0
   

Rape: What is it?

 
 
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 08:47 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqvzpEPTZds
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 09:01 pm
Ima stop unless you come back, but I loaded up...

Idjit...

Cool
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 11:10 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

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.

hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

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?

hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

I 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?

hawkeye10 wrote:
Paralyzed? how many people are we talking about here...is it really worth the trouble? Maybe a special case for them as well.

Common or uncommon, it really doesn't matter. Given your definition of "rape," how can you justify an exception for paralyzed individuals?

hawkeye10 wrote:
I can't think of a situation were it is an onerous burden to expect a person to physically demonstrate lack of consent.

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.

hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

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?

hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

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.

hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

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?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 11:56 pm
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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?
you have it backwards...sex with an unconscious woman is rape, always. Yes, they were not present, the unconscious was not a participant.

Quote:
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?
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.

Quote:
Common or uncommon, it really doesn't matter. Given your definition of "rape," how can you justify an exception for paralyzed individuals?
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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?
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:
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
and I think that you know this is how it should be so far as I am concerned.

Quote:
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?
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
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 01:59 am
This whole physical resistance thing is yet another indication of hawkeye's appalling lack both of knowledge, allegiance to only the worst male point of view, and total lack of ability to empathise.


It is dead normal for women to freeze when feeling threatened. (As it is for children and a lot of men)

Many, many women do not physically resist rape because they freeze. This is a normal physiological response for humans....and seems especially so for women. It is very common indeed for kids.

Hawkeye's view certainly (and with extraordinary ignorance) has been a pervasive contributor to the extreme trauma caused to so many victims of rape....(rape appears to have a higher rate of subsequent PSTD than most traumatic events), in that victims (and often others) blame themselves for this freezing, (I couldn't/didn't fight him) as well as the experience of freezing in and of itself being a highly traumatic one for many people who have experienced it and do not understand it.


Hawkeye is proposing that only those women (and presumably men?) who do not freeze shall be deemed to have suffered a serious assault, thus cementing women's role as acceptable targets for male sexual aggression, and continuing the millenia old especial targeting of rape victims for being considered at fault for the the offence against them.

He also holds , as an exception to other violent crimes, that the the victim must expose herself to more risk of death/injury, by physically resisting, in order for a crime to be deemed to have occurred.

This is chilling: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.



I really am almost unable to remain even mildly reasonable in the face of this appalling statement.

Let me quote it again:

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.




Hawkeye's appalling lack of even the most basic and minute ability to put himself in the place of a woman facing possibly the most terrifying event of her life is almost unbelievable.


a. He posits that a person in extremis (and the fear caused by the threat of rape is extreme, even where there is not a lot of obvious physical violence) must weigh up the choice to resist, thus making the risk that she will be physically hurt or killed greater, or suffer from the knowledge that the law will deem that her suffering is trivial.......IF SHE IS PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF ACTING AT ALL and has not frozen and/or dissociated (many previously traumatised people dissociate when raped.)


b. He then posits that a bit of counselling is all she needs if she has not resisted, and thus gone through all the horrors of rape, knowing that in the eyes of society her rapist has been, at most, a wee bit misguided and her experience can be dismissed as trivial. Oh.....and hey feel good....we can keep the evidence in case the rapist ever does anything to someone important.

His faith in counselling for fellas who may push things a bit far in their belief that their penis must be attended to under any circumstances and need a bit of assistance is amazing.

Therapy for men who sexually assault is extremely difficult, has a relatively low success rate, and can generally only be commenced when the man is facing serious penalties if he doesn't do it. In a culture that says it is ok for him to sexually assault within marriage (unless his wife has hit him or something) and in the community (unless his target is able to dong him one) the chances of predators changing their thinking would be even lower.


I might add that therapy for their victims is also long, difficult and often guarded re success. 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.

This has very serious consequences not only for them, but for society as a whole, as unresolved trauma can have very severe effects upon people's parenting, work etc.


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.

Oh, by the way, the little girls (you know....the 12 to 16 year olds you and agrote think you should have the right to have sex with...oh, sorry, who should be set free to enjoy their sexuality) will almost certainly freeze.

