|
Author
|
Topic: internet porn reduces rape
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
Message 46 of 63 (362902)
11-09-2006 12:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
11-09-2006 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: How far does consent go?
If an acquaintance of yours got drunk and decided you were his best friend in the world and sat down and made out a will leaving everything to you, would it count? Should it? How would an honorable person behave? ___
Archer All species are transitional.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2006 12:10 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Legend
Member (Idle past 5035 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: 05-07-2004
|
|
|
Message 47 of 63 (362918)
11-09-2006 2:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
11-08-2006 5:41 PM
|
|
wow, what a spurt of over-reaction to my comment about the implications of the legal definition for conscent. Someone must have had a bad day!
What, your dick is so important that it's an international crime if it isn't allowed inside a woman?
?? non-sequitir. How the hell did you jump to this conclusion ?
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. First off, (1) is totally irrelevant. The law doesn't differentiate between people who know each other and people who don't. 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. As for (2) and (3) my point is that the law makes it so wonderfully vague and subjective that the alleged victim can easily claim that conscent hasn't been given regardless of what was actually said or done. Example: you meet someone at a night club, she's obviously been drinking, you take her to your/her home afterwards, you make out, she undresses, lies on the bed and says 'take me now' (a la Kim Basinger in Wayne's World), and you keenly proceed to oblige. Next day, she goes to the police, claiming you raped her. The alcohol-level in her blood can still be measured. You, on the other hand, cannot prove that she did actively conscent (no witnesses ). Here's what : the police will arrest and charge you. 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. See, when a man is accused of a sex crime, the old "innocent until proven guilty" adage goes straight out of the window. Hence, the need for the Kissigner / UN setup. It's the only way to truly have 'safe sex' these days.
"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2006 5:41 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Legend
Member (Idle past 5035 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: 05-07-2004
|
|
|
Message 48 of 63 (362922)
11-09-2006 3:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
11-09-2006 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: How far does consent go?
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. speaking of victimization, here's one for you . She sounds pretty traumatised doesn't she ? In the meantime the real victim, an innocent man, did time in jail. mythical?? ridiculous?? wake up and smell the reality mate! Enjoy,
"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2006 12:10 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2006 3:50 PM | | Legend has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 51 of 63 (362932)
11-09-2006 4:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
11-09-2006 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: How far does consent go?
Once again, crash, letting your ideology getting in the way of facts.
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. 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. Now, before you engage in your famous putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying there's no trauma in reporting a rape and going to trial. But I am saying that it's very, very unusual anymore for the defense to be able to freewheel through the complainant's past. Carry on, as I am sure you will.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2006 12:10 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2006 9:57 PM | | subbie has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
ardent feminism is the only appropriate choice for a man strong enough to love a strong woman.
What version of feminism are you talking about when you say "ardent"? I love strong women (mental and physical) and follow several modern feminists, but I can't stand the classic-prude feminist rhetoric regurgitated by some of the people around here.
Our best hope as a species is the rational acceptance of gender-free participation in all fields...Only the full synthesis will save us.
