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
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
Let's come back to this one, Louie....
Defend this or walk, fool.
Tick tick tick...
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 . . .
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.....
how many people agree with me right now (or ever) has no bearing on the validity of my point.
You made a claim, I showed you why it was wrong based upon the theory of revolution, how successful the efforts are at revolting against the abuse of mens rights by rape law is a specific struggle that has no relevance to the point.
The abstract only states that feminist researchers and activists may have "understudied" and "undertheorized" the subject of sexual consent.
wondering how many a2k members are avoiding even reading a2k recently because of the child porn/rape threads.
Setanta wrote:The abstract only states that feminist researchers and activists may have "understudied" and "undertheorized" the subject of sexual consent.
You got that from "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept despite its importance to feminist researchers and activists interested in sexual violence."??? It does not say that feminist researchers and activists have understudied and undertheorized, is says that everyone has. The words "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept " were never qualified to a specific sub population as you claim that they were. MAY...where the hell did you get that?? Made it up did you?
Quote: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.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?
Quote: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.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?
Quote: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.You also state that you want to redefine "rape." What definition do you propose?
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.