Page 19 of 25 [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 25  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,256

01 Aug 2021, 4:39 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
So, apparently, a man possibly being denied sex is worse than a woman being potentially raped. Therefore, we women should just accept the potential for sexual violence in our lives since men's sexual gratification apparently takes priority over our bodily autonomy.


I'm not sure most men are sexually violent? there is, however, an undeniable misogynistic culture that persists among males (particularly those who consider themselves alphas) that is still discussed in locker rooms of sports clubs/teams.

The tinder age has mean't women have direct access now to literally thousands of these men. If a man is selected on one of these apps there's undeniably no confusion that he's expecting sex.

There's a reason frat-boy culture persists. Whatever part of the world you live in. The United states had a POTUS who celebrated being able to do this to any woman he wanted and a member of the supreme court who had a history of attempting to rape girls in his dorm.

We could have been having this conversation in 2016.



hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,998
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

01 Aug 2021, 4:44 pm

People do use Tinder for dating, not just hook ups (I hate that term, but I'm stuck for a better one right now).

I was reading r/askUK on Reddit earlier and the question was, "where did you meet your significant other?" And a lot met on Tinder and had been married for a few years.

So even then, it's not expected.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,256

01 Aug 2021, 4:47 pm

hurtloam wrote:
People do use Tinder for dating, not just hook ups (I hate that term, but I'm stuck for a better one right now).

I was reading r/askUK on Reddit earlier and the question was, "where did you meet your significant other?" And a lot met on Tinder and had been married for a few years.

So even then, it's not expected.


That's true but because of the ratio of men:women on the apps any male who get's picked thinks they have a shot.



uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 607

01 Aug 2021, 4:59 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Blaming the victim


There's another of those Pavlovian conditioned responses, you have to admire the public relations campaign that has been waged in order to shut down thought. In the scenarios we are discussing, there may be no blame to go around - that is the only point that need be understood.


It's a woman's body, not a tray of sandwiches left in the break room. You can't just dive in, and be like "oh, my bad, I thought it was for everyone..."

The notion of a "blameless" or "faultless" penetration makes it sound like two people just walk along and suddenly trip, and his penis just HAPPENS to become erect, while totally accidentally ending up inside her vagina, by mistake!

I mean, what guy hasn't been just minding their own business, and just ended up with their penis in someone, totally out of nowhere! It's not MY fault! I was on the sofa! My penis just RAN OFF! I had no idea where it was sticking itself! She was bent over and I could see her panties! CLEARLY she was expecting EXACTLY ME to come along, and plow her! I mean, it's possible she was just bending over to pick up her purse that she dropped, and didn't know that I was looking up her skirt, but, p'shaw, get real, what are the odds of THAT?!

It all sounds like porn fantasies.

Learn to be funny.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 40,283

01 Aug 2021, 5:03 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
It's a woman's body, not a tray of sandwiches left in the break room. You can't just dive in, and be like "oh, my bad, I thought it was for everyone...".


Gold. ^

Thank you.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,061
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 5:17 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Blaming the victim


There's another of those Pavlovian conditioned responses, you have to admire the public relations campaign that has been waged in order to shut down thought. In the scenarios we are discussing, there may be no blame to go around - that is the only point that need be understood.


It's a woman's body, not a tray of sandwiches left in the break room. You can't just dive in, and be like "oh, my bad, I thought it was for everyone..."

The notion of a "blameless" or "faultless" penetration makes it sound like two people just walk along and suddenly trip, and his penis just HAPPENS to become erect, while totally accidentally ending up inside her vagina, by mistake!

I mean, what guy hasn't been just minding their own business, and just ended up with their penis in someone, totally out of nowhere! It's not MY fault! I was on the sofa! My penis just RAN OFF! I had no idea where it was sticking itself! She was bent over and I could see her panties! CLEARLY she was expecting EXACTLY ME to come along, and plow her! I mean, it's possible she was just bending over to pick up her purse that she dropped, and didn't know that I was looking up her skirt, but, p'shaw, get real, what are the odds of THAT?!

It all sounds like porn fantasies.

Learn to be funny.


I know you have been keen to start another fight ever since the abortion thread, but you could at least read the thread before jumping in.

There are three components to securing a criminal rape conviction:
You must find:
1 - that the sex happened
2 - that the person did not consent to that sex
3 - that the alleged perpetrator knew the other person did not consent - this is the mens rea.

If 1 and 2 are found, but 3 is not - this is indeed a blameless situation, it isn't the victims fault, but neither is it the alleged perpetrator's. Your examples are amusing, but there are real life scenarios where mens rea must be seriously considered and investigated in a rape trial.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,612
Location: Brisbane, Australia

01 Aug 2021, 5:28 pm

Mikah wrote:
As an aside right at the beginning of the article:

Mr Lazarus was convicted by a jury and served 11 months of a three-year non-parole period. However, he was acquitted in a judge-only trial after the judge ruled that while Ms Mullins had not consented, Mr Lazarus believed she was consenting.

Look at that, a judge who understands mens rea unlike a jury of morons. I suppose everyone here thinks this was a travesty of justice.


