Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 6:33 PM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, jar (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   diluted definitions of rape?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 13 (146565)
10-01-2004 5:04 PM


Backstory:
In a thread on hetero vs homosexual relationships, Rei used the phrase "in a way" rape to describe a situation her gf had experienced. I believed that (given the description of the experience) it was not in a way rape, but rather in no way rape. It sounded very bad, but not even close to rape.

We have since been arguing based on my experiences of a forced sexual experience and the experiences of her gf, when the term rape should actually be used. It is my contention that current use is way to diluted and needs to be tightened, while Rei contends that my usage is overly strict.

Here is the last full post rei had made and to which I will reply...
[Rei]
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And on top of that there are girls who are just really bad in bed. I knew two more that fit the above description and they thought that was supposed to be sex, they lay there while guy pumps away. I was totally blown away.

So yeah, MEN ARE NOT MINDREADERS. A woman has to make clear what she does and does not want. Is this some extremely odd thing to expect?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I seriously doubt that a relationship that started out perfectly normal and turned into that wouldn't be noticed. I find it hard to understand how you can believe such a thing.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends on what you mean by threatening. If you meant he just LOOKED scary, then yeah he didn't rob you, you'd be both a coward and an idiot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I'm starting to see part of the problem here. You're assertive and unfraid. Not everyone is like that. I certainly am not, and my partner is worse. I at least have the advantage of physical size (I'm fairly tall). My partner is just average - 5'6". Picture a 6 1/2 muscular tall guy in comparison to a nonmuscular 5'6" woman. It's the equivalent, for your average man, of having a 7'2" weightlifter confront you. Now take the testosterone-aggrivated "fight or flight" reflex out of the victim, and I hope you can understand what it's like.

If a person like that had me cornered on a subway and said "give me your money", I'd be terrified. I seriously doubt I'd have the nerve to say "I don't want to give you my money." He might have a knife. Or a gun. I wouldn't want to find out. And I'm taller than most women.

It is the exact same sort of thing when there is a woman who is completely outmatched in terms of pysical size with an intimidating boyfriend. You fear for your safety. It's one thing to get raped, but its another thing to get raped and beaten. Call it defeatest, but in a way, it's realistic.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this line of argument odd from someone against Bush's invasion of Iraq. Essentially he is using the argument Saddam looked scary and made demands on us (and allies) so we had to take him out as if the threat was real.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not really. Bush's stance was that of the robber: Go over, make demands on them, and take what you want.

Even if Saddam *had* been making demands on us (which he hadn't), your analogy would be correct if the US was *giving in* to the demands. The "fighting back" concept is precisely *not* what is going on in the described situation.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blanking out means nothing. No offense, but if she said nothing and was too afraid to break up (despite no actual violence or clear threats of violence) then it was her victimizing herself. She lengthened a bad situation in order to avoid the potential (real or not) for some actual violation or assault to occur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, are you trying to claim that he had no knowledge, for months? I find this a rather crazy concept, of something so severely affecting his SO that she would have trouble even confiding it to me months after we started dating, and meanwhile she's off in a different world when he's having sex with her, and not speaking with him, completely different from how their relationship used to be?

And again, this is a bare minimum. I don't know if she ever put up a struggle and failed, or said anything or not; we're just going on the bare minimum here, for the sake of argument.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do believe that sexually abusing someone while they are unconscious (other than having brutally injured them into that state during the attempt) is different than rape.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? Why do you insist on narrowing the definition of the term, instead of specifying other cases? This certainly was completely horrible for her.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't trying to imply your gf was anything like these other girls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't meaning to suggest that you were implying that.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say she shouldn't be coming close to using the word rape.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

She didn't. I did (and I said "in a way", not "yes", recall). Did I ever say that she said "rape"?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I could always play unfair with you and start asking you how YOU know what the truth is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that would be a really low blow, now wouldn't it?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You already said she hasn't shared everything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said I didn't press her on everything. There's a difference. She was crying too hard; I didn't want to make it worse.

She's a lousy actor. She knows it, and I know it. Her skills at convincing people are quite poor (while I tend to ace interviews, she does awful; I once overheard her on a phone interview tell the interviewer that she'd rather not have a job in which she has to work with people(!)). She once had a door-to-door sales job, and didn't sell a single thing. Furthermore, she never asks for anything. IF I had any complaints about her, it'd be that she's too passive and honest.

We were in bed, and were talking about past relationships, and I could tell she was having trouble talking about that particular boyfriend, so I pressed for more information. I probably should have stopped sooner, not later as you seem to prefer.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My guess is it's much higher. I never reported my experience (even as a sexual assault). I think Pink Sasquatch here at EvC said he never reported his and knew others that had not. I have yet to meet any guy that has reported it. This is definitely NOT a culture where such a thing gets accepted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In general statistics, 2 in three rapes aren't reported. Thinking back to the people I know... the friend never reported his cousin, my former partner never reported either of hers, the friend in the car accident did have it reported (I'm pretty sure), and I don't think that my friend who was raped recently reported it (although I don't know for sure). So that's about 4 in 5 going unreported.

There's a lot of reasons why people don't report rapes. Social shame, a feeling of powerlessness, fear of retribution by the assailant, and even fear of the potential actions of friends/family members upon finding out, are a few.

Most women don't report rapes, either. I see no reason to expect that men would have a lower rate of reporting as a whole - certainly, there is more social shame, but I'd argue less fear of retribution (there's less fear in general among men). However, of reported rapes, the last time I looked at the numbers for the US, it was 91% Male->Female; 8% Male->Male; 0.8% Female->Female; and 0.2% Female->Male.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is power in the term rape which people want to use, even if innocently and indirectly, to heighten the gravity of their experience
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seing as she didn't use the term - and heck, I hardly even did - I'd say that this one belongs in your imagination.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not looking for black and white, comparable to good and evil. I am looking for clear definitions of what people are experiencing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I'm looking at the dictionary and legal definitions.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say that rape is the crime of forcing sex AGAINST the will of a recipient, not merely on an unwilling or unresisting recipient.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGAINST the will = unwilling. That's what unwilling means; it's the definition. And I'm not arguing for "unresisting" - I'm arguing for unwilling, whether actively resisting or not, so long as the perpetrator knows that the victim is unwilling.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is precisely because sexual activity is many shades of grey that I think appropriate definitions are required to gradually reach the stage of rape.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

But rape is not a narrowly defined term!
That's my problem with your attempt to make it one.

