Attitudes to rape

Prince_James:

Let's take this from the start. You said:

In other words, you believe that, all the requirements for rape (proven sex without consent etc.) being met in a criminal trial, you think that the offender ought to receive a lighter sentence if the woman involved was drunk, didn't say "no", or was in a relationship with the rapist at the time. Is that correct, or do you now want to change your views?

Assuming you stand by your views, let's take a look.

So, if a woman is so drunk that she doesn't know what's going on, then she is "fair game"?

If you were so drunk you didn't know what was happening, and some guy decided to take you into a dark alley and have his way with you, you think that would be "no rape whatsoever"? Let's assume you are too drunk to "actively fight not to have sex", but not passed out.

No rape whatsoever?

Here's an opportunity for you to learn something:

Rape is not forced sexual activity. No force is required. Rape is sex without consent.

See the difference?

Or do you think force should be required to establish rape? Do you think the current criminal law is wrong in this regard?

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about sex without consent. The woman is assumed to be drunk and has not agreed to have sex or initiated the sexual activity.

So, to you it doesn't matter that she never said "Yes" to sex? You think you have a right to have sex with women unless they say "no"? Don't you think they should have to agree to have sex with you?

You don't have some God-given right to have sex with people without their consent. Whatever gave you the idea that you do?

Wait a minute! You're muddying the waters. There are many ways to "show that you are not consenting". Only one of those ways involves vocalising the word "No".

Also, what about the situation where a woman is confronted by a physically powerful man and is too scared to do anything while he has sex with her? That's not rape, according to you, because she did not show that she wasn't consenting?

Shouldn't she have to show that she was consenting?

Why do you place the onus on the woman to withdraw consent, rather than putting the onus on the man to first obtain the consent of the woman before starting to have sex with her?

So, let's say a woman is sitting watching TV with her boyfriend, with whom she has already had sex in the past. He decides he is a bit horny and reaches over and starts undressing her. She says "PJ! I don't feel like it now", but he continues. She gets a little scared, but decides the best thing to do is just get it over with, so she lies back and the guy has his way with her. Theoretically, she could have confronted him, stood up and walked out. But she didn't. (Maybe this is at her house. What then? Does she kick him out? He's a big, muscley guy and might get angry if he thinks he is being rejected.)

No rape at all? This is just fine, according to you, and the guy is not at fault?

With all due respect, PJ, this is a screwy idea of marriage. A husband does not "own" his wife, or vice versa. A person is not a thing. One person does not have a right to use another person's body any time they please.

Do you think they do?

As somebody else pointed out (Bells?), what one person finds attractive is very particular to that person. Do you think all women should cover up (in burkas perhaps?), in case men see them and can't control their passions?

What about the rapist who finds your 70 year old grandmother sexually attractive, just because something about old people turns him on? Should your grandmother try to appear younger then? Maybe a bit of makeup? Or, maybe she should cover her face completely, so nobody will know she is 70.

What do you think?

This is interesting. Why the exception for being in a relationship?

Wait! I know. It's the whole "marry and you own your partner" thing again. Is it? If a woman is in a relationship, then her man owns her, and he should be the only one allowed to have sex with her.

Is that what you think?

Again, a little education is in order.

Even a prostitute gets to choose her clients. She may not be picky - this is a job after all - but she still has the right to refuse a client. Ask prostitutes whether they ever refuse clients and they will tell you that they do. So, even at this "very promiscuous" end of the scale, women make choices.

Rape removes the woman's choice. That a woman agrees to have sex with one guy or ten guys or 100 guys does not mean she agrees to have sex with any guy, any time.

Come back to my argument about hockey players. A hockey player may put up with being hit in the shins with a hockey stick on the field. That's a choice he makes all the time. But it doesn't mean he agrees to be hit in the shins with hockey sticks in general. It doesn't mean I can come up to him in the street and whack him with a stick if the mood takes me.

A question: do you think it is possible to rape a prostitute?

Why would a hockey player give a damn if I came up to him and whacked him in the shins with a stick while he was shopping?

No. Consent is everything. No consent to sex ought to mean no sex. If you live your life in such a way that you think women need not consent to your having sex with them, sooner or later you might get yourself into trouble with the law.

But what is being invited? Rape? Are all bets off as soon as a woman wears a sexy top? Do all limits on reasonable behaviour go out the window?

You're getting away from the point of the thread here. You need to separate the issue of making yourself more likely to be victimised from the issue of whether victimisation itself is somehow "more justifiable" because of the flirting.

