|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2001 : 05:53:22
|
Poll Question:
Which of the following scenarios is the first one that ought to be dubbed "rape" in the ordinary sense of the term?
(Assume that all those below it are also worthy of the appellation.)
|
| Results: |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 0 counted »» |
Last Vote:
never |
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2001 : 09:08:43 [Permalink]
|
You have a girlfriend saying "no" a couple times but you don't go into her actions. Someone could say "no" but have actions that say "yes"
If you said she said "no" AND tried to push someone away that would be clear.
Saying "no" while pulling a guys pants down is not clear 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 09:18:28 [Permalink]
|
I had the same though, @tomic. If she said no, then relented, but just laid there crying while the male went about it, then of course that's alot different than her saying no, then relenting and screaming "yes! yes!" during the act of intercourse.
[and no, I'm not being facetious!]
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/10/2001 09:19:16
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/10/2001 09:56:15 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 09:20:32 [Permalink]
|
By the way, if the third choice is rape, there's a whole lot of rape going on by both sexes all the time...
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 09:23:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You have a girlfriend saying "no" a couple times but you don't go into her actions. Someone could say "no" but have actions that say "yes"
If you said she said "no" AND tried to push someone away that would be clear.
Saying "no" while pulling a guys pants down is not clear
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
How bout saying "no" while tying him up...... ? Uhm, errant thought.
I think the intent is clear enough here (for those of us who can keep our minds out of the gutter, that is)
Ruminations: Could it be that 'rape' is when a person cannot reasonably walk away? You can walk away from a spouse, with emotional difficulty. Before engaging in the act with your boyfriend, you can leave and go home, or to a friend's, or etc. During the act, it is pretty hard to pick up and walk off, and it can be a pretty short step from making out to having sex. (Presume one partner has trusted the other to respect their wishes and wait, and the other has not done so.) You also cannot reasonably walk away while heavily intoxicated, or at knife/gunpoint. The only thing I can think of in a grey area for this would be date rape, in which one person has let themselves get into a compromising position with someone they (often) don't know well. It could have been avoided, but is still rape.
Is coercion to be considered rape? (wife-husband situation)
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 09:35:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is coercion to be considered rape? (wife-husband situation)
This is an ethical issue. No court is going to convict someone of rape in this instance. It's quite a stretch to call it rape in my opinion.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 10:37:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Is coercion to be considered rape? (wife-husband situation)
This is an ethical issue. No court is going to convict someone of rape in this instance. It's quite a stretch to call it rape in my opinion.
This brings up the good point that rape has technical meanings in both ethics and law, and dissimilar ones at that.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 10:35:00 [Permalink]
|
I don't think there should be such a thing as 'rape' or sexual assult. Just as there shouldn't be hate crime legislation.
If someone is attacted or killed, what difference does it make what the reason is?
The person accused should be judged on assult.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 14:05:57 [Permalink]
|
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that hate crimes are a federal offense. Normal assault and murder(if normal is the right word) are prosecuted by local governments. There is a lot more to it than that I am sure but I think that's basically it.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2001 : 05:03:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that hate crimes are a federal offense. Normal assault and murder(if normal is the right word) are prosecuted by local governments. There is a lot more to it than that I am sure but I think that's basically it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sorry @, you missed the point. It's not the jurisdiction it's what's involved in the crime/assult. As you know I hate my x-sister, if I kill her, would I be convicted of a hate crime or just murder alone? The motive would be because she stole money from my son and I'm angry(revenge), although I made 'anti-racial/religious' remarks to her. AND if convicted, does being convicted mean more time to serve. The sentences seem to vary so much anyway so what difference does that make too?
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2001 : 05:36:49 [Permalink]
|
I didn't vote, because I think the ranking of choices is not quite correct.
Seems to me that choice 3 (use of emotional sanctions after refusal) is closer to rape than choice 4 (use of alcohol/emotional threats/manipulation), as long as girlfriend in choice 4 does not actually refuse. (Everything changes if there is an actual refusal.)
All this also assumes that there are no mixed signals or other game playing on either peoples' parts.
I have a hard time understanding any circumstances in which a thinking, reasonable, not-emotionally-stunted individual can justify "no" meaning something other than "no".
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2001 : 06:32:35 [Permalink]
|
Snake you are using the broadest definition of the word hate and not the definition used by the law. When you create a law, definitions are spelled out somewhat clearly. You should go look up what the law says before you poo poo it.
You might remember at least one instance that individual were prosecuted for violating this law. The Rodney King trial part 2. While I personally agreed that the officers deserved more than they got in the first trial it did seem to put them into "Double Jeopardy" meaning they were tried twice for the same crime. That was that instance, however. Hate crime prosecution could just as easily be the first and only trial.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2001 : 08:58:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Snake you are using the broadest definition of the word hate and not the definition used by the law. When you create a law, definitions are spelled out somewhat clearly.
Perhaps I am but I don't think looking up what it means would help, I just don't think it's logical.
quote:
The Rodney King trial part 2. While I personally agreed that the officers deserved more than they got in the first trial it did seem to put them into "Double Jeopardy" meaning they were tried twice for the same crime. That was that instance, however. Hate crime prosecution could just as easily be the first and only trial.
Gasp! Oh no, that low life King. I hardly think that's a good example.
You know the law where if someone is murdered in the commision of a crime the person committing the other crime, such as robbery, gets charged with murder even if the cops are the ones that kill the person?
Rodney King should be charged with assult because he was the criminal. He made them chase him.
He's been in so much trouble since that incident too, he really belongs in jail. I think it was his fault police officers got out of control.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art.
Edited by - snake on 08/12/2001 09:01:46 |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2001 : 14:51:31 [Permalink]
|
Charging people with a crime they didn't commit?
What an insane legal system.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 03:01:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I didn't vote, because I think the ranking of choices is not quite correct.
Seems to me that choice 3 (use of emotional sanctions after refusal) is closer to rape than choice 4 (use of alcohol/emotional threats/manipulation), as long as girlfriend in choice 4 does not actually refuse. (Everything changes if there is an actual refusal.)
You're absolutely right -- my bad. I ought to have said that (3) and every choice thereafter involved at least one initial refusal.
quote:
All this also assumes that there are no mixed signals or other game playing on either peoples' parts.
Indeed. Thanks for making that explicit.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Penyprity
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2001 : 20:41:43 [Permalink]
|
I believe that any time coercion, threats, drugs or alcohol are used to get sex from someone..even if you are married to them, its rape. If the agreement to have sex is not made willingly, how can you know that its really o.k.? You cant. I also believe that a jury will see that the person was not a willing partner. I think the only mistake Lorrana Bobbit made, was telling them where she tossed it, while there was still time to reattach it.
Make your vote count. Become a supreme court justice......Peny |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