I also find it rather interesting that you refuse to use it in your own case. Why? You don't need to go into details about your case, but is there a reason why you particularly don't want to use that term? Do you find a sense of shame in using that term about yourself? Because it seems you've encountered social stigma about your case (such as your example of the women that you talked to), so it sounds like that's part of the reason. Perhaps I'm just reading too much into this - and if I am, I sincerely apologize.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[/Rei]


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 10-01-2004 5:06 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 10-01-2004 6:55 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2290 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 2 of 13 (146567)
10-01-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-01-2004 5:04 PM


this issue of rape seems to be spreading out all over the place - do we really need another thread on the matter?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-01-2004 5:04 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 10-01-2004 6:57 PM CK has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 13 (146611)
10-01-2004 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-01-2004 5:04 PM


I seriously doubt that a relationship that started out perfectly normal and turned into that wouldn't be noticed. I find it hard to understand how you can believe such a thing.

It would be noticed, but why does that mean it has to be understood what is going on? Was the guy supposed to just assume or was he supposed to ask? And if he was supposed to ask why was he the one that was supposed to resort to verbal communication first?

One of the girls I talked about who wanted to be coerced started normally then after a problem in the relationship began to act like that. At first I thought she just wasn't interested in sex and didn't want to do anything. It turned out the 'problem' was activated by her not being happy that I was not being aggressive enough. My stopping didn't help. I was supposed to have sex with her anyway.

A human cannot KNOW what is happening just because someone gets quiet and unresponsive during sex. A person should ask what's up... but the unresponsive person shoul ALSO state what's up.

If a person like that had me cornered on a subway

Cornered is also suggestive. Are you trapped? Then that is an action of aggression. If the same guy just comes up to you on a subway platform and says that, wouldn't you say something?

I was approached by an immense wall of a man while alone on a subway platform at night. He stepped up and said "I just got out of jail, give me some money." I said "no". He repeated that he just got out of jail (and yes he looked just like that). I said no. I then moved, because I was not cornered. He did not move to block me. If he had I would clearly know what was up.

He didn't mug me and that wasn't an "almost mugging" even if I decided to give him the money.

The one time I was successfully mugged was by a small guy I could have whipped the shit out of. It was bad timing and bad luck and it ended up quite terrifying as he got a major jump on me I could NOT get out of. He simply said "you know what I want, don't be stupid."

That was a mugging.

Our fears are not capable of transforming a situation into something or into "in a way" something. Yes our fears are able to make us do something we might want because we think it might lead to something worse. That is OUR problem.

Call it defeatest, but in a way, it's realistic.

Realism is once. Staying in a situation or repeatedly walking back into it is not. That is self-defeating.

Again I am only saying this as your current model involves no actual violence or overt threat of violence, only a person's aggressive (perhaps hostile) attitude and physical build.

Not really. Bush's stance was that of the robber: Go over, make demands on them, and take what you want.

I said his argument was the same, not what his actual actions ended up being. His argument WAS the same. And it is STILL the same, and you heard it expressed again in the debate.

Should people swallow it? No. It is a lousy argument whether he turns out to be the real robber or not.

Even if Saddam *had* been making demands on us (which he hadn't), your analogy would be correct if the US was *giving in* to the demands. The "fighting back" concept is precisely *not* what is going on in the described situation.

Please don't take this is my supporting the Bush position or the Iraq war. Saddam actually was making demands of us and more importantly our allies (remember I put allies in my post). In particular he was threatening Israel (even if physically he couldn't do much about it) as well as oil supplies, and trying to force policies on both. Bush could claim that doing nothing was allowing him to make further demands and one day act against us on them.

Once again, are you trying to claim that he had no knowledge, for months?

Yeah it happens. How is he supposed to know what to make of what she is doing? If she's sticking around he could just be assuming she isn't as much into sex anymore, but she'll say something if she doesn't want it.

Why would that be unreasonable?

we're just going on the bare minimum here, for the sake of argument.

For the sake of argument then, it just is no where close to rape. If there are those further extenuating circumstances then there is a difference.

Why is it wrong to say she had a really miserable sexual relationship with a guy that was callous and might have raped her though you are not sure?

Why do you insist on narrowing the definition of the term, instead of specifying other cases? This certainly was completely horrible for her.

I said it was possible to broaden and add terms, but argued that was less useful than just creating new categories.

As far as whether it was horrible for her or not is beside the point. Increasing the nature of the crime, or whether there even was a crime commited, through semantics effects the bf in a very unfair way.

I do not like accusation of crimes not actually commited through semantics.

I am still wondering why use of assault or violation somehow denotes that an experience was NOT horrible for the person? Though I will add, it doesn't even sound like your gf (given details seen not ones not seen) did not even suffer those. He just sounds like a callous jerk.

I did (and I said "in a way", not "yes", recall). Did I ever say that she said "rape"?

You are very smart, but everyone has some weaknesses. Take a deep breath and look at this from outside. My whole argument has been with full knowledge that you did not say rape, but "in a way" rape. It appears you played a semantic game to make the situation worse than it was, and are now defending that move.

He asked about rape and your answer was "in a way". Yet all the details do not honestly point to that. What it points to is a bad experience that may have included rape but you have no idea.

Why didn't you just say no, or that you did not know but it might have?

It would appear that it was to make it morally equivalent without having to have the specific requirements of the crime.

This is the exact kind of blurring I am talking about, which I don't like.

I have also pointed out I am holding myself to this accuracy as well.

And that would be a really low blow, now wouldn't it?

Yes, that was my point. I kind of wish you hadn't answered each of my theoretical points which you were not supposed to treat seriously. I just wanted to show how we could both doubt each other and so keep demanding more info that was not necessary for the real debate.

That is unless we don't trust each other's anecdotes.

Seing as she didn't use the term - and heck, I hardly even did - I'd say that this one belongs in your imagination.

Please do not shift into this form of argument. You are combining two almost wholly separate arguments.

One is about whether your use of "in a way" rape was accurate.

