Rape: What is it?

Setanta wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Haweye wrote:

Quote:
You talk a big game, but what can you actually do on the floor??

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to get all macho on us again?

I think he wants to dance with you, Boss. However, if i were you, i wouldn't go off with him into a dark corner to chat.

Only if I can lead. Laughing

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Well, ain't that ****' brilliant. In that case, describe for me a circumstance in which rape can take place in which is can be justified.

My position is that rape should be redefined, not that rape is ever justified

Your redefinition seeks to justify it. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Redefined how? In your opening post, you quote the Wolf Woman, who writes:

Quote:

Rape - forced sexual acts with out consent.

You responded as follows:

Quote:

You act like consent and force are cut and dried. They are not, these are very squishy concepts. Actually, rape has been redefined to include coercive sex which is more nebulous still, coercion can been just about anything we want it to mean.

Bullshit--consent and force are cut and dried. Coersion is not a "nebulous" concept either, and the law recognizes the concept of coersion, and juries routinely pass judgment on the concept of coersion. It applies not simply to rape, either. If you approach me in a threatening manner, and tell me to give you all my money, without out explicitly threatening bodily harm, you can be charged with and in many cases can be convicted of strong-arm robbery. These are matters for juries to decide, and certainly aren't matters in which you, personally, get to say that the concepts are unreasonable and should be abandoned.

If someone does not explicitly agree to sexual congress, you will have raped them if you have sexual congress with, even if you don't apply force, and that person simply acquiesces out of what juries finds to be reasonable fear of bodily harm. Your example of someone who consents to sex, and later makes a charge of rape is a non-starter. If you can cast a reasonable doubt that the person was coerced by fear, if you can create a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge or a jury that explicit consent was given, you have a good chance to successfully defend yourself against a charge of rape. However, absent any explicit consent to sex, it's rape, even if you never lay a violent hand on the victim.

You have railed against age of consent laws, ignoring the concept of informed consent. I have still never seen you reasonably address the concept of informed consent. Instead, you whine about "rights" being taken away from minor children. What rights? If two minor children have consensual sex, in many (and perhaps most) jurisdictions in the United States, no crime has been committed, or the crime is a misdemeanor charge of corrupting morals or the equivalent, for which the punishment is trivial, and with minors, the record will be expunged upon attaining one's majority. In many juridictions, exceptions are made for those who are within three years of the age of the putative victim. with reduced sentences in the case of a conviction. In many jurisdictions, a minor child accused of a criminal sexual congress cannot be tried as an adult.

You have whined about marital rape. If someone says no, it still means no, whether one is married or not. Get over it. All your vague maunderings about troubled relationships are meaningless unless you can get down to cases, which doesn't mean imagining a hypothetical convenient to your otherwise bankrupt arguments.

The law and the enforcement of the law are far more subtle than you are attempting to claim. The law and the enforcement of the law recognize fine points of distinction in the behavior of victims and those whom they accuse.

You have no argument.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Well, ain't that ****' brilliant. In that case, describe for me a circumstance in which rape can take place in which is can be justified.

My position is that rape should be redefined, not that rape is ever justified

Your redefinition seeks to justify it.

Word

0 Replies

Quote:

If someone does not explicitly agree to sexual congress, you will have raped them if you have sexual congress with, even if you don't apply force, and that person simply acquiesces out of what juries finds to be reasonable fear of bodily harm. Your example of someone who consents to sex, and later makes a charge of rape is a non-starter. If you can cast a reasonable doubt that the person was coerced by fear, if you can create a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge or a jury that explicit consent was given, you have a good chance to successfully defend yourself against a charge of rape. However, absent any explicit consent to sex, it's rape, even if you never lay a violent hand on the victim

a few years back we had some American universities that tried out that line of reasoning in practice. It was said that for every act explicit consent needed to be voiced, As in "may I touch your left tit?" acceptable response "yes you may". it was unworkable and silly because this is not consistent with normal human functioning. In any case I have given link to evidence that consent is not well understood by the experts, your claim that you understand consent is neither here nor there.

Quote:

The law and the enforcement of the law are far more subtle than you are attempting to claim. The law and the enforcement of the law recognize fine points of distinction in the behavior of victims and those whom they accuse.

