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: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.Which is it? Is it rape or is it a "lower level transgression?"
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.
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.
First of all, men can also be the victims of rape, so the notion that the victim is always an overpowered woman is incorrect. Secondly, and more importantly, men are most often charged with rape not because they can overpower their victims but because they can sexually penetrate their victims. Making "force" an essential element of the crime of rape in all circumstances, therefore, is simply to mistake correlation for causation.
Let me see if I understand you: what you're saying is that an unconscious person isn't really "there," so it's rape because consensual sex (or "lower level transgression") requires at least two people. Is that right? Does that also apply to someone who is conscious but physically restrained?
really wasn't talking about someone who was voluntarily bound. Let me posit this scenario: a woman is bound in some fashion so that she cannot resist an attacker. A man appears on the scene, who has had no previous connection with the woman and who is not responsible for her being bound in the first place. Is he free, then, to have sex with her, given that "rape" (per your definition) requires the victim to physically resist her attacker?
Common or uncommon, it really doesn't matter. Given your definition of "rape," how can you justify an exception for paralyzed individuals?
It's a shame that your imagination is lacking. It is, however, certainly imaginable that a victim would be sufficiently fearful for her own life or the life of a loved one that she would submit to rape rather than submit to the alternative.
In the case of an attacker threatening a victim's child unless she submits to sex, you're suggesting that the victim needs help to deal with her "consent issues?" Are you serious?
No, I'm not aware of that. I am, however, aware that many women do not bring rape charges because they are afraid that there are people who will question their veracity, especially if they did not put up "sufficient resistance" to their attackers
Is that the kind of response you would advocate for all crimes, or is that just for rape? If a person, for example, were to rob a bank, would you recommend that he sit through some counseling to deal with his "private property issues" rather than face imprisonment?
That is if the victims come forward. Denying that she has even been raped unless she can be proven to have physically resisted (what is the evidence for that, by the way? Must the man be bruised? Cut? How would a woman prove this is how he was hurt? How can she prove she resisted unless he is obviously damaged?) would make the already low number of raped people who come forward even for therapy even lower.
Olivier testified that in her literature, only 10 percent of rape victims "froze", and there was a difference between freezing and not resisting.
A position of authority, such as Zuma's, did not necessarily mean the woman would freeze while being raped.
Literature showed this usually depended on the rapist's dominance and aggression. The complainant's personality was also important to how she reacted.
This would be different if the victim was a child, because a child was dependent on an authoritarian figure.
She told the court it was unusual for the woman to have fought off a rapist when she was a teenager, but not when she was an adult, considering children had less life experience and skills.
"Obviously there are women who do freeze," Olivier continued.
Under cross-examination, State prosecutor Herman Broodryk produced one of Olivier's advice columns in which she advised a rape victim that it was "normal" for women to freeze during rape.
Defending her advice, Olivier explained that this was clinical psychology and not the forensic psychology she dealt with in courts.
I find myself wishing that hawkeye could experience the terror (that may last for years, or forever), nightmares, flashbacks, inability to concentrate, numbing, constriction of life, inability to enjoy life, physical symptoms, depression, sexual avoidance or difficulty, self-loathing and blame that blights the life of many people who have been raped.
I wish that he could be there as people like me have to force victims to re-live the worst moments of their rape again and again and again and again in order for the traumatic memory to be able to be processed and cease to cause the terrible symptoms.
I wish he had to hear over and over again the terrible things rapists say (often the words..."you slut, you ****, you want this, don't you...you like it...you deserve this...you worthless **** etc etc etc. etc in all their delightful variation...repeated over and over again at a moment of terror these words become a reality for many victims, and are often the hardest things to resolve), the details of exactly what was done, the smells, the feel, the fears, the feelings in the body, the sights. (All sensory modes need to be addressed during trauma work).
All good fun, and just a wee boundary issue.
No real harm done. Men just gotta follow their hearts.
On ya Hawk.
Quote:http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=15998,1,22Olivier testified that in her literature, only 10 percent of rape victims “froze”, and there was a difference between freezing and not resisting.
A position of authority, such as Zuma’s, did not necessarily mean the woman would freeze while being raped.
Literature showed this usually depended on the rapist’s dominance and aggression. The complainant’s personality was also important to how she reacted.
This would be different if the victim was a child, because a child was dependent on an authoritarian figure.
She told the court it was unusual for the woman to have fought off a rapist when she was a teenager, but not when she was an adult, considering children had less life experience and skills.
“Obviously there are women who do freeze,” Olivier continued.
