Totem wrote:
If, in fact, such an occurance happened, Smash, I don't think there is a jury in this universe who would convict the john.
Totem
Totem
and that would make it right.
Nexa
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Remember the Duke LAX rape case?
Remember the Duke LAX rape case?Follow
and that would make it right.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Legally, yes, Nexa. That after all, is what people have been trying to pin me down on here.
Totem
Totem
So +o+em, how many miles of c[blue][/blue]ock must a woman service before it becomes acceptable for a man to have sex with her against her will? Or does it happen the first time she has sex for money or for a car?
What loopholes makes it socially acceptable?
What loopholes makes it socially acceptable?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
/cue Bob Dylan
Totem wrote:
After all, that is what she does.
There's some sort of disconnect here where you feel that "what she does" makes it okay to rape her. Or, rather, that you can't rape her. I'm unclear on which one it is because you sort of shift around a little but... yeah.
I was trying to think of a clever analogy but, really, I think this can stand on its own.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Totem wrote:
Legally, yes, Nexa. That after all, is what people have been trying to pin me down on here.
Totem
Totem
So you're saying that even if a woman *is* raped, that if a jury doesn't convict because she just happens to be a prostitute, that that makes it legally right? Not just a failure of the justice system since a crime was committed and then ignored?
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Nexa wrote:
Totem wrote:
Legally, yes, Nexa. That after all, is what people have been trying to pin me down on here.
Totem
Totem
So you're saying that even if a woman *is* raped, that if a jury doesn't convict because she just happens to be a prostitute, that that makes it legally right? Not just a failure of the justice system since a crime was committed and then ignored?
If a jury doesn't convict, it's legally right. Maybe not morally right, maybe not just, but legally right
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Zero, Bhodi. However, once she crosses the line and makes sex a transaction, wherein she accepts cash or gifts for sexual favors, then it is not a question of her virtue, but of her price. If a trophy girlfriend were to cry "Rape!" for a Ford Escort, it'd certainly sound more like "Rawr!" when given a Ferrari. I submit to you that the act of rape is very much a subjective issue both to the girl and to an independent listener to her woeful tale.
Totem
Totem
Totem wrote:
Legally, yes, Nexa. That after all, is what people have been trying to pin me down on here.
Here's what an article from Harvard Law has to say on the subject:
E.Strich in "Real Rape", wrote:
Many women continue to believe that men can force you to have sex against your will and that it isn't rape so long as they know you and don't beat you nearly to death in the process. Many men continue to act as if they have that right. In a very real sense, they do. That is not what the law says: the law says that it is rape to force a woman "not your wife'' to engage in intercourse against her will and without her consent. But while husbands have always enjoyed the greatest protection, the protection of being excluded from rape prohibitions, even friends and neighbors have been assured sexual access. What the law seems to say and what it has been in practice are two different things.
Later on in that same article, she wrote:
The distinction between the aggravated and simple case is one commonly drawn in assault. It was applied in rape in the mid-1960s by Professors Harry Kalven and Hans Zeisel of the University of Chicago in their landmark study of American juries. Kalven and Zeisel defined an aggravated rape as one with extrinsic violence (guns, knives, or beatings) or multiple assailants or no prior relationship between the victim and the defendant. A simple rape was a case in which none of these aggravating circumstances was present: a case of a single defendant who knew his victim and neither beat her nor threatened her with a weapon. They found that juries were four times as willing to convict in the aggravated rape as in the simple one. And where there was "contributory behavior'' on the part of the woman -- where she was hitchhiking, or dating the man, or met him at a party -- juries were willing to go to extremes in their leniency toward the defendant, even in cases where judges considered the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for rape.
Quote:
That has been the approach of the law. The usual procedural guarantees and the constitutional mandate that the government prove the man's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt have not been considered enough to protect the man accused of rape. The crime has been defined so as to require proof of actual physical resistance by the victim, as well as substantial force by the man. Evidentiary rules have been defined to require corroboration of the victim's account, to penalize women who do not complain promptly, and to ensure the relevance of a woman's prior history of unchastity.
It's an interesting take on how the age-old male rape fantasy plays into the lawful view of what is considered rape, and how it is tried and convicted.
There is a certain ownership of the imaage of a woman and the sexual act that plays into what some men consider rape that is both dated and ultimately, irrelevant. I understand what you think to be true, but you are sadly out of date and unfortunately, as informed and in tune with the subject matter as a klansman is with Jim Crow.