If the law reflected your ideas, you'd be free to rape 'em with no legal problems attached, wouldn't you.....they wouldn't physically resist. And...best of all...they ALREADY blame themselves, so, under your laws, they'd likely never say anything....you'd likely even be spared any notice at all.


Oh brave new world!!!!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 02:37 am
the level to which the other person is punished has little to no bearing upon the future well being of the one who feels that they have been violated. They may desire vengeance, but this will not help them heal. Besides, it is not the person who has been violated who is the primary concern when deciding what society will do about the transgression, it is the societies best interests that rules.

If the one who is violated resists society will pursue justice one way, if she does not it will go the other. The one who claims victim status gets to decide this by resisting or not. Either way society will commit resources towards making the one who feels violated whole, and towards trying to help the other person not get into these situations.

Dlowan assumes that the woman is the victim, but as we know from the rampant false rape allegations it is very often the alleged rapest who is the victim. It is in societies best interest for there to be the conclusive proof of force for a rape charge to be pursued. No matter what society chooses to do the alleged victim's best interest is met by working to heal rather that trying to force society to punish the alleged violator.

Quote:
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.
this is not different than it has ever been when we put sexual transgressions into the court system. You help me make my case that these situations for the most part don't belong in the courts. that so few who feel violated come forward now (and thus don't get help) should tell you that there are grave problems with how society addresses these situations. I should think that you would willing joinly those of us who are looking for something that works.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 03:17 am
Quote:
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.
http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=15998,1,22

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??
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 03:35 am
dlowan wrote:
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.
I can only barely believe this was written by Deb. I encourage any reader that might think Hawkeye has made any kind of a point whatsoever to investigate Deb's history on this and related subjects. Here is a woman who works with the victims of the worst mankind has to offer. A woman who is probably the most knowledgable person on A2K on such matters... who simultaneously, reliably will always defend the sanctity of life, for even the monsters who commit these horrible crimes.

For myself, a desire for a piece of garbage like Hawkeye to experience the fear and suffering he dismisses with his grotesqe point of view comes quite natural. It is my default position when I encounter pathetic would-be monsters of his ilk. But for someone as kind and compassionate as Deb to want anyone to feel the fear and suffering of a rape victim, let there be no doubt; Hawkeye is exhibing some of the most dispicable excuses for human reasoning there can be.

As any sane person can clearly see; Deb, Joefromchicago, Setanta and others have thoroughly obliterated every disgusting excuse for rational thought Hawkeye's produced. The thing that I find most disturbing here is this: Hawkeye writes with the competence of a rather intelligent person. He doesn't come off as some ignorant whacko who's just talking **** out of some misguided idea that there's something cool about projecting male dominance. If there was any forgiveness in my heart (though there isn't) for this kind of misogynistic idiocy; it would be reserved for those too stupid to know any better. As a seemingly otherwise intelligent being; Hawkeye exhibits the mindset of a dangerous psychopath.

While someone as kind and compassionate as Deb has the propensity to actually feel sorry for him; I on the other hand regard this brand of human garbage as I would a rabid dog. It matters little what other attributes a person with such monsterous beliefs may possess; his very existence presents a clear and present danger to lives I consider infinitely more valuable than his. I, for one, wish he would put us all out of his misery.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 04:35 am
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
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.
http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=15998,1,22

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??



You managed to find some "expert"...who is so expert I could not find her on google, and trot out this pathetic opinion as evidence that you are right?

I COULD google the real expert she opposed:

http://www.globalresiliency.net/bio.friedman.html

Just for starters, your "expert" thinks that freezing is always part of dissociation. One can freeze (it appears to be a common reflex strategy used by many animals) without dissociating, and one can freeze the first time one is exposed to traume.

Even were your "expert's" view to be correct, do you have any idea how many women 10% of the rapes per year would represent?


You know NOTHING about this.

I don't even need experts, I have treated enough rape victims to know all about freezing, and I am an experienced trauma specialist in my own right, and not just with rape.

Just noticed this honey:

"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??"

