Are people really victim when it comes to beign raped?

No, it doesn't. I was raising the question of whether or not it should.

0 Replies

Rape doesnt happen unless somebody puts something into someone else without their consent.
I dont think a woman or person can be blamed for rape just because they have an appropriate orifice.
Its more to do with the rapist.

0 Replies

material girl wrote:

Rape doesnt happen unless somebody puts something into someone else without their consent.
I dont think a woman or person can be blamed for rape just because they have an appropriate orifice.
Its more to do with the rapist.

Exactly. But some people just don't want to understand this simple fact.

0 Replies

There is a distinction which Snood is missing here. Someone who indulges "figthting words" is acting with intent. A woman who wears clothing which someone else thinks is provocative has not necessarily acted with intent. Within her culture, the style of attire may not be considered inappropriate, and so it is not reasonable to consider that she has acted with intent. It's a feeble defense of rape, even in the most extreme examples.

I took the dogs to the lake a few weeks ago, and there was a young woman there walking around in tight, white short-shorts, and a skimpy tank top. She was obviously very young, and obviously seeking attention (i saw her walking along the same paths more than once). She was also very pale, and the first thought which occured to me is that she was going to have a very painful sun burn that evening. I'm sure that was not her intent. I am equally certain that trolling for a rapist was not her intent either.

0 Replies

Fair enough. do you think it is ever the intent of a female to incite lust just for the sake of inciting lust? If that is ever the case, what is the distinction then?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There is a distinction which Snood is missing here. Someone who indulges "figthting words" is acting with intent. A woman who wears clothing which someone else thinks is provocative has not necessarily acted with intent. Within her culture, the style of attire may not be considered inappropriate, and so it is not reasonable to consider that she has acted with intent.

I think some of the examples mentioned earlier were when she does have the intent to attract sex and goes quite far to elicit it, but then changes her mind at a later or last moment - or always was already planning to let it come to a late or last moment and then stop.

I think that anyone has the right to do so, at any point in time. Period. And that continuing anyway beyond that point constitutes rape. Simple. But then, the concept of "fighting words" that Snood refers to, I am guessing, also is not used to absolve the defendant from the crime altogether, or to argue that the crime wasn't a crime; but rather as something that is taken into account in determining what consequences it should have. What sentence should be given. (Correct?) I suppose Snood is saying that its equivalent should also be taken into account in cases of sexual battery.

I dont know. Makes me kinda cringe at first blush, but then I'm thinking back of Soz's post:

sozobe wrote:

I think there are two basic categories of rape [..] The first category is nice and straightforward. The man (or woman) who does that is a bad person and deserves a hefty punishment. The second category is complicated, though. [..]

[W]hile on the one hand I don't want to see a guy do serious time and have his life ruined because he and his girlfriend were drunk and he was just out of it and not paying attention and she couldn't believe he wasn't listening when she said "not tonight honey" and then "stop" and then "no!" and she didn't want to scream because that would make it something that she was trying to believe wasn't happening but then found herself having nightmares and plunging into depression and finally told someone; I think the consequences of saying "see, his girlfriend contributed" are also ruinous.

Its another kind of situation, cause its not even one in which the girl ever necessarily went for sex in the first place. And yet still I think she sketches well how it's - like - a serious thing in itself, and yet different from the psychopath-attack thing (and I think there's many more of this kind). And how you dont really want to send the guy to prison for serious time & ruin his life. But you also definitely dont want to put a bar in the way of the girl coming out with something like this. So I'd say it's rather obvious that in a case like this, the guy does need to be brought to face that he did wrong - to be legally sanctioned for it. But that it would be silly to say, "rape = rape", period, and consequently send him to jail for the same time as the psychopath who attacked viciously with premeditation.

(In fact, there's a chance that it would actually become easier for women to come out and tell about such cases if they knew it wouldnt immediately send their (ex-)boyfriend/husband to jail for years.)

But how can you make a distinction like this in sentencing, if you dont allow for making any distinction in the approach that, well, rape=rape? How does that work now, in courts?

0 Replies

Most rapes are premeditated. Most are done by known assailants. Reported cases confirm that almost 3/4 of all rapes (reported) are committed by someone the person knows. Many (too many) are repeat offenders.

Very few "just happen".

The most common rapist isn't some crazy lunatic running about and raping people at random. Yes, there are serial rapists who choose strangers but the reality of it is that most choose people they know. Be it a neighbor, a friend, a girlfriend. Rapists aren't ugly, scary men lurking in the shadows. They are most often nice, socially skilled men who don't look dangerous and who the victim is not prepared to fight off.

0 Replies

Rape is a crime of violence.

Arson usually has a sexual component.

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

Story from the Police Notes in the local newspaper:

A stud was booked for rape in front of the local District Justice. He protested, insisting, "It couldn't be rape. I didn't hit her. I just threatened to hit her."

The victim's contribution: "He threatened to shoot me, too."

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

As for all these hypothetical women dancing naked, sorely tempting frail men.....

What about the situation at Duke? Are exotic dancers "asking" to be assulted and raped?

Are nurses "asking" for rape because they "like" to care for naked men?

0 Replies

Just for the record...
I am fully aware that rape is a crime of violence, involving the exercise of control and power by one person over another. A lot of what I've proposed here was just as devil's advocate...

It's interesting to me sometimes, how some people are terrified to say anything that's not exactly what they're supposed to say.
I see that in discussions about rape, I think.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Just for the record...
I am fully aware that rape is a crime of violence, involving the exercise of control and power by one person over another. A lot of what I've proposed here was just as devil's advocate...

It's interesting to me sometimes, how some people are terrified to say anything that's not exactly what they're supposed to say.
I see that in discussions about rape, I think.

you proved your point with this line:"A lot of what I've proposed here was just as devil's advocate..."
:wink:

0 Replies