As much as I like working with women equally, what is our species needing to be saved from? Frankly I found much of this subthread personally revolting. Lets talk about equality and rationality. Intentionally drugging someone (including alcohol) in order to overpower them is rape because that acknowledges the other would not be willing. Taking advantage of a person that is totally inebriated (passed out/incoherent) would essentially be the same thing... even if it is more a crime of opportunity. But the idea that drinking alcohol and so not being fully cogent makes sex rape is ridiculous. This kind of stuff is part of the antisex position that humans basically don't want it, and if so only when they are at their most rational. That has little bearing with experience. Sex is a heady emotional thing. And drink has rather long been known to make people's inhibitions reveal what they want, including sexual desire, rather than what they don't want. It can be fun to have sex in that state. Both sexes drink and get drunk and (believe it or not) actually choose to do both together. There are even women who don't drink (being nondrinkers) while their boyfriends/husbands/dates do and then have sex. Is that rape? If not, why not? If a person sleeps with someone while drinking and then regrets that choice the next morning, feeling they wouldn't have done so without drinking... that's a mistake. That's their mistake. A person should should not be held accountable for someone else's desires and regrets, only for when they intentionally overpower a person's will. And again with the "informed consent" garbage. If informed consent was real then many people would be barred from having sex, most especially the mentally handicapped. Sex is not a complex situation. People want it or they do not. If you have sex with someone who doesn't want it, or take precautions so they don't have a chance to express their choice (unconscious/incoherent) then you are violating/raping someone. That one or another partner are inebriated and so less socially guarded, perhaps more open to making a "mistake" they regret later, is not. Yeah and I love that we can talk about this subject as women being the objects of rape and men the eternal perpetrator. Both sexes can be raped and sexually violated. Being a guy who has been can be extremely rough to get people to believe as well as to live down. Societal expectations are very hard on men that way. But yeah, anyway, Up with Women. Edited by holmes, : subthreadectomy
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 39 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2006 12:30 AM | | Omnivorous has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by Legend, posted 11-09-2006 5:23 PM | | Silent H has not replied | | | Message 56 by nator, posted 11-09-2006 8:07 PM | | Silent H has not replied |
|
Legend
Member (Idle past 5035 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: 05-07-2004
|
|
|
Message 53 of 63 (362939)
11-09-2006 5:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
11-09-2006 3:47 PM
|
|
crashfrog writes: 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. again....WTF? I said:
quote:
...my point is that the law makes it so wonderfully vague and subjective that the alleged victim can easily claim that conscent hasn't been given regardless of what was actually said or done.
which of the above do you not understand ?
crashfrog writes: 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. that's fine. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the law is setup in the way that conscent is whatever the alleged victim makes it out to be. It allows drunkennes to become a device of accusation and blackmail, while at the same time placing the onus on responsibility solely on the man. Instead of condemning drunken sex the law actively encourages it and absolves women of all responsibility of the consequences. The video I linked to is the false 999 rape call of a woman who claimed she was raped after fearing she might be pregnant after having drunken sex with a friend. The falsely accused man spent 10 weeks in jail before the forensics finally cleared him. Ten weeks in fucking jail because people like you think such cases are in the realm of the 'mythical' and 'ridiculous' ! There are dozens of cases like that every year. And these are only the ones we get to know of.
Legend writes: 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. crashfrog writes: 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? Now, where did I say that ? I just said that unknown men and women go to night clubs to have sex. You may not like it, it's reality - deal with it! And please don't distort what I write from now on. jeez...and I thought only the fundies took things out of context!
crashfrog writes: 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. no reason whatsoever?? here's the reason the woman in the link above had (quoting from the BBC) :
quote:
She invented the story because she feared she could be pregnant after having unprotected sex with railway worker Mr Chisholm.
you want other reasons ? what about hate? settling of scores ? mental illness ? oh, and before I forget here's another big reason: In Britain we have the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, a government body that holds a large sum of (taxpayers) money which it hands out to victims of serious crime, like...yes you guessed it... rape. So, to recap, apart from the emotional and mental reasons there's also a very material motivation for someone to be declared the victim of rape. Is that enough for you ?
crashfrog writes: 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. Jeez Louise you have serious issues! Please show me where the fuck I said or even implied that or shut the hell up.
crashfrog writes: 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. Yeah ?!! Try telling this to Mr Blackwell. He spent five years in jail because some mental case said he raped her. Let me repeat that in case it didn't sink in: FIVE YEARS OF HIS LIFE IN JAIL BECAUSE SHE SAID SO. ..and also because there are people like you out there who live in a self-righteous la-la land where the man is guilty by default and the woman can never do any wrong. Get real.
"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2006 3:47 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2006 10:17 PM | | Legend has not replied |
|
Legend
Member (Idle past 5035 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: 05-07-2004
|
|
|
Message 54 of 63 (362944)
11-09-2006 5:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Silent H
11-09-2006 4:15 PM
|
|
holmes writes: If a person sleeps with someone while drinking and then regrets that choice the next morning, feeling they wouldn't have done so without drinking... that's a mistake. That's their mistake. A person should should not be held accountable for someone else's desires and regrets, only for when they intentionally overpower a person's will. Thank you! Succinctly put.