You have no argument

so if I live under a dictator and this dictator is kind and fair I don't have an argument to object to dictatorship??? The fact that so far the authorities have generally shown some restraint (to the consternation of those who pushed for these new laws and definitions) is not relevant. The fact that they could at any time, sometimes do, and increasingly do police individual sexual relationships is a problem that it is my duty as a citizen to object to.

0 Replies

Your "links" about consent only show that perpetrators might not well understand the concept of consent. That does not constitute evidence that the legal system is confused or dysfunctional over the issue of consent.

You idiotic allegation that "experts" don't understand consent is neither supported by the material you have copied and pasted here, nor is it supported by any logical argument on your part.

Your self-serving distortions or failures of comprehension of the meanings of brief passages from professional texts are neither here nor there.

Your dictatorship analogy fails because legal systems and dictatorships are not analogous. A legal system can be changed--the dictates of a tyrant cannot be changed.

You're now indulging a type of hysteria equivalent to wrapping oneself in the flag. You are attempting to compare the law to a dictatorship, which is a failed analogy; and you are ranting about your civic duty as though you were opposed to a clear and proximate threat to society. You only allege the threat, and so far, absolutely no one here agrees with you on the topic. However, if you want to play the loose cannon, help yourself. Perhaps you will get a chance to post from whatever prison you end up in, and let us know how it all turned out.

I believe i've already pointed this out, but just in case i forgot to do so . . . you're pathetic.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your "links" about consent only show that perpetrators might not well understand the concept of consent. That does not constitute evidence that the legal system is confused or dysfunctional over the issue of consent.

.

Explain how a scholarship paper which has a summery that starts out with the words "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept" demonstrates that perpetrators might not understand consent? The normal way to read this statement is that it is the experts who have understudied and undertheorized, you have obviously come to the conclusion that the meaning is that the the perps have understudied and undertheorized. Kindly reasonably support your reading or else agree that mine is correct and that yours is wrong.

Quote:

Your dictatorship analogy fails because legal systems and dictatorships are not analogous. A legal system can be changed--the dictates of a tyrant cannot be changed.

no, both can be changed by a revolt from the masses, which I am advocating here.

0 Replies

Where are the masses....

Rolling Eyes

A mass of one

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

no, both can be changed by a revolt from the masses, which I am advocating here.

You can advocate whatever you want. Your problem will be to get reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable people to agree with you.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
no, both can be changed by a revolt from the masses, which I am advocating here.

You can advocate whatever you want. Your problem will be to get reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable people to agree with you.

of course, and furthermore if my position cannot win converts it deserves to not be adopted assuming that the people who consider it are reasonable, intelligent, and knowledgeable

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

no physical force means that no crimial activity took place.

That's a rather odd position; it's clear that the law does not follow it in other circumstances. A person, for instance, can steal money from a bank just as much through embezzlement as through armed robbery. Are you saying that you would require an element of physical force to be present in all crimes, or just in the case of rape? And if you would require it just for rape, how do you justify that exception?

hawkeye10 wrote:

I would require some demonstration of resistance, and some physical overpowering of that resistance, in order to make the act criminal. Otherwise the case goes though public health channels.

I'm not sure how you can square that with your statement that an unconscious person can be raped. Surely you're not suggesting that an unconscious person must put up a struggle before the law can charge her attacker with rape, are you? And if you're not, then aren't you contradicting yourself? Or is there an exception for unconscious people in your requirement for the victim to resist?

You also state that you want to redefine "rape." What definition do you propose?

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
no, both can be changed by a revolt from the masses, which I am advocating here.

You can advocate whatever you want. Your problem will be to get reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable people to agree with you.

of course, and furthermore if my position cannot win converts it deserves to not be adopted assuming that the people who consider it are reasonable, intelligent, and knowledgeable

I realize that it is difficult for you to discern this, but they are.

0 Replies

Quote:

That's a rather odd position; it's clear that the law does not follow it in other circumstances. A person, for instance, can steal money from a bank just as much through embezzlement as through armed robbery. Are you saying that you would require an element of physical force to be present in all crimes, or just in the case of rape? And if you would require it just for rape, how do you justify that exception?

it is very common to have rigid lines of demarcation between various levels of transgressions. The having a gun during a crime or not, the use of force, the level of premeditation. The using of force/no force to distinguish between criminal sexual transgression/relationship dysfunction is perfectly in keeping with tradition.