Under cross-examination, State prosecutor Herman Broodryk produced one of Olivier’s advice columns in which she advised a rape victim that it was “normal” for women to freeze during rape.
Defending her advice, Olivier explained that this was clinical psychology and not the forensic psychology she dealt with in courts.
so dlowan, many, many =10%, right? and you mean it is normal in that this is what victims are normally told rather than the actual truth because this fib suits the pro's agenda of making the victim feel better about themselves...right? and oh BTW, I am sure you don't want me to mention that even those who scratch and scream and punch also very often feel that they did not do enough to resist, as it gets in the way of your dishonest argument against my position....right??
Under cross-examination, State prosecutor Herman Broodryk produced one of Olivier's advice columns in which she advised a rape victim that it was "normal" for women to freeze during rape.
Defending her advice, Olivier explained that this was clinical psychology and not the forensic psychology she dealt with in courts.
This would be different if the victim was a child, because a child was dependent on an authoritarian figure.
She told the court it was unusual for the woman to have fought off a rapist when she was a teenager, but not when she was an adult, considering children had less life experience and skills
Until such time as women get charged for the sexual battery that they commit rape is almost exclusively a male on female crime. That the penis does the penetrating is a factor, but women have not claimed that this is why the male/female relationship has been historically (and this is debatable) skewed towards male dominance. The claim is that the physical power of the male is the cause. It is for this reason, perception not necessarily reality, the force is the perfect place to draw the line.
you have it backwards...sex with an unconscious woman is rape, always. Yes, they were not present, the unconscious was not a participant.
Quote:Binding a person so that you can sexually use them is applying force. There can be no debate, this is rape assuming that the binding was resisted.really wasn't talking about someone who was voluntarily bound. Let me posit this scenario: a woman is bound in some fashion so that she cannot resist an attacker. A man appears on the scene, who has had no previous connection with the woman and who is not responsible for her being bound in the first place. Is he free, then, to have sex with her, given that "rape" (per your definition) requires the victim to physically resist her attacker?
I can justify a exception because they probably need protection even though there are few of them. The law can not anticipate ever variation, that is one of the reasons that we have judges, to figure out what is to be done with odd circumstances.
if she knew that a rape charge would not stick unless she resisted then she might change her mind, if not society will still work to make her whole again and a record of the encounter can still be used against the man if he should violate a woman who resists at some time in the future. It would be better if she resists, but if not all is not lost.
to deal with her fear level and failure to make a stand. If the man is making a threatening move towards the child then this is the same as applying force so it is still rape. However it is not rape if the woman has only fears that her child will be harmed. We certainly could make it so that saying "do what I say or I will cut your daughter" qualifies as applying force.
Quote:and I think that you know this is how it should be so far as I am concerned.No, I'm not aware of that. I am, however, aware that many women do not bring rape charges because they are afraid that there are people who will question their veracity, especially if they did not put up "sufficient resistance" to their attackers
stealing is cut and dried, they either took it or they did not. Sexual boundary questions are about as muddled as any human endeavour gets
JoefromChicago wrote:to deal with her fear level and failure to make a stand.In the case of an attacker threatening a victim's child unless she submits to sex, you're suggesting that the victim needs help to deal with her "consent issues?" Are you serious?
"Let's talk about how you screwed this thing up."
What, hawkeye has suddenly lost interest? Was it something I said?
joefromchicago wrote:What, hawkeye has suddenly lost interest? Was it something I said?
no, still interested however once emotion has shut down the rational facilities there is no point in continuing to attempt to debate because mob psychology is in effect, and that is where we are. If you can find a couple of other people who want to talk rationally and honestly about rape or sexual politics or even gender politics count me in, otherwise I am moving on...for now.
joefromchicago wrote:What, hawkeye has suddenly lost interest? Was it something I said?
no, still interested however once emotion has shut down the rational facilities there is no point in continuing to attempt to debate because mob psychology is in effect, and that is where we are. If you can find a couple of other people who want to talk rationally and honestly about rape or sexual politics or even gender politics count me in, otherwise I am moving on...for now.
hawkeye10 wrote:joefromchicago wrote:What, hawkeye has suddenly lost interest? Was it something I said?
no, still interested however once emotion has shut down the rational facilities there is no point in continuing to attempt to debate because mob psychology is in effect, and that is where we are. If you can find a couple of other people who want to talk rationally and honestly about rape or sexual politics or even gender politics count me in, otherwise I am moving on...for now.
I think you had plenty of people attempting to talk rationally and honestly with you about this topic matter. The only problem you are finding is that out of all the past responders you haven't found anyone who will agree with you. So I guess its time to take your toys and go home.
