Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   diluted definitions of rape?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024