The other is about whether the term rape itself is used to broadly and whether it should be restricted. As part of this I have noted that unscrupulous women do use the broadening of the concept of rape to their advantage, just as you point out then the same type of guys try to use narrow versions to get away with some form of abuse.

The problem is that my position is not to narrow in order to leave other forms of abuse uncovered, rather covered by different (more accurate) terms. Broadening still allows for misuse, especially when it gets to the point of anytime sex involves someone "unwilling" (in a broad sense) it is termed rape.

There is an interconnection between the two different arguments only in that the use of "in a way" may have been a form of heightening the gravity of an event for emotional purposes. And that would not mean your gf. I would add that it would not be an example of you being intentionally unscrupulous, only falling for a form of logical fallacy... appeal to emotion.

legal definitions.

These are by state and so useless. If we believed this was accurate then gays simply cannot get married.

I will check out more dictionary defs.

AGAINST the will = unwilling. That's what unwilling means; it's the definition.

I'm pretty sure that's not totally true. Being forced to do something against one's will is different than having something done without one's will. Unwilling is simply not having given support, not having one's will actively opposed, right?

That is why I gave the example of spouses or other sig others that go along with sex despite not really wanting it, in order to avoid something else they would not want to have happen. That is allowing one's will to be trampled, it is against one's will, maybe even the partner knows this, but it does not rise to the level of one asserting one's will against the partner and the partner actively overriding it.

I'm open to change on this.

so long as the perpetrator knows that the victim is unwilling.

How is this known? Based on what criteria? And I am being serious.

A partner is drunk (though not passed out), is moving to have sex then with an unwilling partner should later the partner say she wouldn't had she been sober?

A partner is passed out drunk or sleeping. If this situation is taken advantage of is that for sure against the will of the person? What if they started to mess around before passing out?

If a partner is quiet and distant but otherwise allows one to do what one wants, is that for sure against their will?

I do agree that intentional (planned) drugging, including use of alcohol, is a sign that the perp assumes their partner is unwilling and is attempting to get around that. But outside of intentional drugging this is not so clear.

Perhaps I'm just reading too much into this - and if I am, I sincerely apologize.

You are. At first I considered it rape. Then I spent a while thinking about sexual situations and what terms were more accurate.

My experiences with others playing with the term and others having actually been without question raped, my opinion was narrowing the actual term rape and using other categories was a more appropriate a solution.

My situation is tough because it straddles and perhaps enters rape. It's hard to explain without getting to the details. It's not about whether I'd feel bad if I had officially been raped.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-01-2004 5:04 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Rei, posted 10-01-2004 8:18 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 4 of 13 (146612)
10-01-2004 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by CK
10-01-2004 5:06 PM


do we really need another thread on the matter?

I didn't know there was one besides Crash's thread which is not covering this topic. I started this thread because an Admin suggested we move a discussion from another thread where it was not on topic.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 10-01-2004 5:06 PM CK has not yet responded

    
Rei
Member (Idle past 5176 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 5 of 13 (146631)
10-01-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
10-01-2004 6:55 PM


quote:
Was the guy supposed to just assume or was he supposed to ask?

Of *COURSE* he's supposed to bloody ask.

quote:
One of the girls I talked about who wanted to be coerced started normally then after a problem in the relationship began to act like that.

And naturally, you just started having sex with her and pretending that you didn't care that she seemed completely unresponsive to you, right?

BTW, you're ignoring the central point here, which is *fear*. You keep talking as if the person involved is being nonresponsive for no particular reason. That's not what we're talking about even in our already "assuming the minimum case" argument.

quote:
Cornered is also suggestive. Are you trapped? Then that is an action of aggression. If the same guy just comes up to you on a subway platform and says that, wouldn't you say something?

If I'm already in the corner?

Look, you're dancing around the issue. The issue is that there are situations where people are, quite reasonably, too afraid to speak out. Heck, *entire countries* have been kept in such states for years, let alone individuals.

quote:
Our fears are not capable of transforming a situation into something or into "in a way" something. Yes our fears are able to make us do something we might want because we think it might lead to something worse. That is OUR problem.

And often it is a *REALISTIC* fear.

quote:
Again I am only saying this as your current model involves no actual violence or overt threat of violence, only a person's aggressive (perhaps hostile) attitude and physical build.

And knowing that he behaves this way, you still claim "no overt threat of violence"? Are you kidding?

quote:
I said his argument was the same, not what his actual actions ended up being. His argument WAS the same. And it is STILL the same, and you heard it expressed again in the debate.

No. It's not the same. Bush was arguing for fighting based on threats. The victim here is arguing (with themself) for *giving in* to the threats. It is the complete opposite of our current situation.

quote:
Saddam actually was making demands of us and more importantly our allies (remember I put allies in my post). In particular he was threatening Israel (even if physically he couldn't do much about it) as well as oil supplies, and trying to force policies on both. Bush could claim that doing nothing was allowing him to make further demands and one day act against us on them.

Idon't really want to get into the Iraq war here, bt Saddam only issued counterthreats, and even relatively rarely at that. They were generally of the form, "If you invade, we will.... (insert action here)" So technically you could call it threatening, but I'm not sure how much a threat conditional to the target carrying out a threat of their own counds as a threat

quote:
Yeah it happens. How is he supposed to know what to make of what she is doing? If she's sticking around he could just be assuming she isn't as much into sex anymore, but she'll say something if she doesn't want it.

Again, I don't know that she didn't. But I still find it crazy to think that a person could consider themselves in a relationship with a person, the person stops talking to them and blanks out when you're having sex with them, this is completely different from the past, and you don't think anything of it. You disagree. I don't think this is going to get resolved.

quote:
For the sake of argument then, it just is no where close to rape.

That's just an assertion. We're debating the details here; there was no need to stick in an unbacked assertion like that.[/quote]

quote:
Why is it wrong to say she had a really miserable sexual relationship with a guy that was callous and might have raped her though you are not sure?

That's pretty much a rewording of what I did say.

quote:
I said it was possible to broaden and add terms, but argued that was less useful than just creating new categories.