Quote:
The evidentiary rules relating to the relevance of a woman's sexual past have been even more controversial than the corroboration requirement. Perhaps the most often quoted justification for the admission of such evidence is that of New York's highest court in 1838: "Will you not more readily infer assent in the practiced Messalina, in loose attire, than in the reserved and virtuous Lucretia?'' Where there was evidence that the woman was a "common prostitute,'' another court emphasized: "It would be absurd, and shock our sense of truth, for any man to affirm that there was not a much greater probability in favor of the proposition that a common prostitute had yielded her assent to sexual intercourse than in the case of the virgin of uncontaminated purity.'' But it was not necessary that the woman be a prostitute; "no impartial mind can resist the conclusion that a female who had been in the recent habit of illicit intercourse with others will not be so likely to resist as one spotless and pure.''
Edited, Jun 21st 2006 at 4:03pm EDT by Atomicflea
Let's get back to the story that brought this whole discussion about, shall we? Are any of you of the mind that had the woman in the Duke case been paid a considerably larger chunk of change at the party she still would have cried rape? In other words, knowing what we believe we know now, had the boys given her, say, $5,000 on her way out to the car that evening, she would have gone ahead and pressed the rape charges?
The other girl, Kim Williams has already sold out to Jesse Jackson. Her price to back up her dancing partner was the cost of a college education. Never mind that she openly admitted to looking for a way to score from this story although she had changed her tune several times already.
Totem
The other girl, Kim Williams has already sold out to Jesse Jackson. Her price to back up her dancing partner was the cost of a college education. Never mind that she openly admitted to looking for a way to score from this story although she had changed her tune several times already.
Totem
Rape is not subjective. You are just placing subjective values on the act based on circumstances. You are not arguing that rape occurred you are arguing that the value of rape depends upon the person raped and their actions.
Stealing is stealing unless its stealing to feed your starving family. Rape is rape unless its to a sex trade worker. Can you see the moral disconnect between the two?
Stealing is stealing unless its stealing to feed your starving family. Rape is rape unless its to a sex trade worker. Can you see the moral disconnect between the two?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Nobby wrote:
While I think ToUtem's a mile from making sense with his core argument about prostitutes and rape, I agree on that one.
If a jury doesn't convict, it's legally right. Maybe not morally right, maybe not just, but legally right
If a jury doesn't convict, it's legally right. Maybe not morally right, maybe not just, but legally right
I understand that it would be considered legally right, Nobby, but it would be a mistake is my point. Just like someone being convicted of murder when they're innocent. Legally, it's right, but it's a mistake. If she was raped, she was raped. Black and white.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Totem wrote:
Let's get back to the story that brought this whole discussion about, shall we?
Let me tell you, after reading your posts, you're not getting it.
Nexa wrote:
Nobby wrote:
While I think ToUtem's a mile from making sense with his core argument about prostitutes and rape, I agree on that one.
If a jury doesn't convict, it's legally right. Maybe not morally right, maybe not just, but legally right
If a jury doesn't convict, it's legally right. Maybe not morally right, maybe not just, but legally right
I understand that it would be considered legally right, Nobby, but it would be a mistake is my point. Just like someone being convicted of murder when they're innocent. Legally, it's right, but it's a mistake. If she was raped, she was raped. Black and white.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Let me tell you, after reading your posts, I've been seriously trolled. 
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
FleaJo1 cites, "The crime has been defined so as to require proof of actual physical resistance by the victim..." It has to, barring any other form of evidence (witnesses, etc). Otherwise any form of consentual sexual activity could later be construed as rape-- which indeed has been a troublesome issue in many cases. Take Smasharoo's friend that he discussed a year or so ago. It was his contention that he had not raped the girl because she consented, yet she claimed he had. She was given gentle treatment due to her age, not for what had supposedly been a consentual act. (Which is why I find it funny Smash is so vocal about this case now, heh.)
Totem
Totem
Nobby wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Let me tell you, after reading your posts, I've been seriously trolled.
Pwnd, sucka. I have no bruises, so no trolling occured.
In other words, knowing what we believe we know now, had the boys given her, say, $5,000 on her way out to the car that evening, she would have gone ahead and pressed the rape charges?
Who gives a ****?