Quote:

I'm not sure how you can square that with your statement that an unconscious person can be raped. Surely you're not suggesting that an unconscious person must put up a struggle before the law can charge her attacker with rape, are you? And if you're not, then aren't you contradicting yourself? Or is there an exception for unconscious people in your requirement for the victim to resist?

if a person in unconscious then they are not consciously at the event. likewise if a person is asleep and there is no prearrangement for sex then when the sex started the sleeping person was not consciously at the event. both rape and what I would qualify as a lower level possible transgression assume that we are dealing with an encounter between two or more people.

Quote:

You also state that you want to redefine "rape." What definition do you propose?

rape: an encounter between two or more people where one or more are penetrated by force. The force requirement is met after the one violated physically demonstrates lack of consent, and the resistance is overcome by physical force.

Lessor level sexual transgression and/or relationship dysfunction: An event where one or more of the persons involved feel that they have been sexually violated, but where the requirements for rape have not been met. These events are not criminally punished, but the individuals can be required to seek counseling with relationship professionals. Those who refuse to do so after being ordered will be subject to criminal justice.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

that post was a damn shame. You showed tantalizing hints that you could contribute to this thread, but you buried your thoughts in so much personalization that all was lost.

Dont worry.
I expected it to go over your head. Wink

Pretty typical.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

it is very common to have rigid lines of demarcation between various levels of transgressions. The having a gun during a crime or not, the use of force, the level of premeditation. The using of force/no force to distinguish between criminal sexual transgression/relationship dysfunction is perfectly in keeping with tradition.

True, there are lines drawn between types of crimes, and occasionally those lines are between force and no-force. What you haven't explained, however, is why rape/sexual assault is an appropriate place to draw such a line.

hawkeye10 wrote:

if a person in unconscious then they are not consciously at the event. likewise if a person is asleep and there is no prearrangement for sex then when the sex started the sleeping person was not consciously at the event. both rape and what I would qualify as a lower level possible transgression assume that we are dealing with an encounter between two or more people.

Which is it? Is it rape or is it a "lower level transgression?"

hawkeye10 wrote:

rape: an encounter between two or more people where one or more are penetrated by force. The force requirement is met after the one violated physically demonstrates lack of consent, and the resistance is overcome by physical force.

Then what you're saying is that a person incapable of putting up resistance is incapable of being raped, right? So you're wrong to have said that an unconscious person can be raped. Clearly, under your definition, people who are unconscious, paralyzed, comatose, bound, or otherwise physically incapacitated are fair game for any would-be rapist. Isn't that correct?

hawkeye10 wrote:

Lessor level sexual transgression and/or relationship dysfunction: An event where one or more of the persons involved feel that they have been sexually violated, but where the requirements for rape have not been met. These events are not criminally punished, but the individuals can be required to seek counseling with relationship professionals. Those who refuse to do so after being ordered will be subject to criminal justice.

What about those people who don't "physically demonstrate their lack of consent" because they believe it would be futile or dangerous to do so? For instance, suppose a man threatens to kill a woman's child unless she has sex with him. She does so, because she believes that his threat is credible. Has she demonstrated a sufficient amount of physical resistance to manifest her lack of consent, or is this just a "relationship dysfunction" that can be addressed through counseling?

0 Replies

Quote:

True, there are lines drawn between types of crimes, and occasionally those lines are between force and no-force. What you haven't explained, however, is why rape/sexual assault is an appropriate place to draw such a line.

It is a good point, the rap on men is that they can physically overpower so for that reason this is the place to put the line, and because it is not too much to expect a person who does not want to continue (or start) to physically demonstrate resistance.

Quote:

Which is it? Is it rape or is it a "lower level transgression?"

OOPs, I misspoke. The lessor level transgression assumes an encounter between two or more. Rape need not have two participating people, such as when one in unconscious.

Quote:

Then what you're saying is that a person incapable of putting up resistance is incapable of being raped, right? So you're wrong to have said that an unconscious person can be raped. Clearly, under your definition, people who are unconscious, paralyzed, comatose, bound, or otherwise physically incapacitated are fair game for any would-be rapist. Isn't that correct?