And these categories will have *what* meaning to perpetrators? Rape has a meaning to perpetrators. In fact, telling someone that you consider what they're trying to do to be rape is a recommended action I've seen on a number of information sheets on what to do if someone is trying to rape you. Sometimes, it gets the person to stop; it carries weight. Throwing in some new, meaningless term, seems counterproductive. Why not just classify the existant term that already has meaning?

quote:
My whole argument has been with full knowledge that you did not say rape, but "in a way" rape. It appears you played a semantic game to make the situation worse than it was, and are now defending that move.

And you see, from my point of view, you're the one arguing semantics, since you started an argument based on my terminology. I consider rape to not be some absolute, narrowly defined phenomina (and neither does the law, nor do most rape councelling services, etc). So, I made it clear that, from the information I know, it would fall on the milder side of rape (although was repeated regularly). You have a problem with this concept. That's the fundamental difference. Really, it is a semantic argument, and one which I did not start.

I think, for the rest of this post, and in future posts, I'll ignore all semantic debate, and try simply to address any other issues that are unresolved. Because I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on semantics, and it's kind of a pointless thing to waste our time arguing over.

This issue is something that holds a lot of meaning to both of us; we just have a different perspective on the terminology. You see broadening the terms as degrading the worst case. I see narrowing the terms as legitimizing acts that may not be quite as bad, but are still horrible.

quote:
quote:
Seing as she didn't use the term - and heck, I hardly even did - I'd say that this one belongs in your imagination.

Please do not shift into this form of argument. You are combining two almost wholly separate arguments.


You stated:

There is power in the term rape which people want to use, even if innocently and indirectly, to heighten the gravity of their experience

You implied that she was using the term to try and heighten the gravity of her experience. She was not. She did not use the term, and I never stated that she did - and furthermore, I only used a weakened form of the term. That's why I take affront at what I hope you can see, from my perspective, is a clear insult to my partner - claiming that she used the term to try and heighten the gravity of her experience.

I had to convince her to tell me what happened. *I pressed* to find out. She cried. I later wished I hadn't. I hope you can see why I find your presentation of her as somehow trying to manipulate her past for some sort of secret advantage as being completely insulting. And I know you probably didn't mean to have it come across that way, but it did.

quote:
A partner is drunk (though not passed out), is moving to have sex then with an unwilling partner should later the partner say she wouldn't had she been sober?

A partner is passed out drunk or sleeping. If this situation is taken advantage of is that for sure against the will of the person? What if they started to mess around before passing out?


The former isn't rape. The latter is. But it shows how there's no clear dividing line.

(ack, I need to go - finish this post later).


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 10-01-2004 6:55 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2004 7:44 PM Rei has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 13 (146838)
10-02-2004 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rei
10-01-2004 8:18 PM


Of *COURSE* he's supposed to bloody ask.

Double standard noted.

you just started having sex with her and pretending that you didn't care that she seemed completely unresponsive to you, right?

I did start, I was confused, I wondered what was happening. I didn't know if I was doing something wrong or she was just tired or she had lost interest in sex in general.

I stopped because I don't like lousy sex. Others might not. It took me several times before I said something. She wouldn't talk.Several times more and then she said I should just keep having sex (but I didn't because I don'tlike lousy sex). A few times more I was let in on the rape thing. Oh.

you're ignoring the central point here, which is *fear*.

No I'm not. I'm saying a guy can't tell why a person is not doing something. Take for example the above experience I had. It could even have been fear. We had had a big fight and she had been scared (of me) during part of it.

How the hell is a person supposed to know something WITHOUT communication? Your own "minimum case" has a person repeatedly stepping back into a situation in which there was NO overt violence or threat of violence... just that he was physically imposing and kind of a jerk.

If I'm already in the corner?

Why on earth did you corner yourself? Oh okay, for sake of argument... You try and step around. If he moves to block then the action indicates what you are facing.

I am not dancing around anything. If a guy that "looks scary" comes and says "give me money" then it is my fault for giving it to him if that is all the criteria of the situation.

And I will say you are the one dancing around. The specific example was of repeated allowances of something. The appropriate analogy would be continually cornering yourself on the same subway station again and again and giving away your money to the same guy.

And knowing that he behaves this way, you still claim "no overt threat of violence"? Are you kidding?

No. There is no such thing as an overt threat just because a guy is overly aggressive and maybe hostile in general. Unless you are suggesting that he was incapable of any conversation or being turned down without engaging in completely violent acts?

I'm sorry but I think this is beginning to get ridiculous. Especially as she stayed with the guy.

Bush was arguing for fighting based on threats.

Ugh, I'm ready to drop this whole Iraq comparison as it is getting into minutiae. I still think I'm right but it's so besides the point that I'm willing to call it a day.

Again, I don't know that she didn't.

Remember my whole point is based on the fact that YOU SAID SHE DIDN'T. If your position changes to that she may have, or that she did, then there is no longer any argument from me... except that it still would not be "in a way" and become "might have included".

That's pretty much a rewording of what I did say.

"In a way" rape, is quite different than "she may have been raped, but I don't know".

In fact, telling someone that you consider what they're trying to do to be rape is a recommended action I've seen on a number of information sheets on what to do if someone is trying to rape you. Sometimes, it gets the person to stop; it carries weight.

Yeah, sounds like a good idea. What I said would not change this.

Can I point out the irony that I was saying someone should say something and then you argued they don't have to because they might be afraid?

The problem with the broad use however is not BEFORE the act, but AFTER. Women can scare the hell out of men all the want with rape charges, its the claim of rape after, when it isn't really accurate, which is not good. It connotes a level of criminal activity which a person may not have actually done, and it devalues the term for what others have suffered.

it would fall on the milder side of rape (although was repeated regularly). You have a problem with this concept. That's the fundamental difference. Really, it is a semantic argument, and one which I did not start.

Milder side of rape. Yes that says it all. I have a problem with that concept.

Just as "sexual offender" or "sexual predator" has come to equivocate and so implicate as equals a violent serial rapist, a random window peeper, a sock sniffer, and a porn voyeur, the broad use of rape entangles people of many different crimes (or midemeanors) and totally devalues the term by equivocating between people who were through a violent sexual ordeal, and those who went through something "milder".

Having been a victim, and seen what use the broadening of the term has been put to, I find it less than useful.

I see narrowing the terms as legitimizing acts that may not be quite as bad, but are still horrible.

I have shown you in what way it devalues the worst case. I have not seen how using terms like violation and assault instead of rape "legitimizes" anything.