If the house was hit by a commet and all the gys were killed, would hte price of apples in Serbia go up?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Nobby wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Let me tell you, after reading your posts, I've been seriously trolled.
Pwnd, sucka. I have no bruises, so no trolling occured.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
If the house was hit by a commet and all the gys were killed, would hte price of apples in Serbia go up?
Yes, actually. Those serbs like'em some apples.
Totem wrote:
FleaJo1 cites, "The crime has been defined so as to require proof of actual physical resistance by the victim..." It has to, barring any other form of evidence (witnesses, etc). Otherwise any form of consentual sexual activity could later be construed as rape-- which indeed has been a troublesome issue in many cases. Take Smasharoo's friend that he discussed a year or so ago. It was his contention that he had not raped the girl because she consented, yet she claimed he had. She was given gentle treatment due to her age, not for what had supposedly been a consentual act. (Which is why I find it funny Smash is so vocal about this case now, heh.)
Totem
Totem
Yeah, if Smash knows a guy who was falsely accused of rape, I would totally expect that he'd think it was ok to rape prostitutes.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Take Smasharoo's friend that he discussed a year or so ago. It was his contention that he had not raped the girl because she consented, yet she claimed he had.
Consent wasn't at issue. Because of her age, she was legeally unable to consent. Not even vaguely related.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Totem wrote:
FleaJo1 cites, "The crime has been defined so as to require proof of actual physical resistance by the victim..." It has to, barring any other form of evidence (witnesses, etc). Otherwise any form of consentual sexual activity could later be construed as rape-- which indeed has been a troublesome issue in many cases.
Quote:
The cautionary instruction is a final example of the institutionalization of the law's distrust of women victims through rules of evidence and procedure. Juries are always told that they must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. In rape cases, since the nineteenth century they have also been told, sometimes in Hale's own words, that they must be especially suspicious of the woman victim. In a fairly typical version of the instruction, the jury is told "to evaluate the testimony of a victim or complaining witness with special care in view of the emotional involvement of the witness and the difficulty of determining the truth with respect to alleged sexual activities carried out in private.'' All women who are forced to have sex therefore have an "emotional involvement'' in the event and are not to be totally trusted in their recounting of it. The force of the instruction is, not unintentionally I think, likely to be greatest in those cases where there is some prior "involvement,'' if not emotion, between the man and the woman.
This leads the author to conclude that
By adopting and enforcing the most insulting stereotypes of women victims of simple rapes, they have enshrined distrust of women in the law, legitimated the male fantasy, and ensured that rape trials would indeed be real nightmares--for the women victims.
Wrong, Bhodi. Outside of the legal definition of it, rape is absolutely subjective. Utterly and absolutely. Why? Because it's an act of incrementalism, where the person being raped determines when the rape is taking place. For instance, someone used the example of two people having consentual sex and suddenly the girl says stop. If the boy doesn't stop, then according to them it's now rape.
But for argument's sake, let us say the boy does stop. Legally he is in just as much trouble if she still claims rape even though he fully complied with her wishes. It's the incrementalism of the act of sex that muddies the water. There is no threshhold of proof for the girl to pass otherwise, outside of her own testimony legally. Due to its' very nature sex is a private act where generally there are no witnesses outside of the couple involved. Where is the balance?
So my line of reasoning is, if a girl accepts compensation for sex-- particularly a prostitute --there is likely little manner for determining rape has occured outside of some positive form of proof. And considering sex is demonstrably not objectionable to that woman, it is only a matter of price, not the act itself.
Totem
But for argument's sake, let us say the boy does stop. Legally he is in just as much trouble if she still claims rape even though he fully complied with her wishes. It's the incrementalism of the act of sex that muddies the water. There is no threshhold of proof for the girl to pass otherwise, outside of her own testimony legally. Due to its' very nature sex is a private act where generally there are no witnesses outside of the couple involved. Where is the balance?
So my line of reasoning is, if a girl accepts compensation for sex-- particularly a prostitute --there is likely little manner for determining rape has occured outside of some positive form of proof. And considering sex is demonstrably not objectionable to that woman, it is only a matter of price, not the act itself.
Totem
Yet, Smash, you made a case for him not being guilty. Rape is rape. At least that is what everybody is telling me here.
Totem
Totem
Recent Visitors: 214
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (214)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Remember the Duke LAX rape case?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC