You people are insane....(Yet another rape thread)

[Justanewguy]

Look, when this pops up, it is a little bit depressing. When we try and say that people commiting these crimes are some how "Not to blame" or "Accidental" (Pops up more than you'd expect/ want) It's a little ridiculous. These people have commited a serious crime. They are to blame one hundred percent. You cannot accidentally rape someone in the way a murder can happen accidentaly. You cannot be provoked into rape as you can with assault or murder. There is NO possibility of a rapist having done it unintentionally, not meant for it to happen, made a mistake etc. They do it because it is in their nature. Whether this is an excuse or not I cannot comment, but it takes a very sick person to gain sexual thrill over the feeling of a non-consensual partnership. When a crime like this is taken, certain liberties afforded to other criminals and victims of crime should be revoked, due to this simple fact: Rape cannot and happen accidentally.

I was with you until here, but under the United States' definition of rape, you're absolutely incorrect. Rape can, legitimately, be an accident, in large part because of ignorance of what rape actually is.

Example: You go to a party and find a nice girl who's had a little too much to drink. You both end up kissing and upon waking up you realize that you had sex the night before. Legally, you have just committed a rape.

The problem here is that this definition, while legitimately trying to do something good by protecting those who are intoxicated or otherwise don't have the capacity to say 'no,' but it also intrudes upon the victims of violent and unintoxicated rapes. A mistake at a party is tragic, and can have very unfortunate consequences, but ultimately a violent crime is a much more serious offense, and the two shouldn't be lumped together.

 

[Vault101]

When it comes to sexual assault, I certainly cannot say all cases are predictable and avoidable, but some could have been avoided, regardless of how flamboyant you think everyone has a right to dress. Walking into places full of individuals with little to no sense of morality (particularly if they are people known for violence), and doing so basically naked, is probably also going to elicit a predictable outcome. No one deserves that, and I don't necessarily think that's the message people were trying to convey. But was it predictable? Should the victim have known better for those particular circumstances? Yes.

but does "dressing a certain way" actually increase your chances of getting raped? mabye of getting gawked at and even groped but to ecourage somone to [i/]actually[/i] go through with rape...I mean that person is already at a certain point...

and I got the impression rape wasnt abotu "sex" but power and control...

 

[Vault101]

On the whole, I agree with you OP, but there are some mitigating factors that I refuse to ignore.

1) Men, when sexually aroused, aren't able to think logically, and are looking for instant gratification. There

what?....I'm pretty sure whatever effect it has its "less" than alchohol...your still able to controll your actions

[quote/]2) A woman dressing provocatively is sending a message, and a very shallow and stupid one. It says "look at me!" while assuming the part of "but don't touch" is a given because of laws. There isn't some medical condition that makes girls need to dress to arouse men. They want the attention, [/quote]

depending entirly on your definition of "provocative" half the time it could just be the fashion or how the clothes are, and wearing fashionable (more or less cloths) does not make you an attention whore

especially in younger girls when all you want to do is fit in

I wear short denim shorts not for attention but because I like them

I think the reasons for rape go beyond simple sexual lust....half the time its by somone they already know..

[quote/]
Ignore her on those claims. I said that 9/10 women in my area are undatable, and she jumped down my throat calling me a woman hater. After that conversation, I conferred with my brother on that estimate, and he agreed. He said the women around here are extremely selfish and unwilling to have a healthy relationship if they aren't completely in control of their partner's actions. But Ms. Gravesend here doesn't agree because the girls around her are fine.[/quote]

don;t know if your saying that as a joke but Morty is a guy

 

[Canadamus Prime]

3: Rights for Rapists

They have none, 'nuff said. ...or rather they should have none.

The long and short of it is we now live in a society of excuses. It longer matters whether or not a person is guilty of a crime, it's whether or not they can be held responsible for it, which is absurd. Unless they were under some sort of bizarre mind control they should ALWAYS be held responsible.

Being held responsible for your actions =/= taking away their human rights.

I didn't say that it did. Although when it comes to crimes of this magnitude (and only when it comes to crimes of this magnitude) perhaps it should.

EDIT:
Clarification: Action -> Consequence. So perhaps the consequence of these crimes should = loss of rights.

 

[Dastardly]

1: Being the victim of Rape because of your own stupidity does not take responsibility from those who did it.

Definitely does not. By the same token, while we are holding rapists accountable for what they have done, encouraging would-be victims to take precautions does not put responsibility on them This is an important point that works both ways.

First way: Doing something stupid/ill-advised that leads to you being raped does not in any way make the rape your fault. Second way: Advising someone not to do certain stupid/ill-advised things is not the same as blaming them for rape, if and when it occurs.

2: Being dressed like a slut/Man-whore does not entitle people to Rape.

I really haven't heard anyone use this one to say what you think they're saying. The way I frame it? Most folks that dress "provocatively" do it to provoke attention from others. And hey, that's their right. At the same time, it means they'll need to be a little more careful, because that also means they're more likely to draw the wrong kind of attention.