But you are also claiming that the moral blame of the rapist ought to be reduced by the "contributory negligence" or character traits of the victim. Are you not?

Did they ever declare that they did want to have sex? No. That's how it is rape. Getting the message yet?

Are you talking about marriage or "relationships" again? I repeat: marriage is not a contract for repeated sex. See how far you get if you ask your next girlfriend to sign a written agreement to have sex with you any time you feel like it, regardless of what she feels like, as long as you're in a "relationship".

But you keep saying that part of the moral blame is on the victim, especially if she is drunk, promiscuous, looks attractive or happens to be married.

You think they'll accept all comers, indiscriminantly? You think that's what their clothes are saying? "I don't care who you are! Have sex with me!"

Can you see how unrealistic that attitude is?

No. If they "convince" a man to have sex with them, with their (the woman's) consent, that is not rape. Consent is the thing.

I know I'm repeating myself, but you seem to miss the central issue over and over.

Consent consent consent. No consent -> rape. Simple.

You're sterotyping rapists. I suppose you think of the rapist as some burly, biker guy, and his victim is probably a cute 20-something year old.

In fact, men rape other men. 18-year old men rape 60 year old women. 40 year old men rape 12 year old boys.

What attracts a rapist to his victim is enormously variable.

Your mistake is in assuming that everybody else in the world is attracted to the same things you are. In fact, a pedophile won't rape the 21 year old fresher girl. He doesn't find her "sexy". He will rape the 8 year old schoolboy instead.

Maybe we ought to ban school uniforms, because some sickos get turned on by them. What do you think?

It doesn't get more blatant than this. "The purpose of marriage is sex." How quaint.

How old are you? Have you ever had a serious relationship?

Don't bother answering this. It's personal, and I don't need to know. But if you think marriage is only about sex, you have a lot of growing up to do. Seriously.

A judge in Australia a few years ago made similar comments in sentencing an offender for the rape of a prostitute. He said a bit of "rougher-than-usual handling" wouldn't worry a prostitute too much - after all, she would be used to such things in her daily work. He said that the rapist should therefore get a lighter sentence.

How do you think the Australian public and experts on rape reacted to this judge's comments and decision?

How do you react to it? Fair enough? I suppose you agree with him.

 

Pete:

I'm surprised at you.

i.e. consent or lack thereof is the deciding element. Right?

Do you think drunkedness of the offender should mitigate against, say, a culpable driving charge, too? What about if somebody gets drunk and commits an act of vandalism? Should he get a lighter sentence as a result?

Can you explain your views on the drunkedness of offenders in rape cases, then?

Do you think, like PJ, that being married or in a relationship is equivalent to an open-ended contract for sexual favors? Surely not. (?)

 

Oniw17:

Do you want to tell us your story?


dragon:

You seem to have some deep-seated issues with women in general. Have you ever talked to a professional about this?

It can't be much fun to go through life hating 50% of the population for no good reason.


Prince_James:

And so... ?

 

Yes it does concern both men and women. But I am intrigued. Why are you so intent on defending the rapist? We are discussing here a situation where the man has already been proven in a court of law to have raped the woman. So why are you defending the rapist? Would you defend the rapist if it were a man who raped another man? Or if a woman raped a man? I wonder. Rape is rape. I have never once stated I do not care for men. On the contrary, I have represented many men against women (and other men for a matter of fact) who have sexually harrassed and assaulted them. Their right to consent and to choose is as equal as the woman's. However, I need to ask you, why do you hate women so much? I mean if your mother were raped (as an example), would you call her a liar or possibly a slut? Would you attempt to justify the rapist's actions in any way?

Why do you defend the rapist and his actions? Why do you deny that men and yes, women as well, do rape?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike fine wine, you just don't improve with time do you?

Lets assume you are a sexually promiscuous man. And one day you're walking down a street and you're dragged into an alley or building and raped by a man. Does that mean you simply should not care since it would just be another sexual encounter?

She would give a damn PJ because her rights have been violated. Her body has been used by another without her consent. If she is promiscuous and has many sexual partners, it is because she chooses to have sex with those particular men. If someone rapes her, she would care because she did not give consent to that particular individual nor did she choose to have sex with that individual. Do you understand it now? I assume you choose who you have sex with? What if that choice were completely taken away from you? That amounts to rape and believe me you would care if you were ever a victim of it.

