Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

internet porn reduces rape

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   internet porn reduces rape
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 30 of 63 (362680)
11-08-2006 5:41 PM 		Reply to: Message 29 by Legend
11-08-2006 4:42 PM

in other words, if you want to have sex with a woman who had a couple you need to bring in Henry Kissinger to negotiate the agreement and the UN to supervise the act itself.
​
What, your dick is so important that it's an international crime if it isn't allowed inside a woman?
​
Seriously, I don't understand your perspective. How often do you really think it's going to happen where:
​
1) a woman you don't know at all is interested in having sex with you;
2) she's so drunk she can't legally consent, but
3) she's sober enough that you don't notice.
​
Or is it just that you think you're above the requirement to use your judgement?
​
The requirement that one secure explicit, meaningful consent before having sex with someone hardly seems like an onerous burden. I hadn't realized that a man's right to fuck was so sacrosanct that no such burden could possibly be borne.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Legend, posted 11-08-2006 4:42 PM Legend has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-08-2006 9:57 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 47 by Legend, posted 11-09-2006 2:56 PM crashfrog has replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 33 of 63 (362738)
11-08-2006 9:21 PM 		Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
11-08-2006 8:16 PM

Re: How far does consent go?
Suppose a female is so inebriated so as to not make rationale decisions. Suppose the male was banking on this opportunity, but she did consent.
​
You're contradicting yourself. Was she so inebriated as to not make rational decisions, or did she consent?
​
It can't be both.
​
At what point does consent not really comply with consent?
​
When one's judgement is so impared as to make assertions of consent meaningless. Seems pretty simple to me.
​
Was it the right of the person with AIDS to mention that information, or is it, so sorry, maybe you should take sex a little more seriously for this very reason?
​
Ah, right. Sluts have to be punished, after all.
​
Can the person who contracted the disease file for damages?
​
Yes. Failure to disclose known AIDS status is a crime.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-08-2006 8:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-09-2006 9:10 AM crashfrog has replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 36 of 63 (362754)
11-08-2006 10:05 PM 		Reply to: Message 34 by macaroniandcheese
11-08-2006 9:57 PM

Crash is taken, ladies!
you're so sexy when you talk like that <3
​
Thanks, I guess.
​
But it's just ridiculous. I've lost track of how many guys ask things like this, looking for a safe legal loophole to rape a woman. It's gross.
​
Look, if you have sex with a woman who didn't consent, you raped her. Period. When she comes to, and realizes how she's been violated, what? It's gonna be all better for her because you had some kind of letter-of-the-law rationalization?
​
If you don't want to be a rapist, don't rape women. It's really that simple.
​
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-08-2006 9:57 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-09-2006 12:23 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 39 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2006 12:30 AM crashfrog has not replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 42 of 63 (362830)
11-09-2006 9:26 AM 		Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
11-09-2006 9:10 AM

Re: How far does consent go?
What constitutes consent and what constitutes the inability to make rationale decisions. Obviously everyone handles alcohol differently, so using measurements won't work. Where, then, is the line drawn in the sand from a legal POV?
​
Dunno; I'm not a lawyer.
​
But it seems to me that if you're sitting there, wondering how how you have to game her drinking to get her in the sack without rendering consent meaningless, you're doing the wrong thing. Missing the point, as it were.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-09-2006 9:10 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-09-2006 10:34 AM crashfrog has replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 45 of 63 (362897)
11-09-2006 12:10 PM 		Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
11-09-2006 10:34 AM

