation where one partner is obviously a rapist, but the solution to it is separate to whether or not a prosecutor can specifically point to rape happening in court on the basis of what the survivor was thinking, rather than their actions. It's getting the survivor the hell away from an abusive relationship, helping them heal however possible, and protecting them from further violence. That's everyone's social duty. Additionally, while the rapist deserves strict legal innocence if their threats and intimidation can't be proven, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be scrutinized by their communities in an accountability process.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
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. I think it's specifically a problem because, to bring things back to the purpose of this thread, adversarial retributive justice is really loving bad at actually helping survivors. The burden of proof is too high to justify punitive action in the vast majority of cases. We need to be looking beyond the law instead of stressing over precise definitions of culpability that will never bring justice to people anyway, as we all admit. Ormi fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:13
|
|