You're right...trauma victims generally blame themselves. Especially rape victims......partly because of the beliefs promulgated down the ages by scum like you.

How in HELL is that a counter-argument to the scum-induced extra trauma for those who DO freeze?



You should cease your noise and be silent and learn from the many people here who have wasted their time and thought on engaging with your arguments.


You are a truly pathetic creature.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 05:04 am
I find it interesting that this pathetic creep has trotted out yet another "source" whom he is unable to accurately summarize, but, more importantly, who argues against other positions he has taken in this and other threads.

In the first place, even this one pathetic source he produces seems to be someone who is unable to defend the thesis which this clown so eager puts forward:

Quote:
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.


As with his insistence upon the feminist researcher whose abstract he quoted earlier, it seems sufficient for him to find a phrase or two he can drag out of context, and the rest be damned. The irony of his reliance on someone who is very likely a feminist polemicist is that his position and hers with regard to consent are very likely to be polar opposites. In the case of this other brief quote he has trotted out, he fails completely to see that the prosecutor nails the witness with her own advice, to which she responds with a lame attempt to make a distinction between clinical psychology (is she really trying to claim she can practice clinical psychology in a newspaper column ? ! ? ! ?) and forensic psychology.

In the second place, he insists with feeble, crap sources such as this, to attempt to suggest that the victim of sexual assault is somehow guilty for the actions of his or her assailant, and that the victim needs to seek counseling (oh yeah, but not for the reasons this hateful sumbitch suggests) for his or her problem in bringing charges against an innocent and decent person. Joe very clearly makes chopped liver out of his pathetic arguments about resistance to sexual assault, and emphasizes his idiotic claim that perpetrators just need a little counseling. I particularly enjoyed Joe's question with regard to the need for bank robbers to make restitution to society by merely seeking counseling for their private property issues.

Finally, this same source argues against his position on child sexual abuse. In attempting to present a source to argue for one of his positions, he undermines another.

Quote:
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


This joker has consistently argued against the concept of informed consent, yet this "source" that he trots out for one purpose, contradicts his position in that matter. It truly does make me wonder if he can read and understand fully what he copies and pastes here, and whether he really is able to follow his own argument with the intention of making it coherent and internally consistent.

*********************************************

I posted earlier a comment about sneak thieves and petty theft which shot right over this clown's head. If you know it's not yours, it doesn't matter whose it is--if you take it your a thief. I guess i needed to have laid it out more clearly for him, but i don't know how you could get more clear. If there is any doubt at all about the issue of consent, you don't have explicit consent, and you need to keep your pathetic little weenie in your pants.

This joker, in the other thread, when railing against the "injustice" of the treatment of paedophiles, suggested that all that is needed is biologists to tell us when girls are sexually mature. This is basically the "if they're old enough to bleed, they're old enough to breed" position. He claims that his interest in age of consent and rape comes from the experience of his wife with child sexual abuse, and the experience of his daughters with child sexual abuse. Oh? I frankly find that very hard to believe. These experiences lead him to state that men are victimized by rape laws? These experiences lead him to question the validity of age of consent laws?

Tell us, Hawkeye, just how old do you want your daughters to be when they can exercise their "right" to have sex with some middle age pervert? Is 12 years of age old enough, perhaps 13? Or are you one of those old fashioned guys who thinks a decent girl waits until she's 14? If some lust-blinded selfish sumbitch such as yourself grabbed one of your daughters off the street, and dragged her into an alley, what would your advice to her be? To lay back and enjoy it? Should she attempt to black his eye so she can later make the case that she resisted, and the courts can heave a sigh of relief knowing that they were not about to ruin a decent man's life with yet another frivolous rape charge?

I think you're a liar. I don't think that you are motivated by concern for the victims of child sexual abuse or rape. In fact, i doubt that you have any daughters, and suspect that if you do, their mother has a peace bond to keep you away from them. I suspect that if you really do have daughters, and they really were the victims of child sexual abuse, that you are the most likely suspect as their abuser.