If a woman were unconscious, would that not be rape also? If she is so drunk that she has completely lost control, does that make it ok for a guy to just have sex with her? So if she says no 10 times and her "no's" are ignored and after that she just gives up fighting or saying "no", it's not a rape? Don't you get it? Once she protests against having sex, and the guy keeps pushing and has sex with her without her consent, it is rape. And how can one have an "explicit sexual contract"? There's no such thing as an "explicit sexual contract".

Rape occurs when there is no consent.

And yet, many covered up women are still raped. How would you explain it? Are they somehow outside what you would consider to be the norm? It's been pointed out to you, by myself and others, that not everyone finds the same thing to be attractive or appealing. For example, you seem to think that a woman wearing low cut jeans with a g-string hoiked up her backside and her back past the jeans is somehow appealing and sexually provocative. But not all men would. Some men may find it kind of repugnant actually. For example, as James pointed out, would you find an 80 year old woman to be sexually appealing? How about a 5 year old boy or girl? Would you feel a sense of arousal when confronted by such individuals? Some men however do find 80 year old women or 5 year olds to be sexually appealing and do rape them. So should they cover up just in case? Should they try to be older or younger so as to not attract the rapists attention?

Do you think Muslim women who wear the hijab and burka are not raped? Do you think a woman if she's wearing long pants and a sweater to cover herself up is never raped? Again you are assuming that only if she dresses in a skimpy outfit she is somehow provoking a rape. But would you consider a child in a bathing suit at the beach to be provoking his/her rapist? Would you consider a woman who is raped and had been wearing jeans and a sweater to have somehow provoked her rapist?

Your words and arguments are so primitive that I am sometimes questioning whether you actually believe the drivel you are spouting. If it was human nature, then every man would be a rapist. And every woman for that matter. Do you think it's human nature for a person to rape a child because they found that child to be sexually appealing or somehow provoking them? Or does that individual have a problem? Is it human nature to rape? If it is, then you would be a rapist, so would everyone in the world. Yet not every man or woman rapes. Why is that? Not every man rapes a woman because he finds her to be dressed provocatively. How can that be? After all, you've just made the claim that it is human nature for a provocatively dressed woman to attract rape, why aren't they all raped? Why aren't all men raping women they might find to be sexually provocative? Do you rape a woman if she's dressed provocatively?

Ah yes. Yet you also blame the woman for being raped.

Really? I fail to see where you've actually made a valid claim as such. If it were somehow human nature to rape, then we'd all rape. Yet we do not. At least I don't, my husband doesn't, my father doesn't, etc. Are we somehow acting outside of what you've deemed to be human nature? After all, you're excusing his behaviour if she's dressed a certain way (for one thing).. nooo not justifying at all..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You equate seduction as being the same as a man forcing a woman to have sex with her? My my a date with you must be fun. Invite you up for coffee and you'd consider it an open invitation to rape her.

A woman can make herself as 'sexually focused' as she chooses, it still does not give any man the right to force her to have sex without her consent. Do you honestly believe that a woman, by the way she may dress, somehow convinces a man to have sex with her without her consent? What, you think the man may have not been that keen but then her cleavage was just too much for him to resist? What about men who rape children or the elderly? Do their manners, dress, actions, have a sexual overtone.. are they sexually focused? What about the woman who's merely jogging down a path wearing long track pants and a sweatshirt and is dragged into the bushes and is raped. Has she somehow made herself 'sexually focused'?

She can dress as she pleases to attract a particular man. But if he or any other man attempts to force her to have sex and do not have her consent, it is rape. Do you understand? My god even a person with minimal brain function has better understanding than you do. A person must have express consent before engaging in sex. Without said express consent, it is rape. Her dress is not consent. Her actions or flirting is not consent. If she bends down and flashes her butt or her boobs, it's still not express consent. I mean if you were out with a woman and she's been flirting with you all night, but when you get her home she merely says goodnight and walks into her house. Would you force the issue? After all, you've said it's human nature right? So would you think you'd be justified in forcing her to have sex with you? What am I saying.. after reading the things you've been writing, you probably would feel justified.

Ah no, you're saying it's human nature for a man to rape a woman if she's dressed provocatively. You still don't get it. Rape occurs when a person has sex with another person without their consent. What they may wear, say, do, have done in the past, been married to the rapist, been in a sexual relationship with the rapist, etc.. all that means nothing. In just about all cases, the man wanted to control her or teach her a lesson.. he wanted to make her feel like a zero... he wanted to take away her rights and her freedoms.. he wanted to be in power. She could have been wearing a bedsheet draped over her head to her feet, it would mean nothing. But it's telling how you keep trying to justify the rapists reactions or actions however.

And I am beginning to see where the saying "men are bastards" came from. And you still think it was a personal attack on you? LOL! Believe me I was being quite polite.

I disagree. The sexual gratification is a prt of it, but the rape of a person involves taking all aspects of control away from the victim. All their power and choices go out the window. The rapist rapes because he wants to subjugate his/her victim. They want that control and that power over that individual. Hence why serial rapists can never stop at one. They get their gratification not just out of the sexual act, but out of demeaning and removing all forms of control and power the victim may have over themselves.

Why do you think he has more of a reason to rape a woman who's dressed in a manner he considers to be provocative? Why do you even think any person can have a reason to rape another? Do rapists need a reason?

She could be dressed in a manner that has her covered from head to toe and she'd still be raped. You're basically saying that if a woman wishes to not be raped or wishes to reduce her chances of being raped, she should dress differently, but the truth is it wouldn't matter. If what you say were correct, then rapes would not occur in countries where women are forced to cover up (eg. Iran). A woman has no say in who will rape her. She is not raped by choice. Nor can she dress in any fashion to prevent a rape as not everyone is attracted to the same thing. For example, a woman can be at home and a man can break in and rape her, regardless of what she's wearing. She could be wearing long pants or a long skirt with a sweater, with her whole body covered up by clothing and still be raped. For example, an elderly patient in a home cannot know that one of the male employees is sexually attracted to elderly patients. How can she somehow protect herself against it? Do you think a child "bucks" against being seen to be sexually attracted to a paedophile? Why do you place the onus on the woman to not be raped, instead of placing it on the man to not rape?

You honestly think that? Then show proof of it. Show me the statistics from say the "Bureau of Statistics" in your country, which shows that a woman dressed in a skimpy outfit gets raped more than any other woman.

Interesting. Weren't you the one just saying that a woman is more likely to be a target if she's dressed in a certain manner? Rapists will see and take what they wish to. You might not consider a particular woman to be appealing at all, but a rapist might feel differently. Any justification for a rape is invalid because there can never be a justification or a mitigating factor into forcing a person to have sex. This is something you keep missing. A rape is just that. Taking away a person's right to choose what happens to their body. If someone raped you, would you consider any situation that may present itself as somehow mitigating their actions towards you? Say if you're walking down the street in a pair of shorts and no top and a guy walks up and forces you and rapes you, do you think that because you were dressed provocatively for that individual, that it somehow mitigates what he's actually done? Would you be happy with a judge, who takes the fact that you were dressed in a manner the rapist considered to be sexually provocative, into consideration and lessened his sentence as a result?

Because men are also raped. Do you think if you were drunk, dressed a certain way, unconscious, had been sexually promiscuous, that it somehow is not rape if a man forces you to have sex with him without your consent? Do you think a judge should take the fact that you may have been drunk, dressed a certain way, unconscious, etc, into consideration when sentencing your rapist?

I see. So you like and are attracted to all types of women then? Some men like women who are skinny as planks and others like women who are overweight or even obese. Some like women who are really old and others like young girls and even children. Tell me, will all these men be attracted to the type of woman you might be attracted to? Do you think all men like blondes for example? Are all the men you know within your 'cultural milieu' attracted to exactly what are attracted to?

I see. So because a woman is married to a man, he somehow has general licence to have sex with her whenever he so chooses, even if she is not willing? Be sure to tell any woman you wish to marry that PJ. I can assure you that your doing so will result in a very short engagement. Actually, you should be sure to tell any woman you date that. Warn them in advance of what kind of person you are. Otherwise you can find yourself in handcuffs being driven away by a couple of police officers.

Tell me PJ, where in the vows of marriage does it say that marriage is about sex? Where in any legal definition of marriage, does it say that the purpose of a marital union "is sex"?

 

Would you consider a woman who is unconscious as being able to give consent? Do you think that silence is express consent? Would you consider a woman who has been terrorised by say a person holding a gun or a knife telling her that if says a word he'd kill her as having consented by the fact that she remained silent? How about a woman who is in an abusive relationship and is simply scared to say no or to resist because when she's said no or resisted in the past, she's been beaten, so prefers to save herself from a possible beating and just remains silent and does not fight back? Has her silence or her lack of resistance indicated consent?

The law would be changed because a person who is that drunk is not in a competent frame of mind to give consent. Just as an adult who is mentally disabled and has the mental capacity of a 5 year old cannot be seen at law as being competent to give consent. For example, would you consider a woman who is so drunk that she cannot remember what her full name is, or where she lives, to be in a comptent state of mind to give consent to having sex?

