|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 03/28/2002 : 23:57:20 [Permalink]
|
Garrette:
[quote]why must the male be held to blame? Especially if he would also have said no if sober. Is it only the female who can be raped? Is it only the female who can use the 'yes means no' defense?[/quote]
Of course it's not only the female, and it is hard to determine which partner is to blame in that case.
[quote]If the temporary loss of rational capacity opens the door to 'yes meaning no' does it not then also open the door to drunkenness as a defense against the charge of rape?[/quote]
This is an excellent question that I had not considered. I need to think about it for a while.
Omega:
[quote]What about the couples who have sex on, say, Wednesdays? Whether they really want to or not, it's just the habit? [/quote]
There is no threat of harm involved here. I remove my hat whenever I walk indoors. Whether I want to or not, it's just the habit. Morality is not an issue in this case.
[quote]Who says a prostitute really wants to have sex with the client? But she does, because if not her pimp might beat her up, or she can't afford her rent. Is that rape?[/quote]
I would say the pimp is raping the prostitute, whether the pimp performs the act or not. If one person threatens another to have sex with a third person without that person's knowledge, the one making the threat is responsible for the immoral act.
-me. |
 |
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 10:26:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is it only the female who can use the 'yes means no' defense?
No. Sorry to sound like a callous bitch, but if one says 'yes' when one means 'no' and expects thier partner to figure that out....do not expect any sympathy. Unless you are sleeping with Jonathon Edwards -ewwwww.
Basically, rape is sex without the partner's consent.
Obtaining consent through emotional blackmail is not rape. Obtaining sex through physical blackmail is. Simply because we are able to control our emotions (I postulate a sane person). It is a choice.
However, in cases of a threat of physical harm to another, there is no real choice. Thus, this does constitute rape.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ia Cthulhu! |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:13:00 [Permalink]
|
A new tangent!
Can 'no' ever be considered to mean 'yes'?
That is, when actions contradict words, can going by actions be counted as rape, either legally or morally?
I would say not. As long as 'no' remains verbal, and her actions are a clear 'yes', this situation is neither morally nor legally rape.
However, unless you are, *ahem* both aware that you are 'playing' (is 'I forgot my safe word?' a legitamate defense?  ), do Xev a favor, and run the other way.
It is hardly worth any legal consequences.
Garrette:
quote:
Ta ta from the happy misogynist.
*Sobs wordlessly*
So, so you do not like me anymore?
Waaaaaaa!
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ia Cthulhu! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:25:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As far as I've read rape is far more about violence and control and humiliation than sex. For the reason that sex is one of the most intimate things between people.
Hoo boy. Go back a bit in this forum and find "A Natural History of Rape". I believe that thread was responsible for spawning this poll.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:37:48 [Permalink]
|
TD,
Do we have too?
Though I must say that the argument made there, I've given some thought to. I've realized that the assumption was made that 'all people act rationally all the time.' I'm almost certain that is not a real possibility.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
<i>No Sense of Obligation</i> by Matt Young |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:06:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xev:
Garrette:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta ta from the happy misogynist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Sobs wordlessly*
So, so you do not like me anymore?
Waaaaaaa!
Like you? Honey, I'm madly, hopelessly, in love with you. But only on condition that you overlook when Snake and the boys come over.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:08:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xev:
Can 'no' ever be considered to mean 'yes'?
That is, when actions contradict words, can going by actions be counted as rape, either legally or morally?
I would say not. As long as 'no' remains verbal, and her actions are a clear 'yes', this situation is neither morally nor legally rape.
However, unless you are, *ahem* both aware that you are 'playing' (is 'I forgot my safe word?' a legitamate defense? ), do Xev a favor, and run the other way.
I agree totally with the sentiment. On the practical side, though, I think legally codifying this and prosecuting/defending related allegations would be extremely problematic.
P.S. You don't need a safe word with me.
P.P.S. Trust me.
P.P.P.S. No, really. Trust me.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:42:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Like you? Honey, I'm madly, hopelessly, in love with you. But only on condition that you overlook when Snake and the boys come over.
What, get drunk and debunk various crackpots? That is my idea of fun! (Well, one of them
quote:
I agree totally with the sentiment. On the practical side, though, I think legally codifying this and prosecuting/defending related allegations would be extremely problematic.
Exactly! I could not convict if I were a juror in a case like that.
My law dictionary is quite old. But, the legal definition:
"Sexual intercourse between people not married to each other* accomplished through the use of force of the fear of force by the man** and implying lack of consent and resistance by the woman"
I don't think that, unless force was used (and we have already postulated that her actions are a clear 'yes') a indictment for rape could be sustained.
*This is no longer on the books
**Like I said, it is really old
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ia Cthulhu! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:16:25 [Permalink]
|
I think we're misunderstanding each other a bit, Xev.
I agree that a conviction would not really be legally supportable in this instance, but I think it could happen anyway given the political/social climate. That's my problem with it.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:35:37 [Permalink]
|
Oh yes! Of course it could be. Look at the Simpson trial.
In my county, the prosecuter's office has started ignoring 'victim's' retractions in cases of domestic violence.
That is, if a woman claims that her s/o beat her up, and the s/o is arrested, there is no way for her to drop charges!
Now I realize that they don't want their witnesses to retract under threat, but that is absurd! I wonder how many innocent people will spend time in jail because of this foolishness.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ia Cthulhu! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:45:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xev:
In my county, the prosecuter's office has started ignoring 'victim's' retractions in cases of domestic violence.
That is, if a woman claims that her s/o beat her up, and the s/o is arrested, there is no way for her to drop charges!
This is common, I think. In Louisville, there is one primary judge (with one secondary for when the first is on vacation) who handles all domestic violence cases. The judge has undergone specific training to 'sensitize' him to the special considerations required to adjudicate such cases. Not allowing the female to retract is part of that training and part of his charter.
I understand the sentiment because I recognize that victims will frequently recant out of fear or misplace, newfound trust in the abuser, but the implementation is a dangerous one.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:59:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is common, I think. In Louisville, there is one primary judge (with one secondary for when the first is on vacation) who handles all domestic violence cases. The judge has undergone specific training to 'sensitize' him to the special considerations required to adjudicate such cases. Not allowing the female to retract is part of that training and part of his charter.
That's horrible. It is worse than I thought.
I can see somone making such an allegation after a fight, simply to be nasty. Actually, I have no right to go into detail,confidences and all, but I have seen it happen.
And she could not retract, although I know she tried.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ia Cthulhu! |
|
|
|
Robert
New Member
Korea
21 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 05:32:32 [Permalink]
|
Its up to the wife or girlfriend or whoever.. to say no! Simply not wanting it and keeping your mouth shut is unacceptable, and does not give a woman the right to scream rape afterwords
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