Re: How far does consent go?
But I was looking more at this scenario, wondering, if someone is for the most part a stand-up guy/gal and they both were trashed and neither of them could make good decisions. Do they cancel each other out?
​
The court would have to decide if a rape occured. But surely you have to recognize that, if a woman comes out of that experience victimized, surely more occured than simply two people fooling around. With the extent to which we re-victimize rape victims in our legal system, the idea that a woman would emerge from such an experience and think it was a good idea to fabricate a rape charge is mythical, ridiculous. The reason that only about 20% of rapes are reported - not to even mention how few are prosecuted - is that the victim gets raked over the coals, her life turned inside out for just the slightest hint that she's ever drank alcohol, or ever had sex except in the most chaste, mainstream way, or was dressed in anything but sackcloth.
​
I don't know what you mean by "stand-up guy." I don't see what that has to do with rape. If you're under the mistaken impression that rape, being a monstrous crime, is something only a monster is capable of, you're quite wrong. The simple fact is that even "stand-up guys" rape women. Rapists have friends, jobs, spouses and girlfriends even. I'm sure you know a few rapists. Just think about that. Some of your closest friends are probably rapists. There's simply too many men raping women for that not to be true.
​
Crimes don't get canceled out simply because the criminal is a "stand-up guy." Rape doesn't simply evaporate because you were too drunk to be in control of your actions. If a woman comes out of that victimized, the fact that you were drunk when you were raping her - the fact that you told yourself you had her consent - is irrelevant. Why on Earth would you expect that to matter?
​
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-09-2006 10:34 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-09-2006 12:32 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 48 by Legend, posted 11-09-2006 3:22 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 51 by subbie, posted 11-09-2006 4:10 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-09-2006 10:40 PM crashfrog has not replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 49 of 63 (362927)
11-09-2006 3:47 PM 		Reply to: Message 47 by Legend
11-09-2006 2:56 PM

Someone must have had a bad day!
​
No, I just don't think it's very funny when some guy thinks he gets to throw a pity party because he's expected to substitute rational judgement instead of sexual entitlement.
​
First off, (1) is totally irrelevant.
​
Come on, don't be ridiculous. (1) is why it's almost never a problem when a guy and his girlfriend come home from a kegger and fall into the sack together. I'm not asserting that familiarity "earns" you sexual entitlement; I'm telling you that when people are very familiar with each other they're able, under reasonable circumstances, to make a judgement about what the other person would consent to, if they were sober.
​
(1) is relevant because that's the situation we're talking about - two people who don't have the trust and familiarity to make accurate judgements about each other's sober wishes. Try to keep up, ok?
​
And, just for the record, have you been to a nightclub lately? It's a pretty regular occurrence for a man to find an unknown woman interested in having sex with him, there.
​
Ah, yes. The mythical bar slut who always wants it. Boy, some people just can't talk about rape without invoking all the old bullshit, can they?
​
Next day, she goes to the police, claiming you raped her.
​
Why? Oh, right. In your world it makes perfect sense for a woman to endure the rigors of a rape trial for no reason whatsoever.
​
You may be lucky enough to be acquitted at the trial, but by that time you'll have spent a few days in police cells, interrogated, your marriage will be on the rocks, your job too, to cut a long story short your whole life will be in ruins.
​
If a rape happened, why does that seem unfair to you? Oh, right. You're under the opinion that as soon as a woman expresses any interest whatsoever (or even simply gives the appearance of interest), you're entitled to sex with her.
​
See, when a man is accused of a sex crime, the old "innocent until proven guilty" adage goes straight out of the window.
​
Funny, for all the sexual-entitlement bullshit that guys like you regularly spew, there's absolutely no evidence this is the case. As it turns out, rape is probably the hardest crime to prosecute, and the rate of conviction is very, very low.
​
I mean, let's be real. Your hypothetical date with Kim Basinger comes to an end, and she wakes up and heads to the police, like you describe.
​
Do you know what they do? They laugh in her face and ask her what she was wearing and how much she had to drink. That's how the police investigate acquaintence/date rape.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Legend, posted 11-09-2006 2:56 PM Legend has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Legend, posted 11-09-2006 5:01 PM crashfrog has replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 50 of 63 (362929)
11-09-2006 3:50 PM 		Reply to: Message 48 by Legend
11-09-2006 3:22 PM

Re: How far does consent go?
Your video doesn't load for me. If you have some textual examples, I'd be happy to read them. But:
​
1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime. Maybe 1 in 1000 men will be wrongly convicted of rape, if even that.
​
Pardon me if I don't show up at your little pity party. I see actual sexual assaults happening every minute as a slightly higher priority than a man's right to get some easy tail. But I guess I'm crazy like that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Legend, posted 11-09-2006 3:22 PM Legend has not replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 57 of 63 (362985)
11-09-2006 9:57 PM 		Reply to: Message 51 by subbie
11-09-2006 4:10 PM

