401 replies to this topic

[libstaK]

Jinxdom, on 07 January 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Can we all agree that rape is just sex without the consent of both parties then work from there?
That crime is because of opportunity and if the person who commits a crime will most likely go after the target the want more?
That the person who commits said crime is pretty much a complete and utter dick?

pretty please?

If you hadn't used the term "just sex without consent" I might have been swayed by the "pretty please".

Let's try:
Let's all agree that rape is a heinous assault on the body of the victim and doesn't belong in civil discourses regarding sex between law abiding citizens.

I can live with the other two sentences, specially the last one.

[The New Richard Nixon]

libstaK, on 07 January 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

If you hadn't used the term "just sex without consent" I might have been swayed by the "pretty please".

Let's try:
Let's all agree that rape is a heinous assault on the body of the victim and doesn't belong in civil discourses regarding sex between law abiding citizens.

I can live with the other two sentences, specially the last one.

Spoken like a true MOD lol

[Jinxdom]

Sex without consent covers everything. Including wives, drugs, violent assaults, child abuses, the dead, people who are unconscious. Anybody who legally can't consent are also covered

Sex without consent protects everybody.

I like your idea though too, Mine will be the law and yours can be the definition for society so they can understand... Every type of rape is wrong and no excuse is acceptable.

Edited by Jinxdom, 07 January 2013 - 10:14 AM.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 07 January 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

According to the conclusion "It may increase rape in some situations" to socrates.junior's point.   Isn't that good enough?   Doesn't it make more sense to admit what happens than pretend for what should?   Women are being raped out there, tonight.   Let's stop acting powerless to do something about it, folks.

Good enough for what? Maybe you missed the question the post was alluding too. The question asked was are women who wear provocative clothes more likely to be raped? The answer given by Junior Socrates was 'Yes', then a quote was posted. But the answer wasn't yes, merely that it can happen, which is as obvious as any situation a women might find herself in, whether it's to drunk, walking home alone at night, in a car lot, an abusive partner, a member of the family etc....the only thing that connects all those instances is that some deranged low life has that women in his sights. Research has shown (from many resources) that clothing has no more impact on whether she is raped any more then any other of the scenarios.

[Yamato]

libstaK, on 07 January 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

You are going to claim that two combatants engaged in a competative fight is a valid comparison now?  I am getting a little over your efforts to muddy the waters by bringing every possible side stepping paradigm into the realm of the crime of rape.  They DO NOT BELONG IN THE SAME DISCUSSION, why are you so determined to belittle the magnitude of the crime?

Don't bother answering, this has gone far enough, rape is rape and everything else belongs in a different discussion.  No one who enjoys sex would appreciate having their beliefs about that mixed in with what occurs when there is a rape.  Rape and sex are two different things.  To say they are not is a huge problem in your perception of the issue.

Vanilla assault???? will you cut it out, there is no "even if rape was vanilla assault" because there is no "vanilla assault".  Every crime of assault is serious, it doesn't have the lame flavouring of vanilla attached to it unless you are trying to minimise the seriousness of what has just occurred to someone.

Of course they should, they are a specific crime that has been happening since Adam and Eve and is only in the most recent of times being recognised as what it really is.  Stealing was always stealing because it occurred equally to both sexes, same with assault but rape has had it's impact muddied by the arguments you keep throwing out here for far too long.  It's over, those days are done, there is no hiding behind sidewinding arguments anymore.  There simply is NO EXCUSE that mitigates the nature of rape.  It is a crime of the perpetrator on a VICTIM regardless of what they are wearing, regardless of where they are attacked or what time of day or night they happened to have been attacked, period.

You are going to claim that two combatants engaged in a competative fight is a valid comparison now?

It fit the description you gave, verbatim.


I am getting a little over your efforts to muddy the waters by bringing every possible side stepping paradigm into the realm of the crime of rape.

I'm not side stepping anything.  I'm just not going to accept this need to have it both ways.   Either I can wear what I want and not hear another word about "flamebaiting" from you defending violent criminals who attack me, or not.  You need to understand your own position better and apply it to everyone, or else take it the other way which is what I've been discussing the whole time.


why are you so determined to belittle the magnitude of the crime?