This is the most bizarre and surreal discussion i believe i have ever engaged in.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 07:23 am
hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

How male/female relationships have been "historically skewed toward male dominance" is, of course, completely irrelevant to the issue of rape, unless you're taking the position that rape is just another type of male/female relationship.

hawkeye10 wrote:
you have it backwards...sex with an unconscious woman is rape, always. Yes, they were not present, the unconscious was not a participant.

But the unconscious person, we can assume, did not "physically demonstrate her lack of consent." Furthermore, as your definition of "rape" requires "an encounter between two or more people," if the unconscious person is not counted as a person because she is not "present," then it follows that sex with an unconscious person is never rape. Isn't that correct?

hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
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?
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.

You misunderstand. I was positing a situation where the bound woman was tied up by someone else. Let's say she was tied to railroad tracks by her archenemy for the purpose of killing her. A man then appears on the scene and finds this bound woman. Is he free to have sex with her, given that she is not capable of "physically demonstrating her lack of consent?"

hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

I quite agree. But then shouldn't the law offer protection to everybody who is being attacked? That, after all, is certainly the case with any normal instance of battery. The law defines "battery" as any "unconsented touching." The law does not require the victim of a battery to "physically demonstrate his/her lack of consent" to the battery in order to claim the protection of the law. A guy who is hit over the head with a tire iron is not required to resist his attacker in order to claim that he was the victim of a battery. So why should the law be so generous to victims of batteries and so stingy to victims of rape?

hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

Well, if the choice is between being raped and being killed (or seeing her child killed), I imagine that most women would choose the former. I doubt that a woman would offer some sort of resistance just so she could fulfill the requirement for a rape charge if offering resistance would get her or a loved one killed.

Indeed, under your regime of rape laws, the rational rapist would announce to his intended victim beforehand that he will kill her (or a loved one) if she offers any resistance. Once he has made his threat credible, he is not only free to have sex with her, he can be assured that he will never be punished. What you're proposing, then, is nothing less than a holiday for rapists. Of course, if they're caught, they'll have to go through counseling, which I'm sure is really a drag, but that's a relatively small price to pay for some hot, hot rape sex. Isn't that about right?

hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

But applying force is, according to your definition, only half of the equation. After all, force doesn't equal rape (according to you). That's the current law. Under your definition, the woman still must "physically demonstrate her lack of consent." So a woman who doesn't resist because her attacker says he will kill her child would still, under your definition, not be a victim of "rape." And if she reports her attack to the police, I suppose that she will have to go through counseling to deal with her "fear issues."

hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
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
and I think that you know this is how it should be so far as I am concerned.

Yeah, I kinda' figured that.

hawkeye10 wrote:
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

So your requirement that women resist is really an evidentiary requirement. You want women to resist because, without resistance, there's no way to tell if she is lying about being raped, right?
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 02:14 pm
I don't know why I'm posting-- people much smarter than I am aren't making a dent-- but I just have to express how utterly astounded I am about some of this...

hawkeye10 wrote:
JoefromChicago wrote:
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?
to deal with her fear level and failure to make a stand.


God, I just can't believe that. A victim of rape should get counselling to "deal with her failure to make a stand." Jeez! A system where a person who's been raped will go to a cousellor and hear, "Let's talk about how you screwed this thing up." Really incredible. That must also mean that Hawkeye thinks that as long as you "make a stand" you'd never get raped.

Was this your strategy for helping your daughters process the abuse they went through? helping them to accept their responsibility for letting themselves get molested?
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 02:48 pm
cyphercat wrote:
"Let's talk about how you screwed this thing up."

That is a thought process that a rapist would have.. yes.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 03:02 pm
What, hawkeye has suddenly lost interest? Was it something I said?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 03:39 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 04:01 pm
bye bye
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 05:18 pm
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.

Loser.
0 Replies
 
martybarker
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 08:10 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 12:21 am
martybarker wrote:
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.
... to beat his wife, or molest his children... or rape a stranger who doesn't resist enough...
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 02:13 am
We're being a bit extreme here, aren't we? Hawk's views don't suggest that he's a wife-beater, rapist, pedophile, etc.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Rape: What is it?
  3. » Page 9
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 03:50:12