Moderator: Community Team
sabbytage wrote:I asked this several times previously, but of course no one can answer...what if he wasn't speaking clearly? but was grabbing her ass and pushing her head under the blankets while in his mind refusing consent a la Gump?
sab wrote:They are conditioning those at the start for their sex life to be afraid of sex, to expect to be called guilty just because a drink was drunk betwixt yes and sex.
sb wrote:It's odd that I'm worried about the country with the most prisoners make laws easier to imprison people? I see.
_sabotage_ wrote:Judges don't prosecute or convict
mrswdk wrote:Welcome to the first installment of 'But Was It Really Rape?', with your hosts sab and mandalorian.
Contestants are invited to judge which of the following cases constitute a rape and which do not. sab and mandalorian will then assign between 0 and 10 points to each contestant based on criteria such as accuracy of verdict, use of evidence and level of victim-blaming, after which two finalists will be chosen from the pool and face a specially prepared challenge.
So, for all those who wish to participate, get ready to play... But Was It Reeally Rape?
Case 1:
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2013/04/04/ ... y-johnson/
A lush is out wandering the streets in a drunken stupor when a passer by stops and offers her a lift. She accepts the lift and gets in his car, before the pair drive to a different location and engage in rough sex. Afterwards they remain together and the man drives the woman to a 7-11 at her request so that she can get more to drink. The stranger drives off and leaves her there, after which the woman accuses the man of rape and gets him arrested.
Note that earlier in the evening she had been with her boyfriend, who allowed her to walk off by herself and therefore clearly felt that she was sober enough to be left unaccompanied.
Case 2:
http://www.chinasmack.com/2014/stories/ ... ution.html
Dozens of schoolgirls in China's Yunnan province engaged in sexual acts with various prominent men. An older woman - Ms. Xu - would offer money to girls, who would accept it and then find more girls to accompany them to karaoke clubs chosen by Ms Xu. In these karaoke clubs they would then be invited to drink with senior officials and other prominent figures, and many would freely choose to do so.
After drinking they then engaged in sexual acts with their male drinking partners. Afterwards they would accept money from these men before returning home. These girls did so on multiple occasions, meeting Ms. Xu and the men for food and drinks at various locations. None of them reported any offense to the police.
Note: under Chinese law these schoolgirls are above the age of sexual consent.
Case 3:
The case of Ariel Castro
Three women lived with Ariel Castro in his Cleveland home for nearly two decades. They now allege that during this time they were repeatedly sexually assaulted ('rape' is such a loaded term) by him.
During this time, they were spotted in his garden and at shopping malls with him, never attempting to leave him or even behaving in such a way as to suggest that anything was wrong. One miscarried a child of his but another gave birth to a daughter, which she chose to keep, suggesting at least some consent. Castro was never seen with visible injuries, so the three woman obviously did not resist his advances very hard. He looks kind of handsome in the right light and has a nice little beard, so it's easy to imagine how the three women would have been attracted to him.
Talapus wrote:I'm far more pissed that mandy and his thought process were right from the get go....damn you mandy.
muy_thaiguy wrote:thegreekdog wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:Rape is forced sex.
No, actually, it's not. It's sex without consent. That's why statutory rape exists (the idea being someone under the age of 18 cannot give consent).
Now, I expect you don't agree with that definition and would posit it's another example of the state getting you down; but under legal definitions, that's the definition.
In the other thread he explicitly said that he doesn't care what the legal definition is and has his own opinion on what defines rape.
Talapus wrote:I'm far more pissed that mandy and his thought process were right from the get go....damn you mandy.
mandalorian2298 wrote:Case 1 shows how different people judge the rapiness of an event by different standard. Two drunk people having rough sex, one abandons another in 7-11 - I wouldn't call that rape. However, if you add " is a registered sex offender with multiple priors and an extensive violent criminal history, including gun possession, aggravated battery on a pregnant woman and two previous sex crimes, one of which involved the molestation of a child under the age of 16." and "the victim said she was struck on the head and raped."
getthisdalorianup288 wrote:2. Again, it is interesting which facts you deemed relevant and which you do not. Your version of events presents Ms. Xu as a cross between a pimp and Santa, who roams China in search of, according to your version, women above the age of consent, who are interested in prostituting themselves for gifts. She then puts them in contact with johns and they do the deed. That is not rap, that is prostitution, the world oldest trade which is actually legal in many modern societies.
Hower, if you add the things like "According to an insider, intermediary Xu X is a local powerful woman who forced schoolgirls into booked rooms to drink with customers, while drugging their drinks" then the whole thing starts looking a lot more as organized rape and lot less like a consensual business partnership. But hey, if you didn't think that the whole "hitting her over the head" stuff in the first story was relevant then I can see how easy it was to skim over those details about drugging and intimidation.
Symmetry wrote:From the UK point, as I recall, part of the confusion about this arose from the difference between getting a rape accused to a rape being convicted at trial. The trial rate was pretty high in terms of conviction.
The middle step- getting a rape accusation to actual trial was by far the biggest problem.
mrswdk wrote:Symmetry wrote:From the UK point, as I recall, part of the confusion about this arose from the difference between getting a rape accused to a rape being convicted at trial. The trial rate was pretty high in terms of conviction.
The middle step- getting a rape accusation to actual trial was by far the biggest problem.
Yes and no. In the UK, the majority of reported rapes don't go to trial, and roughly a third of those that go to trial result in convictions.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/mar/ ... onvictions
Figures released by the Crown Prosecution Service show that the conviction rate for rape prosecutions has increased to the highest on record, from 58% in 2007/8 to 63% in 2012/13. The CPS figures on rape are expressed as a percentage of cases where charges were brought and "flagged" as involving rape. In raw figures, there were 3,692 prosecutions for rape last year, resulting in 2,333 convictions.
The conviction rate for domestic violence has also increased by 1% in the past year to 74%. In 2005/6 it stood at 60%. There were 70,702 cases last year, resulting in 52,549 convictions and 18,153 acquittals.
mandalorian2298 wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:thegreekdog wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:Rape is forced sex.
No, actually, it's not. It's sex without consent. That's why statutory rape exists (the idea being someone under the age of 18 cannot give consent).
Now, I expect you don't agree with that definition and would posit it's another example of the state getting you down; but under legal definitions, that's the definition.
In the other thread he explicitly said that he doesn't care what the legal definition is and has his own opinion on what defines rape.
I'm pretty sure that you might be referencing my posts about cultural relativism.
What was the result of their investigation?
If they hadn't expelled the student would the result have been different?
Is the Obama admin enforcing a new definition of rape?
_sabotage_ wrote:Is a person capable of giving consent after consuming intoxicant?
Yes or no.
Does consuming intoxicants revoke prior consent?
Yes or no.
_sabotage_ wrote:No, as I have repeatedly said (I know I did, I wasn't drunk...wait I was high), prosecutors prosecute according to the law, not according to personal feelings.
If the law is not: it depends, but merely: I had a drink, then it is much easier for a prosecutor to prosecute.
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users