You implied that she was

I did not imply this except when I was saying what I could do if I was going to be unfair. You have since continued to act as if I meant it. The only person I have implicated as possibly using it to heighten an emotional appeal (though only of an argument) was you.

Maybe my statement was so offensive that it was hard to shake the idea that I was not actually meaning it?

The former isn't rape. The latter is. But it shows how there's no clear dividing line.

I wasn't asking which was rape but how would will be known? Or moving against another's will be known?

I find them both to be not rape (especially in the latter case if they started messing around before passing out). Did a transgression of some kind occur? Yeah, but the crime of rape?

Yeah I got a problem equating that with the act of actively overcoming another's will by force or overt coercion.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rei, posted 10-01-2004 8:18 PM Rei has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Rei, posted 10-02-2004 9:53 PM Silent H has responded

    
Rei
Member (Idle past 5176 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 7 of 13 (146875)
10-02-2004 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
10-02-2004 7:44 PM


Before I start off with my response, I should mention that this conversation kind of forced me to bring up the subject again with my partner, something I did not want to have to do. At least it was a *little* easier for her to talk about it, now that it's been so long (5 1/2 years). To paraphrase:

Me: Did you tell him you didn't want to have sex?

Her: Yes..

Me: Often?

Her: ... Yes, repeatedly.

Me: Did you physically resist?

Her: No.
(pause)
Karen, I know he may not have looked very strong, but he was. And he was a lot stronger than me

[ed: I never thought he didn't look strong - but that's besides the point]

Me: Ok. What if I told you that I was debating with someone online who thought that it shouldn't be called rape if the victim doesn't physically resist?

Her (shocked): That's horrible.

(You did imply earlier that it's not rape if the woman doesn't resist, although the current conversation is focusing on whether or not the perpetrator has sex with someone that they know does not want to).

Anyways, back to the discussion.

quote:
quote:
Of *COURSE* he's supposed to bloody ask.

Double standard noted.


How on earth is this a double standard? Where did I ever say that a woman shouldn't do the same if her SO goes limp and refuses to talk to you when you try to sleep with him?

quote:
quote:
you just started having sex with her and pretending that you didn't care that she seemed completely unresponsive to you, right?

I did start, I was confused, I wondered what was happening. I didn't know if I was doing something wrong or she was just tired or she had lost interest in sex in general.


And then you continued, and did it repeatedly, day after day, and never once asked her about it, right?

quote:
I stopped because I don't like lousy sex. Others might not. It took me several times before I said something. She wouldn't talk.Several times more and then she said I should just keep having sex (but I didn't because I don'tlike lousy sex). A few times more I was let in on the rape thing. Oh.

That's not the situation we were debating here.

quote:
No I'm not. I'm saying a guy can't tell why a person is not doing something.

That's what the larnyx is for.

quote:
How the hell is a person supposed to know something WITHOUT communication?

Who the hell *doesn't* try and communicate when they're not the one who is scared to death?

quote:
Your own "minimum case" has a person repeatedly stepping back into a situation in which there was NO overt violence or threat of violence...

Yes, there indeed was the threat of violence. His behavior was already discussed.

quote:
Why on earth did you corner yourself? Oh okay, for sake of argument... You try and step around. If he moves to block then the action indicates what you are facing.

You may not fear enough, to try and step around someone who is acting like a mugger, and is physically the equivalent of a 7'2" bodybuilder in comparison to your average man. I am not that way, and many women even less so than me.

quote:
I am not dancing around anything. If a guy that "looks scary" comes and says "give me money" then it is my fault for giving it to him if that is all the criteria of the situation.

So, for a comparison, exactly when are tellers taught that if a person is acting like they have a gun in their pocket when trying to rob a bank, and there's something gun shaped in there, that they should demand that the potential robber pull the gun out and make sure that they can get a clear look at it? You have this strange insistance on escalating the conflict merely to prove that the situation is dire. I don't. You're making it out that if a person *doesn't* choose to escalate the conflict to prove that the situation is dire, that it's almost as if it's their fault. I find that horrible.

quote:
The appropriate analogy would be continually cornering yourself on the same subway station again and again and giving away your money to the same guy.

Right here, sitting at my computer, this second, I am cornered. Every day, where I work in my office, I am cornered. Every day I wait for my ride home, I am effectively cornered.

Where on this planet do you live in which you always have an escape route?

quote:
No. There is no such thing as an overt threat just because a guy is overly aggressive and maybe hostile in general. Unless you are suggesting that he was incapable of any conversation or being turned down without engaging in completely violent acts?

quote:
I'm sorry but I think this is beginning to get ridiculous. Especially as she stayed with the guy.

Yeah. She should have ran off from college and disappeared, right? Seing as they lived in the same bloody dorm and went to the same bloody classes...

quote:
quote:
Again, I don't know that she didn't.

Remember my whole point is based on the fact that YOU SAID SHE DIDN'T. If your position changes to that she may have, or that she did, then there is no longer any argument from me... except that it still would not be "in a way" and become "might have included".


I spoke incorrectly. It had been over 5 years since I had previously discussed this with her, after all.

quote:
That's pretty much a rewording of what I did say.

"In a way" rape, is quite different than "she may have been raped, but I don't know".


"In a way" means "maybe yes, maybe no, depending on how you look at it."

God, I hate semantid debates, and you keep picking wierd choices of semantics to argue about.

quote:
quote:
In fact, telling someone that you consider what they're trying to do to be rape is a recommended action I've seen on a number of information sheets on what to do if someone is trying to rape you. Sometimes, it gets the person to stop; it carries weight.

Yeah, sounds like a good idea. What I said would not change this.


Yes, it would. You're suggesting that people use a term which currently has little or no meaning - some newly coined term which has little social, and no legal, bearing.

quote:
Can I point out the irony that I was saying someone should say something and then you argued they don't have to because they might be afraid?

For god's sake, I was arguing about the relevance of semantics with you, and the importance of a term having weight.

quote:
The problem with the broad use however is not BEFORE the act, but AFTER. Women can scare the hell out of men all the want with rape charges, its the claim of rape after, when it isn't really accurate, which is not good. It connotes a level of criminal activity which a person may not have actually done, and it devalues the term for what others have suffered.