Re: How far does consent go?
Most, if not all, states and the federal government, have enacted what are called "rape shield" laws. These laws seriously restrict what facts about a complainant's past the defense may go into.
​
Right, but of course, for all that you accuse me of "ignoring facts", you over look the fact that rape shield laws have long been criticized by victim's-rights advocates as inadequate and unenforced; moreover, they don't apply to the media. So while the defendant might be spared being characterized as Slutty McOpenlegs in the courtroom, she simply has to turn on a TV and see the national talking heads wondering if she was asking for it by wearing heels.
​
But I am saying that it's very, very unusual anymore for the defense to be able to freewheel through the complainant's past.
​
And you know this from your decades of experience in trial law? Because people who do have that experience are telling me that these laws do very little to keep victims from being slut-shamed. (That's a technical term.)
​
Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post rendered invisible
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by subbie, posted 11-09-2006 4:10 PM subbie has not replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 58 of 63 (362993)
11-09-2006 10:17 PM 		Reply to: Message 53 by Legend
11-09-2006 5:01 PM

which of the above do you not understand ?
​
I understand it all, completey. It was a plain statement in English, after all. And it making it, you demonstrated an amazing level of whiney sexual entitlement.
​
I'm saying that the law is setup in the way that conscent is whatever the alleged victim makes it out to be.
​
Well, I've specifically refuted that. Questions of consent are a matter of fact settled by a jury. They're the ultimate arbiters in regards to whether or not meaningful consent was given.
​
But, I mean, how else are you going to do it? Allow rapists to decide if their victims gave consent?
​
Instead of condemning drunken sex the law actively encourages it and absolves women of all responsibility of the consequences.
​
Christ. Because, you know, sluts have to be punished, right? It's always about making sure women who have sex get their just desserts.
​
Why does it always come back to this? I used to think feminists were kidding - "surely people aren't obsessed about punishing sexually active women" - but here you are, one more guy adamant that a woman who has sex needs to suffer "the consequences."
​
Women have sex, Legend, and they don't need to be punished for it. I suggest you get over that fact.
​
I just said that unknown men and women go to night clubs to have sex.
​
No. You said that a man can go to a bar and find a woman willing to have sex with him. Every man, every time. See:
​
quote:
It's a pretty regular occurrence for a man to find an unknown woman interested in having sex with him, there.
​
A "regular occurance", according to you.
​
Do you see how you're betraying your attempts to hide your sense of sexual entitlement? No matter what you say, the fact that you think a man is entitled to sex at the slightest provocation by a woman comes right through. It's as plain as day. No distortion of your position; just the recognition of it. According to you, it's a "regular occurance" for a man to go out to a bar and find a woman who, apparently without even needing to say so, is totally ready for sex right then with anybody. Your very words, "regular occurance." Naturally, it can't be rape if she's ready to go with anybody at all.
​
Pretty disgusting. I've never met someone so dripping with contempt for women.
​
you want other reasons ? what about hate? settling of scores ?
​
Well, hey, genius, here's a plan for your protection: don't have sex with women who hate you. As a general rule, I don't. No false accusations of rape, yet. Works pretty well. Of course, that would require the recognition that you're not entitled to sex with any woman whatsoever, so I can see how you might find that plan objectionable.
​
Yeah ?!! Try telling this to Mr Blackwell. He spent five years in jail because some mental case said he raped her.
​
Shit happens, you know? People go to jail for crimes they didn't commit. It's the natural result of an imperfect legal process.
​
But the fact that it's damn rare for that to happen, while it's far, far too common for a real rape to go unpunished, suggests to me that the appropriate course of action is not even greater levels of uncomfortable scrutiny into the personal lives of victims. But I guess if one man's freedom is worth raping, say, 20 women, as it seems to be for you, I can see how that'd be a problem.
​
Let me repeat that in case it didn't sink in: FIVE YEARS OF HIS LIFE IN JAIL BECAUSE SHE SAID SO.
​
Well, he did have sex with her. If she has mental issues, as you say, then why wasn't it rape? How did she consent while being mentally insane?
​
Get real.
​
Get a life. Get over your own penis. Get over the fact that it's entirely reasonable for people to have sex without needing to be punished for it.
​
Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post rendered invisible
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Legend, posted 11-09-2006 5:01 PM Legend has not replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 59 of 63 (362994)
11-09-2006 10:19 PM 		Reply to: Message 55 by AdminModulous
11-09-2006 5:33 PM

Re: Woah - this thread is totally derailing!
There's no misrepresentation here, as I explain in my post. Everything I'm saying is simply a reasonable interpretation of Legend's words as he says them. The charge of misrepresentation is just a distraction attempt.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by AdminModulous, posted 11-09-2006 5:33 PM AdminModulous has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AdminModulous, posted 11-09-2006 11:02 PM crashfrog has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024