I am torn on law that would have those who are voluntarily incapacitated by volunteering to be bound being free to be penetrated. On the one hand it is not completely fair, on the other if the person who agrees to do bondage does not know their partner well enough to know that they would not sexually penetrate without agreement then they should be reevaluating how they play. These people should be in front of a professional. It might be though that special rules need to be made for them. Paralyzed? how many people are we talking about here...is it really worth the trouble? Maybe a special case for them as well.

Quote:

What about those people who don't "physically demonstrate their lack of consent" because they believe it would be futile or dangerous to do so? For instance, suppose a man threatens to kill a woman's child unless she has sex with him. She does so, because she believes that his threat is credible. Has she demonstrated a sufficient amount of physical resistance to manifest her lack of consent, or is this just a "relationship dysfunction" that can be addressed through counseling?

I can't think of a situation were it is an onerous burden to expect a person to physically demonstrate lack of consent. If the one who is violated is in enough fear that they can't fight for themselves then they need to be in front of a professional. The murkier the consent the more these individuals need to get help, and by talking away the criminal component we will facilitate more people getting help. You might not be aware but a great many people who feel violated will not speak of this to the authorities because they fear that the other person will end up in the criminal system. They suffer because societies penalty for rape is draconian, and the definition of rape has been in flux so one never knows what the courts will do if the situation makes it to one. I am fine with mandating that people "get help" because what I mean is not that they will be told what to do, but they will have the opportunity to make changes in what they do, and will have the opportunity to learn. I think that it is fair for society to demand of those who do things that leave one person feeling violated to sit though some counseling.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Your "links" about consent only show that perpetrators might not well understand the concept of consent. That does not constitute evidence that the legal system is confused or dysfunctional over the issue of consent.

Explain how a scholarship paper which has a summery that starts out with the words "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept" demonstrates that perpetrators might not understand consent? The normal way to read this statement is that it is the experts who have understudied and undertheorized, you have obviously come to the conclusion that the meaning is that the the perps have understudied and undertheorized. Kindly reasonably support your reading or else agree that mine is correct and that yours is wrong.

Agree that you are right and i am wrong? You can spit in one hand and wish in the other, and see which one fills up first. Why should anyone here consent to accept your dictatorial rhetorical terms that someone agree with your interpretations if they have not supported their own, when you don't support your interpretations with anything more than bald assertions of your opinions.

The following passage, which you provided, describes a failure to understand consent on the part of perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse:

hawkeye10's first cited source wrote:

Sexual coercion means to force someone to have sex by means of manipulation or threat. It often occurs in situations where the coercer has a poor understanding of sexual consent - for example, when boys think (or have been told) that girls have to say "no" so they don't feel like "sluts", even if what they really mean is "yes".

Sexual coercion can also arise when a partner with low self-esteem fears they will lose their boyfriend/girlfriend if they don't "put out". This type of coercion is often perpetrated by ill-informed people who fail to put their partner's needs and well-being on the same level as their own.

It was to that which i referred, the first quoted material you provided in this thread. The cows will come home on their own before i will acknowledge that in the matter of whether or not perpetrators understand consent does not determine if the legal system understands it that you were "right" and that i was "wrong." Clearly, you cannot even follow the train of thought upon which you have yourself relied, the evidence being that you provided that quoted material.

Now, to repeat my quote of your response:

You wrote:

Explain how a scholarship paper which has a summery that starts out with the words "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept" demonstrates that perpetrators might not understand consent?

In the first place, i have already cited the material which you supplied which lead me to make the comment about what perpetrators might or might not understanda about consent. But quite apart from that:

You further wrote:

The normal way to read this statement is that it is the experts who have understudied and undertheorized, you have obviously come to the conclusion that the meaning is that the the perps have understudied and undertheorized.