And I'm not just talking rape, either. Advertise with your body, and you attract people that want your body. If you're not careful to filter through the attention, you can easily fall for the wrong kind and get hurt in lots of different ways -- like falling in with some schmuck just using you for sex, or letting the very wrong guy take to his place, where you're less in-control of the situation. (Again, letting people know their actions are ill-advised is not putting blame on them.)

3: Rights for Rapists

This was your most problematic, because of the way you approach it. First off, like it or not, "rapists" do have rights. Foremost, they have the right not to be called "rapists" until they are convicted by a jury of their peers.

Putting that aside: Do you know what we call murder that happens accidentally? Not murder. We call it manslaughter. See, it's an entirely separate charge. And there are degrees of murder for when it is intentional (crime-of-passion versus premeditated).

If we can see a difference between types of murder, surely we can recognize the difference between a man forcing a woman into sex and knife point, and two drunk people having ill-advised sex (with a drunk man foolishly accepting a drunk woman's 'consent'). Or a 18-year-old with a 16-year-old girlfriend, when they've been openly dating since 15/13.

Not all killings are malicious, premeditated, or even intentional. The law recognizes this. Not all situations that involve sex are rape, and not all rapes are the same kind.

If a guy drugs a girl's drink? Flat-out rape. If she's passed-out drunk, and he's not? Flat-out rape. If they're both drunk and both have sex? Very different, grey scenario. If, on the outside chance, it's one of the rare false accusations? Good thing the purpose of a trial is to find out if a rape happened, and not to assume guilt and immediately label the accused a "rapist."

I'm all for throwing the book at rapists. Also murderers and robbers and all that. But until they are convicted under due process, they're not rapists, murderers, and robbers. And not every situation is exactly how it first appears. So just, in general, people have rights -- and that includes criminals, and alleged criminals.

 

[Signa]

don;t know if your saying that as a joke but Morty is a guy

What? Well he was defending chicks like he was one; like he had a vested interest in protecting all girls, including the bad ones I was talking about. It was personally insulting to him that I didn't like the girls in my area.

Wait, are you sure? That conversation was months ago, but I swear I read something where he said that he was a girl. I just assume people I'm talking with are dudes unless they say otherwise. I wouldn't have made the girl connection without someone saying so first.

*tries to wipe away egg on face*

As for the other part about hormones, I'm not the one to talk to on that for sure. It's just what I've heard, and I know some people, my brother included, are controlled far more by their hormones than I can conceive. I'm certain the effect is quite different than alcohol in that it doesn't affect the part of the brain that inhibits bad behavior, but I think it's more like it just shuts down the logical part of your brain, making it easier to do things without thinking about it, like crossing the street without looking both ways. Which is why it was part of my opinion in this thread. Add in getting drunk and you're doubly-screwed in making the right choice to not rape people.

Hm, I wonder if religion bans sex the way it does so that men are more horny and just accept the non-logic of what it teaches? Another topic for another time, but I'm always thinking about things like that.

 

[Vault101]

Wait, are you sure? That conversation was months ago, but I swear I read something where he said that he was a girl. I just assume people I'm talking with are dudes unless they say otherwise. I wouldn't have made the girl connection without someone saying so first.

I *know*[footnote/]as much as you can in this online setting[/footnote] him and I'm pretty sure hes a guy...unless he's lying

also I'm not sure I like the implication that you HAVE to be a girl to have a problem with or taken issue with certain things abotu sexism

[quote/]As for the other part about hormones, I'm not the one to talk to on that for sure. It's just what I've heard, and I know some people, my brother included, are controlled far more by their hormones than I can conceive. .[/quote]

see...as I said before I think rape goes beyond "normal" lust and hornyness...having sex while you and her are under the influence is a grey area

but to actually stalk somone and rape them....its not normal and I'm pretty sure has little do do with what thy are wearing

because as ive heard its about power, controll and degrdation...I remember back in highschool we had a guy soem and talk to us about it and said that most men who do such things are small "weak" induviduals..as in not physically threataning

 

[Xin Baixiang]

To the OP: See, here's where I have a problem. I'm a survivor of rape. You are telling me, a survivor of rape, that I cannot think "Hey, it'd've been absolutely swell if someone had come up to me four hours earlier and said, 'Hey, that thing there? Horrible, horrible idea. You are setting yourself down a path where any number of horrible things can happen to you. Don't do it. You're not going to like it, at best, you'll be scared and suffer post-flight trauma; at worst? You'll end up in a ditch somewhere dead. At absolute worst? You're going to be sitting here twenty years later wishing that you didn't have to choose between being dead or living with this stupid pointless fear of women all because of the actions of ONE woman.'"

That's what pisses me off. You're telling me that I'm blaming myself, when instead I'm wishing that someone had noticed that I was setting myself down a stupid pointless path and putting myself in a situation where someone else could take brutal advantage of me. That someone with more life experience and maturity had taken the time to come up to me and gently point out all the risks associated with my behavior, and that the bad people don't always wear black hats and smoke cigarettes.

You're twisting chivalry and making a mockery of the very concept of kindness, and you should feel bad.

 

[Signa]

Wait, are you sure? That conversation was months ago, but I swear I read something where he said that he was a girl. I just assume people I'm talking with are dudes unless they say otherwise. I wouldn't have made the girl connection without someone saying so first.