"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2006 4:15 PM | | Silent H has not replied |
|
AdminModulous
Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: 03-02-2006
|
|
|
Message 55 of 63 (362946)
11-09-2006 5:33 PM
|
|
|
Woah - this thread is totally derailing!
The phraseology from some members has become unecessarily strong. I appreciate the subject is one which can provoke an emotive response but if you cannot debate the topic dispassionately, please don't debate the topic. Remember the guideline in the rules:
quote:
Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.
So please, I urge everyone involved to consider whether they are able to conduct the debate in this fashion. If, on reflection they cannot do so they should cease. Those who are unable to make this decision will have it made for them. Legend recently complained over a certain amount of misrepresentation. More than that, the misrepresentation was in the form of a slur against his character. That means you crashfrog. I'm going to go through the thread a second time, to be sure, but I think Legend has a point. I consider characterising your opponent in this light:
crashfrog writes: 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. Is highly disrespectful. Finally: The topic is about internet porn reducing rape. Let's try and tie our general discussion about rape etc back to the topic of internet porn (I can't believe as an Admin I am trying to steer the topic back towards porn - it's totally awesome). The drift seems to have occurred around schraf's Message 23 and the replies that followed. Legend's infamous Message 29 is really crossing the topic rubicon. Thanks for reading. Most of you know already, but discussion of this action should be directed to the relevant thread in my signature.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2006 10:19 PM | | AdminModulous has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 56 of 63 (362967)
11-09-2006 8:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Silent H
11-09-2006 4:15 PM
|
|
quote:
This kind of stuff is part of the antisex position that humans basically don't want it, and if so only when they are at their most rational.
Er, I don't read it that way at all. I read it as people shouldn't assume that any pariticular person wants to do it with them. It also read it as people shouldn't assume they have a right to another's body just because they want that body.
quote:
Sex is not a complex situation. People want it or they do not. If you have sex with someone who doesn't want it, or take precautions so they don't have a chance to express their choice (unconscious/incoherent) then you are violating/raping someone.
I don't for a minute believe that all cases of having sex are anywhere near that black and white. What, do you think all people simply ask "Hey, will you have sex with me?" Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic post rendered invisible
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2006 4:15 PM | | Silent H has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
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.
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 60 of 63 (362999)
11-09-2006 10:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
11-09-2006 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: How far does consent go?
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. I meant it as if one or both were trashed and both were all about it. They both had sex, both enjoyed it and crashed out. When the woman woke up the next day, she 'assumed' that she was taken advantage of, in essence, raped, even though she was nowhere near raped by any reasonable standard. Would the courts simply throw the book at him over her testimony? It sounds like a tough case, because he's absolutely bewildered and she is not being malicious, she honestly believes in her mind that she was raped. It sounds like a very tough case. Of course this is all hypothetical but I'm sure something like this has happened before.
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. Some people have fabricated rape. That's neither mythical nor mysterious. But my scenario doesn't have that malicious intent. My scenario has a women who honestly thinks she was raped.
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. What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the scenario? What woman gets raked over the coals for drinking alcohol or unchaste sex in a court of law? A rape charge isn't going to be decided by some activist judge but a jury of her peers as is with all criminal cases.
I don't know what you mean by "stand-up guy." I don't see what that has to do with rape. That's me saying that the guy in the scenario is not a rapist. Other than this accusation, he's a stand-up guy. That's what I meant.
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. What does this have to do with anything? You are talking about apples while I'm speaking about oranges.
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? The entire point of the post is that he didn't rape her, rather, he had consensual sex with her. If they were both drunk would they cancel each other's rape's out? If they were both just smashed, did they rape each other, or did they have drunken consensual sex? Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post rendered invisible
"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2 nd Corinthians 10:4-5
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2006 12:10 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by tudwell, posted 11-09-2006 10:58 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