And not using it devalues when people *do* suffer.

quote:
Milder side of rape. Yes that says it all. I have a problem with that concept.

And I have a problem with you trying to narrow down the concept, which from my view legitimizes other horrible actions. We've already agreed that we disagree on this one - how many times do you want to beat a dead horse?

quote:
Just as "sexual offender" or "sexual predator" has come to equivocate and so implicate as equals a violent serial rapist, a random window peeper, a sock sniffer, and a porn voyeur, the broad use of rape entangles people of many different crimes (or midemeanors) and totally devalues the term by equivocating between people who were through a violent sexual ordeal, and those who went through something "milder".

I completely disagree with your list. A sex offender carries the connotation of someone who has conducted sexual assault. A sexual predator carries the connotation of someone who has conducted serial sexual assault or is considered at high risk for repeat sexual offenses.

Dictionary.com agrees with me (it only has the first term):
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sex%20offender
(searching on google for the second term, heres the first hit
http://www.defiance-county.com/dcso/SORN/Sexual Predator Definition.htm

Once again, you argue against the dictionary - on a semantics debate, at that!.

quote:
Having been a victim, and seen what use the broadening of the term has been put to, I find it less than useful.

And my partner, after our last discussion, finds narrowing it less than useful. Why are we even still talking about this?

quote:
quote:
I see narrowing the terms as legitimizing acts that may not be quite as bad, but are still horrible.

I have shown you in what way it devalues the worst case.


And I have shown you in what way narrowing the terms legitimizes the non-worst case.

quote:
I have not seen how using terms like violation and assault instead of rape "legitimizes" anything.

As I stated before, and you didn't address:

1. Sexual assault *IS* the legal term for rape. Do you want us to use the legal terminology for everything?
2. Violation is a euphemism for rape - and one which does not carry weight. In the situation described earlier, can you honestly say that this bears weight:

Victim, to perpetrator: "I consider what you're doing to be violation."

quote:
I did not imply this except when I was saying what I could do if I was going to be unfair. You have since continued to act as if I meant it.

Why the heck did you say it at all then? I'm sure you knew how it would be taken. How would *YOU* have reacted if I had accused you of lying about *your* experience? Never ONCE have I doubted or even slighted your experience. Not once.

And if I sound like I'm taking this harshly, it's because I am.

quote:
Maybe my statement was so offensive that it was hard to shake the idea that I was not actually meaning it?

Try this on for size.

"If I wanted to be unfair, I could suggest that you're just making your sexual assault story up so that you can try and push your issue of restricting the definition of rape. Perhaps you never were assaulted, and this is just a cheap story you've concocted."

Hurts, doesn't it?

quote:
I wasn't asking which was rape but how would will be known? Or moving against another's will be known?

Once again, back to my original point: Few things in this world are black and white. There's a continuum.


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2004 7:44 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2004 9:55 PM Rei has responded
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2004 6:41 AM Rei has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 13 (146876)
10-02-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rei
10-02-2004 9:53 PM


You did imply earlier that it's not rape if the woman doesn't resist

You don't think saying "no" constitutes resistance?

I don't believe that Holmes is stupid enough to mandate actual physical resistance before rape can be substantiated; so you either misunderstood him or you're setting up strawmen again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rei, posted 10-02-2004 9:53 PM Rei has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rei, posted 10-03-2004 4:17 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5176 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 9 of 13 (146932)
10-03-2004 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
10-02-2004 9:55 PM


Crash, if you're not going to follow the conversation, don't butt in.

(in all quotes, emphasis mine)

quote:
There is a big difference between saying something and putting up resistance, and going along with something you don't happen to like because you THINK something might happen.

quote:
Rape is having said no and tried to stop the sexual activity and the attacker overcoming that active resistance.

quote:
I would say that rape is the crime of forcing sex AGAINST the will of a recipient, not merely on an unwilling or unresisting recipient.

He *did* state that if the victim isn't *actively* resisting, it's not rape. The only person putting up a strawman is you. You just wanted to come in here and use that word, didn't you? Next time, check the conversation first, will you?

This point is probably what I find most disturbing about Holmes's argument. Holmes, a good portion of (a significant majority, I believe... I'd have to check...) rape victims *don't* resist. Once again, perhaps you don't have a sense of fear - but that's *not normal*, particularly for women.

People are scared of being beaten - and *realistically*. People are scared of being killed - and *with reason*. The sort of person who will force sex on another person is capable of all of that, quite easily. Combine that, with the perspective (tall man to an average woman = over 7 foot tall bodybuilder to the average man), and something you don't seem to take into account - the lack of the testosterone-driven "fight or flight" reflex - and you should be able to see *why* many women fear their attacker enough to take the actions that they do.

Is fearing enough not to resist a good course of action? Probably not, unless they're armed. However, I want to you understand *why* many women don't, instead of your denigrating their suffering for the sole reason that they didn't. I find what you're doing just horrible... simply horrible. I would have left this conversation long ago (and cried less, at that), if it weren't for this fact.

You would have had my partner put herself at risk for getting beaten or worse. You would have had her leave school to get away from him (either that, or stay in town and go to the same classes as a person like that, right after breaking up with him). You would fault her - who never had any teaching, read any pamphlets, or whatnot, on what to do in such a situation - for being afraid.

Well, you know what? I don't care what you think. I back her 100% on this, and if you disagree.... I really don't give a damn. Go second-guess someone else's reaction to a traumatic event; I don't want to hear yours any more.

(end of conversation)

This message has been edited by Rei, 10-03-2004 03:41 AM


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2004 9:55 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2004 7:20 AM Rei has not yet responded
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 5:02 PM Rei has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 13 (146955)
10-03-2004 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rei
10-02-2004 9:53 PM


Me: Ok. What if I told you that I was debating with someone online who thought that it shouldn't be called rape if the victim doesn't physically resist?

Crash was right and you were wrong. I will get to that in a response to the post where you quoted me saying otherwise. I my point was that they should say or do something. Either counts as resistance.

The new information appears to have changed the situation to a rape. If she told him no and then he went forward then that was that. Although I will say that I find her weak for not leaving (unless she was physically kept from leaving) afterward... whether she reported it or not would be besides the point.

How on earth is this a double standard?

One is expected to communicate if there is an observation that circumstances have changed, the other is wholly free of expectations of communication.