I *know*[footnote/]as much as you can in this online setting[/footnote] him and I'm pretty sure hes a guy...unless he's lying

also I'm not sure I like the implication that you HAVE to be a girl to have a problem with or taken issue with certain things abotu sexism

Very true, but it seemed to go beyond that in that conversation. He was trying to make me feel bad for jumping to a conclusion he didn't agree with. Granted, I'm not out looking for girls, but I am watching the ones I'm around, like co-workers, one of my sisters, or even girls on the internet (not here), and if they are better than I'm seeing, they aren't portraying themselves very well. And try not to take too much offense from me, because I'm just trying to state it as I see it. So far, from your participation in the conversation and on this site, I see you'd that 1/10 if you lived around here. It's hard to keep throwing out these general observations at someone who I'm pretty sure they don't apply to.

see...as I said before I think rape goes beyond "normal" lust and hornyness...having sex while you and her are under the influence is a grey area

but to actually stalk somone and rape them....its not normal and I'm pretty sure has little do do with what thy are wearing

because as ive heard its about power, controll and degrdation...I remember back in highschool we had a guy soem and talk to us about it and said that most men who do such things are small "weak" induviduals..as in not physically threataning

Once again, perception, but I've heard that far more often than I felt it was demonstrated. I'm pretty certain if you're a serial rapist, that would apply. [removed for potential code of conduct violation. I'm not getting in trouble for an off-hand comment.]

Damn, I really hope I'm not pissing you off. Firefox is screaming red at me from quoting you with the typos.

 

[chadachada123]

Snip

I don't need evidence about basic observations of society. My basic observations ARE my evidence, and are not necessarily the same as yours. No evidence is needed.

Oh look, now you're conflating your idiotic bullshit with ALL things about how society views male victims. Newsflash: You were way more specific than that. Why the hell are you backing off of the very specific claim I asked for proof of and going to a more general one? It's fucking dishonest.

You disagree with me about how society feels about males that percieve themselves as victims about drunk-regretful sex. You just said so. You disagree with me about how society treats male victims.

Are you sure you're not trolling? I feel like it's either that or you seriously don't understand burden of proof (and when it's not needed) and how basic humans interact with each other.

 

[chadachada123]

Snip

I don't need evidence about basic observations of society. My basic observations ARE my evidence, and are not necessarily the same as yours. No evidence is needed.

You don't seem to know what the words basic observation mean. Basic observation would be what you directly observe. You've jumped off of that into extrapolating it which is no longer merely an observation. Is that simple enough to understand?

Oh look, now you're conflating your idiotic bullshit with ALL things about how society views male victims. Newsflash: You were way more specific than that. Why the hell are you backing off of the very specific claim I asked for proof of and going to a more general one? It's fucking dishonest.

You disagree with me about how society feels about males that percieve themselves as victims about drunk-regretful sex. You just said so. You disagree with me about how society treats male victims.

IN ONE INSTANCE. Furthermore, I didn't necessarily even say you were wrong about the males. I was asking you to prove there was a double standard. Which could also mean I don't fucking think you got the part about the females right.

Are you sure you're not trolling? I feel like it's either that or you seriously don't understand burden of proof (and when it's not needed) and how basic humans interact with each other.

More like you don't understand what a basic observation is.

...Wow. For the first time ever on any forum, ever, I am completely at a loss for what to say. I have no response to possibly give.

You are so incredibly wrong that words escape me. I hope you are proud of at least that. I'm still trying to think of things beyond mental illness that could possibly explain this complete breakdown of simple communication.

Perhaps you're foreign, and things like "observation" mean something completely different to you? In either case, we clearly are not talking about the same things, so I shall have to take my leave.

As for as the OP goes, I still insist that double standards exist in the eyes of drunk sex 'victims,' and will continue to fight for equality as opposed to denying that double standards exist and arguing about it.

I contend that they are easy to see in my area based on my human interactions with others.

 

[Lionsfan]

don;t know if your saying that as a joke but Morty is a guy

What? Well he was defending chicks like he was one; like he had a vested interest in protecting all girls, including the bad ones I was talking about. It was personally insulting to him that I didn't like the girls in my area.

*facepalm*

I don't need a vested interest to notice that you're quite sexist against both men and women. And I had no vested interest in protecting 'the bad ones', I think that you really lack much of a basis for calling 9/10ths of women in your area bad. I think anyone does.

How much basis does he need? According to him, 9/10ths of the women in his area are undateable, and that proves what exactly? That he's sexist? Maybe he just has super-high standards that few of the women in his area meet? Maybe he knows a lot of them, and thinks they're all annoying? His opinion doesn't mean that 9/10th of the woman are anything, it's just how he feels about them, and it doesn't prove anything regarding his alleged "sexism"

 

[chadachada123]

I contend that you're biased.

Boy, you sure are report-happy over nothing.

But wait, you're allowed to call me biased and say that I'm believing in 'bullshit,' but I can't suggest that you're acting crazy?

That sounds fair.

I still think that I'm right about this particular double standard, and I don't think that there's anything I could say that would change your mind.