The courts would take into consideration that both were consenting to having sex and that both were drunk. The issue in regards to the victim being drunk at the time of the rape has more to do with a situation where the offender is not drunk or is seen to be in a frame of mind that the law would consider to be competent at the time the rape occured.

Do you think it "only ends in rape" when she reports it? Do you think that a rule of marriage that states a woman cannot deny her husband sex, and the husband does not get his wife's consent before having sex with her, that it is somehow not rape?

Islam states that while a man who sleeps with his wife without her consent will not be stoned to death (as is the usual punishment for rape), if he does sleep with her without her will or force her to do something in their marital bed that she does not wish to do, he will have displeased Allah and must fear Allah for having done so (Quran, 2:223). The Quran also states that a man who sexually abuses his wife will have to be held accountable to Allah when he dies. So in light of that, if a Muslim man decides to rape his wife, he does so knowing that he will have to face the full wrath of his god for having done so.

 

So if the woman were a lesbian, it'd be more of a crime to you or she should somehow be more affected than a heterosexual woman? Your arguments get more and more pathetic.

I see. So you know many rapists amongst your acquaintances? A man can be as vulnerable as he wants to how a particular woman looks. It still is not an invitation by her to be raped. It is still for him to exert control over himself and not the other way around. It is for the man to not rape.

Read through your whole post. Better yet, have a woman you know read what you've stated in this thread. If she has half a brain cell, she'll be able to point it all out to you. She may also castrate you, but you should give it a go regardless. If you really feel justified in what you have said in this thread, have your mother, sister, girlfriend, wife, etc read what you've said and see if they agree whole heartedly with you. Better yet, go to a rape crisis centre and have a woman who's been a victim of rape read your words and see how well she agrees with you.

Maybe I failed to make myself clear. Show me the specific statistics which state that women who dress provocatively are raped more than women who who dress conservatively. You are assuming that younger women dress more provocatively and the link you have provided says nothing at all to support your claim. Until you can show the exact statistics from a reputable site (eg police statistics, State or National statistic Bureau's, from an educational study - as in from a university study or thesis which shows a distinct figure that women who are dressed provocatively are raped more than other women) which gives the figures that show that women who dress provocatively are raped more than women who do not, then you basically do not have an argument or a leg to stand on.

Again, be sure to tell her that once that ring is on her finger, she's no longer allowed to say the word "no" because you happen to want some and she does not. Be sure to tell her that because she's married to you, she no longer has any rights over her own body and that you own her sexual organs, just as much as she owns yours. And then pray to whatever it is you believe in that you don't wake up one morning and find your dick and your balls in a jar on your bedside table after you've forced yourself on her.

Ah so you've managed to find some women who accept the fact that they no longer have any rights over their bodies or sexual organs once they are involved with you and that you effectively now own her? My how lucky you must be. So most huh? What happened to the others? Did they run a mile when they saw you coming? Or have you learnt now to just keep quiet about how you really feel and just find women too stupid to realise what kind of bastard you really are?

And yes, that was an honest statement as to how I actually view you as an individual. I actually think you no better than a pathetic runt and a piece of turd left out to try on a sidewalk. But that's a matter for another thread.

So you think that in gratifying your own sexual needs by forcing yourself on your wife, you are somehow 'honouring' her? My god you are a pathetic human being. So "one flesh" also includes the clause that the woman has no rights over her own body and cannot say not to sex? My god your interpretation of what constitutes a marriage is warped in the extreme.

Yes it used to be for the woman. Thankfully society evolved past the primitive notions of viewing women as forms of property and came to realise that a woman has rights not only over property, but also over her body as well. It's a shame you've failed to catch up on the rest or society, isn't it.

Kant's words to be exact were stated in The Science of Right:

"The latter is marriage (matrimonium), which is the union of two persons of different sex for life-long reciprocal possession of their sexual faculties."
Please take note of the fact that he also saw it as being something that was 'reciprocal'. I even highlighted the word for you.

Kant also argued that everyone has a moral duty to respect others as persons, and that such duty is derived from our dignity as rational beings. Now in light of that, do you think he'd agree with you that a man can force his wife to have sex with him whenever he so chooses, without her consent.. do you think Kant would argue that such an act was a sign of respect to the wife?

"In other words, if a man and a woman have the will to enter on reciprocal enjoyment in accordance with their sexual nature, they must necessarily marry each other; and this necessity is in accordance with the juridical laws of pure reason." (Kant, I. The Science of Right)...