And then you continued, and did it repeatedly, day after day, and never once asked her about it, right?

I wish you would read my post in it's entirety before responding line by line. I answered this.

That's what the larnyx is for.

That's my point, not yours.

Yes, there indeed was the threat of violence. His behavior was already discussed.

That a guy is physically imposing looking and is a type A personality, and maybe very aggressive does not mean he would be willing to cross the line of rape.

You have not laid out ANY behavior which might go beyond that. Remember all I had to deal with was what you said. I cannot be held responsible for new information.

Oh yes and I forgot to answer, a person who is not scared to death of being beaten may not communicate when they are scared of other possibilities or confused and do not want to embarass themselves or their partner.

acting like a mugger

Saying "give me money" is acting like a mugger? I don't know what it's like in Iowa City but in Chicago and Amsterdam that's an every day occurence.

If the difference is one person is scarier looking than the other, I am lost. I already told you that the hugest guy that ever said that to me (I mean this guy was HUGE) and added "I just got out of jail" turned out to be a bum. A very thin and weak looking guy turned out to be the mugger.

I will add... if you are so easily frightened then it is an odd thing to corner yourself on a platform. And if one is that scared then one should also take efforts to keep others at a distance and move before they ever get a chance to block you in.

So, for a comparison, exactly when are tellers

This is getting very sad. A person coming up to an individual on a street and saying "give me money" may just be a bum. A person going into a bank and telling the person "give me the money" is trying to rob a bank... or they are completely delusional. And before we start walking down the list it will include anyone else being asked to give money that clearly does not belong to them.

But you ask about why tellers are instructed not to escalate the situation. That is because banks don't like their customers scared, the money is insured anyway, and there are methods of dealing with the situation. The teller is supposed to reason the situation out. But I can tell you a teller who hands money to a person who is clearly UNARMED and without delivering a threat, would be fired.

Where on this planet do you live in which you always have an escape route?

Still lamer. You always have an escape route unless or until you are actually CORNERED. I have no clue how you are "effectively cornered" every time you are waiting for a ride home. How? And there is no where else to wait?

But even that does not get to the point. If you then get mugged at one of these places and then keep going back and back and back and the same guy keeps mugging you... AND YOU DON'T SAY ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING???

Yeah. She should have ran off from college and disappeared, right? Seing as they lived in the same bloody dorm and went to the same bloody classes...

If that is what it would have taken. Yes. If she really could not break up with this guy and stay in those dorms and go to her classes in peace, and furthermore could not get the guy kicked out if he was bothering her if she wanted to stay, then yes she should have left to get to a college where she could go to school without being continually raped.

I am lost as to how this is an extremist position.

"In a way" means "maybe yes, maybe no, depending on how you look at it."

That is so vague as to make any act "in a way" any other act. Besides I thought I made it clear what I was taking "in a way" to mean... what you just repeated in the previous post: a milder form of rape.

You're suggesting that people use a term which currently has little or no meaning - some newly coined term which has little social, and no legal, bearing.

What on earth are you talking about? People can use the term "rape" to stop a violator in their tracks beforehand. It's just afterward that rape does not get to be thrown around as casually as it is getting used.

And I am still wondering why it has to be some new meaningless term that must be chosen. What is wrong with harassment, assault, battery, violation?

And not using it devalues when people *do* suffer.

Why? For example if I get beaten up, my suffering has somehow been devalued if I don't get to say I was "murdered"?

Why must all cases point to the extreme in order to have any value?

Like I said, for myself I see no less value in what I went through in saying it was either a sexual violation, assault, battery etc etc etc...

from my view legitimizes other horrible actions.

While we can finish by agreeing to disagree on semantics, I think I have a legitimate question which you have avoided answering.

How does assault, violation, battery etc etc lend legitimacy? Your argument appears to be calling something a form of the most extreme type of crime or it is legitimized in some way. I am challenging that semantic concept.

A sex offender carries the connotation of someone who has conducted sexual assault. A sexual predator carries the connotation of someone who has conducted serial sexual assault or is considered at high risk for repeat sexual offenses.

Heheheh... you are wrong. I mean you are right about the connotation part, but wrong about who it gets applied to, and so prove my point.

A couple years back the Chicago Reader did an article on some poor sap that had a foot smelling or touching fetish (I forget which). He snuck in and did one or the other to some girl while she was sleeping, though she woke up. But let us be clear he did not in any way contact her sexually (apparently not even masturbating). He was LEGALLY branded a sexual offender/predator because his offense was of a sexual harassment/violation despite no force of sexual activity on another person.

Well that puts him in databases everywhere. He moved to Illinois where he was forced to register and his identity posted online. Some girl at his new university found his name and then started a movement to get him kicked out of the dorms because he was a sexual offender which means (as you just said) he must have done something very bad.

Uh, yeah. And no, his is not the only case. You are faster at googling than me so I trust you can find the data just as well. Why not go out and see what counts as sexual offender and sexual predator. You WILL FIND that it no longer even needs to include contact with another being.

We in western society are becoming so intolerant of sex that even slight sexual transgressions are being forced into semantic games where they all are related to the highest crimes. I repeat my position, this stigmatizes people who got nowhere close to the highest crimes, as well as devaluing the people that have been through the worst.

I have shown you in what way narrowing the terms legitimizes the non-worst case.

No you have not except in a slipperyslope manner where eventually NO terms are used. That is why we are still talking.

As I stated before, and you didn't address:

I did address them and you seem to be missing or ignoring my responses. The use of assault as a term for rape is state by state, and I have said (this will make three times now) a person can say "stop or you are raping me." Not only would that make it rape according to my definition, but even if for some reason you can come up with a hypothetical where it wasn't, it seems odd to think that a person would respond "well it will actually only be a violation."

Why the heck did you say it at all then?

There is obviously some miscommunication going on here. Why not go back to the post and read through it again. You insulted ME by starting to question if I got the full story of those girls in my anecdote. I said that was unfair, and then later said if I was going to be unfair to YOU and then said that other stuff which yes would include implying something about your gf.

The whole point was to show if you were going to start doubting my anecdotes I could start doubting yours to the extent of even doubting your gf's story as she told you.

And then I stated after that, that maybe we ought to start trusting each other's anecdotes and that I did trust yours!