Leaving aside that you are so poor at rhetorical exchanges such as this that you did not recognize that my reference was to earlier material which you had copied and pasted to this thread, we have here an example either of a willingness to decieve on your part, or a failure of comprehension on your part (i suspect the latter). I will supply your failure by reproducing here that entire paragraph:

Another of your sources wrote:

Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept despite its importance to feminist researchers and activists interested in sexual violence. Literature on consent, although sparse, has been produced from a variety of disciplines, including law, psychology, and sociology. This article is a critical review of current literature and current understandings of sexual consent. Different conceptualizations of consent are analysed including implicit and explicit definitions from legal theorists and sexual violence and consent researchers. Alternatives, including communicative sexuality, are discussed and feminist understandings of the social context of consent and the social forces that produce understandings of consent are examined. Directions for future research are suggested.

The entire first paragraph from which you selected only a portion of the first sentence refers to a concept of sexual consent in the context of an area of study for feminist researchers and activists[/u]. Furthermore, this paragraph clearly shows that the author considers that the issue of consent has been studied in the context of the law, of psychology and of sociology. Given that your attempt to respond to my remarks took issue with my comment, specifically to the effect:

I wrote:

That does not constitute evidence that the legal system is confused or dysfunctional over the issue of consent.

. . . your decision to edit a source which you have provided in an attempt to refute what i wrote is an utter failure.

You are probably unaware of this (using the noun "scholarship" when what was wanted was a adjective--in this case, i'd suggest "scholarly"--suggests this to me) that you are quoting an abstract, and not the paper itself. An abstract will not tell you the extent to which the author considers that the legal profession and legal scholars have examined the issue of consent, nor in what contexts and with what conclusions. There is nothing in the text, even of that mere abstract, which suggests that it is legal scholars who have "understudied" and "undertheorized" the concept of sexual consent. Given also that this is obviously the product of someone interested in feminist literature and research into the issue, the author can hardly be considered to be an unbiased witness on the topic. Whether or not the author is unbiased, quoting an abstract does not constitute evidence that the legal system is confused or dysfunctional over the issue of consent.

Kindly acknowledge that you completely failed to recognize material which you provided yourself and to address it appropriately, and agree that you responded inappropriately, and finally, that what i wrote is correct and that your response is wrong.

Quote:

Your dictatorship analogy fails because legal systems and dictatorships are not analogous. A legal system can be changed--the dictates of a tyrant cannot be changed.

no, both can be changed by a revolt from the masses, which I am advocating here.[/quote]

You certainly do love melodrama and love to cast yourself as the heroic and righteous crusader for the righting of social wrongs, don't you? What evidence do you have that there are any "masses" prepared to agree with your point of view? You certainly can't prove it by the response in this thread, or in any other thread in which you have attempted to ride your rape hobby horse. In fact, were there truly masses who believed that there has consistently been an injustice perpetrated such as you allege, you wouldn't need a revolution to accomplish an appropriate change in the law--politicians would fall all over themselves to kiss your @ss and sponsor appropriate legislation. Had any calls from the statehouse lately? No? Why am i not surprised . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

If the one who is violated is in enough fear that they can't fight for themselves then they need to be in front of a professional

What?

Seriously. What?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Your "links" about consent only show that perpetrators might not well understand the concept of consent. That does not constitute evidence that the legal system is confused or dysfunctional over the issue of consent.

Explain how a scholarship paper which has a summery that starts out with the words "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept" demonstrates that perpetrators might not understand consent? The normal way to read this statement is that it is the experts who have understudied and undertheorized, you have obviously come to the conclusion that the meaning is that the the perps have understudied and undertheorized. Kindly reasonably support your reading or else agree that mine is correct and that yours is wrong.

Agree that you are right and i am wrong? You can spit in one hand and wish in the other, and see which one fills up first. Why should anyone here consent to accept your dictatorial rhetorical terms that someone agree with your interpretations if they have not supported their own, when you don't support your interpretations with anything more than bald assertions of your opinions.

. . .

No, my links do not only show that sometime perps do not understand consent, they also show the professionals have a poor understanding of consent, as I said when I originally linked to them. This was refuted by you when you used the word "only", you said that my lionks did not say what I said that they did. This is a false statement. I agree that perps aften fail to undertand consent but so what? Nobody understands consent, experts, perps, you, me.....

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Quote:
If the one who is violated is in enough fear that they can't fight for themselves then they need to be in front of a professional

What?

Seriously. What?

Let's come back to this one, Louie....

Defend this or walk, fool.

Tick tick tick...

0 Replies

Rape: What is it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know