Kind of seems gross, that it can be found that there may have been a lack of consent, but because the guy could believe that the lack of a no means consent from a drunk woman, he can get acquitted. This really does show that there is a problem, that assumptions of consent doesn't work, it is not just a case of ruining the mood, especially if the ruining the mood is to let the woman make a decision what happens to her body.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 40,283

01 Aug 2021, 5:32 pm

You're looking at one case, with one set of conditions which excludes confinement, restraint, violence, intent, exploitation, and psychological manipulation. You are also assuming that all rape is heterosexual and includes PIV.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 40,283

01 Aug 2021, 5:36 pm

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape. This definition also includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. Similarly, a victim may be legally incapable of consent because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with individual state statutes. Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/bl ... ition-rape



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 77,226
Location: Queens, NYC

01 Aug 2021, 5:40 pm

This has been the definition of rape, sodomy, and “criminal sex act” (which replaced sodomy) in New York State since at least the 19th century.

All carry identical penalties.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,612
Location: Brisbane, Australia

01 Aug 2021, 5:41 pm

Mikah wrote:
There are three components to securing a criminal rape conviction:
You must find:
1 - that the sex happened
2 - that the person did not consent to that sex
3 - that the alleged perpetrator knew the other person did not consent - this is the mens rea.

If 1 and 2 are found, but 3 is not - this is indeed a blameless situation, it isn't the victims fault, but neither is it the alleged perpetrator's. Your examples are amusing, but there are real life scenarios where mens rea must be seriously considered and investigated in a rape trial.


To be fair on the third point, you have said before that things like what someone is wearing and where they are is enough to imply consent.

What this really shows that if as you said 1 and 2 and not 3 happens enough, then the instigators of sex need to try harder to know if the other person is consenting. The onus is really being put on the victim to prove what the perpetrator did or didn't know?

This really otherwise gives free reign to guys to do what they want to women who might freeze up in the situations.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,061
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 5:42 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Kind of seems gross, that it can be found that there may have been a lack of consent, but because the guy could believe that the lack of a no means consent from a drunk woman, he can get acquitted. This really does show that there is a problem, that assumptions of consent doesn't work, it is not just a case of ruining the mood, especially if the ruining the mood is to let the woman make a decision what happens to her body.


What if you get what appears to be enthusiastic consent - a literal verbal "yes", then the morning afterwards the woman says she didn't really mean it - and she's not lying? She says she only said it because she was afraid for some reason. Do you plead guilty? I suspect you would be busily researching mens rea with your lawyer the next day.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

01 Aug 2021, 5:45 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Mikah wrote:
As an aside right at the beginning of the article:

Mr Lazarus was convicted by a jury and served 11 months of a three-year non-parole period. However, he was acquitted in a judge-only trial after the judge ruled that while Ms Mullins had not consented, Mr Lazarus believed she was consenting.

Look at that, a judge who understands mens rea unlike a jury of morons. I suppose everyone here thinks this was a travesty of justice.


Kind of seems gross, that it can be found that there may have been a lack of consent, but because the guy could believe that the lack of a no means consent from a drunk woman, he can get acquitted. This really does show that there is a problem, that assumptions of consent doesn't work, it is not just a case of ruining the mood, especially if the ruining the mood is to let the woman make a decision what happens to her body.


Speaking anecdotally, I've had female friends who did say no and try to push the man away, but he persisted.

Later, the man would claim something along the lines of, "I thought she was into it and just playing hard to get."

It seems some men can manufacture "consent" in their own minds, even when there clearly is none to be found.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,061
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 5:55 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
To be fair on the third point, you have said before that things like what someone is wearing and where they are is enough to imply consent.


Not alone, but as part of a bigger picture, unfashionable as that opinion is. What is much more important is the behaviour and history of the victim with the perpetrator when determining criminal intent. It does seems obvious to me that nunnery vs nightclub and heavy moleskin jacket vs hot pants might reasonably colour a scenario. This does actually work the other way too. Someone attacked in a supermarket can say "it's a supermarket - no one reasonable would imagine I was there looking to have sex in the bathroom" but according to this thread it's just crazy to say "it's a sex club, someone reasonable might expect someone there to be looking for sex".

Bradleigh wrote:
What this really shows that if as you said 1 and 2 and not 3 happens enough, then the instigators of sex need to try harder to know if the other person is consenting. The onus is really being put on the victim to prove what the perpetrator did or didn't know?

This really otherwise gives free reign to guys to do what they want to women who might freeze up in the situations.


That is the presumption of innocence at work. Yes, it can and does protect the guilty sometimes, but the alternative system where innocence must be proved - is quite undesirable.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,061
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 5:57 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Speaking anecdotally, I've had female friends who did say no and try to push the man away, but he persisted.

Later, the man would claim something along the lines of, "I thought she was into it and just playing hard to get."


For the record I would count that as rape.

XFilesGeek wrote:
It seems some men can manufacture "consent" in their own minds, even when there clearly is none to be found.


It doesn't actually matter what the man is thinking either. The test of a court is to find whether a reasonable person would believe they had consent. Otherwise you'd have to acquit lunatics who think rape is legal.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

01 Aug 2021, 6:06 pm

Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Speaking anecdotally, I've had female friends who did say no and try to push the man away, but he persisted.

Later, the man would claim something along the lines of, "I thought she was into it and just playing hard to get."


For the record I would count that as rape.

XFilesGeek wrote:
It seems some men can manufacture "consent" in their own minds, even when there clearly is none to be found.


It doesn't actually matter what the man is thinking either. The test of a court is to find whether a reasonable person would believe they had consent. Otherwise you'd have to acquit lunatics who think rape is legal.


What counts as "reasonable" varies.

Recently, in Peru, a man was declared innocent of rape because the victim was wearing red underwear. The judges have since been suspended, and the case declared a mistrial.

No "reasonable" person in a civilized country believes what a person is wearing, or where they are physically at, is a declaration of consent.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)