Did you miss that section or something?

Hurts, doesn't it?

Actually it doesn't because you fronted it with "if I were going to be unfair". If you started saying I was lying, or directly implying it in some way then I would be. As for example you implied I was making up the story about the girls claiming they were raped when really they were making up shit through exaggeration.

I was offended by that, which is why I turned the table. I said that upfront and then said let's not do that to each other. Right?

Few things in this world are black and white. There's a continuum.

Your argument is that sexual violations must be some form of rape or they are legitimized.

My argument is that there is a range of unwanted or unpleasant sexual behaviors that move from socially unacceptable (normative) to the explicitly criminal, and within criminal from violations to overt attacks. Just because all do not get lumped into forms of the most serious attack, does not mean they are somehow legitimized, and that includes those that do not fall into the explicitly criminal.

I would argue that my position represents a recognition of a continuum, and yours black and white.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rei, posted 10-02-2004 9:53 PM Rei has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 13 (146958)
10-03-2004 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rei
10-03-2004 4:17 AM


Crash, if you're not going to follow the conversation, don't butt in.

Now you'll have to make nice with Crash as he WAS following the conversation. You have made an error.

Let's start from my very first post addressing your gf's situation.

She was not in ANY WAY raped, if she never said no or tried to get out of it.

That is the first sentence I made about conditions for rape in that first post. You can clearly see I said she could have said no or tried to get out of it. I was not saying that in any case she had to struggle.

Given that first sentence I am not sure why you misunderstood the following...

There is a big difference between saying something and putting up resistance, and going along with something you don't happen to like because you THINK something might happen.

I suppose I could have done myself a service by putting and/or instead of just and between "saying something" and "putting up resistance". The intention was that there is a big difference between the act of saying something and the act of doing something, versus the act of going along with something you don't like.

I realize how it could have been misread all by itself, but in context think it should have been more obvious. If not within the first post itself then in my second post (#48)...

It either IS, or it IS NOT, based on the victim's letting the attacker know that the action should stop and the attacker physically preventing the victim from ending it.

"In a way" would still have to involve letting an attacker know one's desire not to have sex. That is critical. Otherwise it is requiring mind reading on the part of the "attacker".

If you cannot see that this sets the context that conditions of rape are at saying "no" alone, then there is simply some communication divide betwen us.

This is also supported by my third post (#50)...

But then in answer to the question of rape you said "in a way" and noted she had not said no... she just figured it wouldn't matter.
From this I can only say it was clearly NOT IN ANY WAY rape. She was in a relationship with someone and did not tell the person no, and apparently allowed the sexual relationship to continue. NOT RAPE.

Thus when we get to this...

Rape is having said no and tried to stop the sexual activity and the attacker overcoming that active resistance.

... the term "that active resistance" was meant to refer to the statement and/or the physical attempt to stop it.

Again I would have been better served having put and/or in but I thought context had been shown by this point.

I would say that rape is the crime of forcing sex AGAINST the will of a recipient, not merely on an unwilling or unresisting recipient.

This is certainly vague enough in and of itself to be misread, except that I gave examples of what unwilling and unresisting could be which were not rape.

And on the flipside I noted when a person's will and resistance could be intentionally overcome before statements and/or actions could be made by the victim and so make it rape.

For example I had already stated that if she had seen him hurt someone else or see the direct threat of violence active resistance (vocal or other) is not necessary to make it rape... that would have been coerced rape.

I also stated that drugging a person intentionally indicated the person knows that their victim is unwilling and so overcomes the possibility of resistance... which makes it rape.

The above two are wholly different than a person choosing to give in because someone seems scary, never saying no AND/OR using direct physical actions to stop the sexual activity, despite not really wanting to have sex. And this is what I reacted to in my first post, which appears to not be the case now.

So I hope this clears up the confusion. But YOU were the one not getting it right, Crash was.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rei, posted 10-03-2004 4:17 AM Rei has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 13 (147230)
10-04-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rei
10-03-2004 4:17 AM


Crash, if you're not going to follow the conversation, don't butt in.

If you can't read plain statements in English, maybe you should be the one who butts out. Let's look at your quotes:

quote:
There is a big difference between saying something and putting up resistance, and going along with something you don't happen to like because you THINK something might happen.

Holmes clearly lumps verbal and physical resistance together. Saying "no" is resistance.

quote:
Rape is having said no and tried to stop the sexual activity and the attacker overcoming that active resistance.

Again, verbal and physical resistance are lumped together. Saying "no" is not eliminated as a form of resistance, but rather, identified as one avenue of resistance.

quote:
I would say that rape is the crime of forcing sex AGAINST the will of a recipient, not merely on an unwilling or unresisting recipient.

This quote makes no statements about the resistance value of saying "no." In the light of Holmes' other statements, we can conclude that he believes saying "no" constitutes resistance.

He *did* state that if the victim isn't *actively* resisting, it's not rape.

Yes. And he's made it abundantly clear that saying "no" constitutes that resistance. Again, if you're having trouble interpreting these plain statements, is this a conversation you should be a part of?

Holmes, a good portion of (a significant majority, I believe... I'd have to check...) rape victims *don't* resist.

According to a national survey of sexual violence, only about 20 percent of victims did not resist. Most women resist their rapists, and the majority of those women believe that it improved their situation.

and something you don't seem to take into account - the lack of the testosterone-driven "fight or flight" reflex

That instinct is present in all humans, and is driven by adrenaline, not testosterone.

I back her 100% on this, and if you disagree....

Look, of course we do too. Jesus, nobody should have had to have gone through what she went through.

But you're not doing her, or any victim, any favors by what you're doing here - promulgating strawmen and untruths and styling anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of rape-enabler.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rei, posted 10-03-2004 4:17 AM Rei has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 10-04-2004 7:34 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 13 (147276)
10-04-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
10-04-2004 5:02 PM


I'm glad someone else was reading the debate so it didn't just turn into me defending what my words meant.

You also caught something I didn't...

That instinct is present in all humans, and is driven by adrenaline, not testosterone.

Yeeeeeeaaah! And anyway, why is fight or flight being brought up as if it isn't a natural reaction in any stress situation? Whether a person does something or not they generally still feel the urge to do one or the other.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 5:02 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019