That's what you're doing, by stripping the sex out of the rape.  I'm taking rape for exactly what it is.  As I said, claiming that rape has nothing to do with sex is as disingenuous as claiming it has nothing to do with force.  By definition, rape is sexual intercourse by force.   I don't care about the supposed inner psychology of the rapist who somehow gets a boner and commits his crime without any sexual attraction at all, as you would have others believe.   If it was just subjugation of another human being, if it was just the thrill of the violence and overpowering of another human being, there wouldn't be an erection present.   That's how the cage fighting was relevant in case you didn't follow.    Moreover, the damage caused by rape isn't dependent on the motive.   I'm interested in preventing the damage this crime causes because I know by experience how painful it is.   Please calm down and accept different perspectives here and not try to jail the discussion to your opinion.


Vanilla assault???? will you cut it out, there is no "even if rape was vanilla assault" because there is no "vanilla assault".  Every crime of assault is serious, it doesn't have the lame flavouring of vanilla attached to it unless you are trying to minimise the seriousness of what has just occurred to someone.

Vanilla meaning plain.   There is no plain old assault?   Of course there is.  Assault is a legal term with a definition.  Look it up.   You're trying to surgically remove sex from the crime of rape when you've been given the definition of the word from the dictionary more than once on this thread if you review everything.


Of course they should, they are a specific crime that has been happening since Adam and Eve and is only in the most recent of times being recognised as what it really is.  Stealing was always stealing because it occurred equally to both sexes, same with assault but rape has had it's impact muddied by the arguments you keep throwing out here for far too long.

How am I muddying the impact of rape?   They should have a double standard for rape because of antiquated historical pretexts about Adam and Eve?   Well that admission explains many of your prior statements.   You understood provocative dress immediately when a male was getting assaulted violently.   When I hear you make these statements, like "It is a crime of the perpetrator on a VICTIM regardless of what they are wearing, regardless of where they are attacked or what time of day or night they happened to have been attacked, period." you should eat your own cooking when it applies just as well to all examples of violent crime, INCLUDING MURDER.    There is no excuse for crime and precious little excuse for feminist hypocrisy, even here.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 07 January 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

Speaking of control and subjugation of another human being, I've seen a lot of MMA cage fights but I've never seen a guy sporting a huge erection in the middle of combat.

That is a really bad comparison. You might have seen a lot of MMA cage fights, but you obviously don't know much about competitive fighting. Winning and preservation are the motivations, not subjecting someone to a prolonged a humiliating ordeal. I haven't met a cage fighter yet who wouldn't prefer to walk out there and flatten the opponent with one punch and walk away the winner, rather then a prolonged assault. Rape is about controlling and subjecting someone to something against their will for your own satisfaction - Cage fighting is about two willing people getting either the opponent or the ref to step in and announce you the winner as quick as possible. There is no comparison.

Edited by Sky Scanner, 07 January 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Cage fighting and any other contact sport is....sport. Rape is not

[Jinxdom]

You know the difference between assault and sport though is right? Consent.

People might get the right idea sooner or later

Consent is the only thing that can make something right or wrong.

Which is why I put violent crimes higher then non violent crimes because violent crimes are based on breaking two things that you consent on. Not getting beat and not agreeing to have sex.

Would be rape and assault in my book. Not just rape nor assault.

Edited by Jinxdom, 07 January 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[Sky Scanner]

Jinxdom, on 07 January 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

You know the difference between assault and sport though is right? Consent.

People might get the right idea sooner or later

You forgot 'motive', the driving force behind actions.

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 07 January 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Good enough for what? Maybe you missed the question the post was alluding too. The question asked was are women who wear provocative clothes more likely to be raped? The answer given by Junior Socrates was 'Yes', then a quote was posted. But the answer wasn't yes, merely that it can happen, which is as obvious as any situation a women might find herself in, whether it's to drunk, walking home alone at night, in a car lot, an abusive partner, a member of the family etc....the only thing that connects all those instances is that some deranged low life has that women in his sights. Research has shown (from many resources) that clothing has no more impact on whether she is raped any more then any other of the scenarios.

If it CAN happen because of something, then it IS more likely with that something, yes.  I would think there's a specious relationship between clothing and rape at best.  And that's not the point or the counter.

Promiscuous/provocative clothing causes a sexual response, not rape.  A sexual response is necessary with rape.  Rape occurs when the answer to that sexual response becomes NO.   The point is that evoking cavalier sexual behavior causes unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, abortions, more taxpayer welfare, broken marriages, foster children, and death.   In light of all that, there won't be any double standards for rape worth holding onto.   I don't care about ancient history or some feminist vendetta to make up for thousands of years of bias between the genders.  I care about how many cases of each of these deplorable conditions our society suffers from.

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 07 January 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

That is a really bad comparison. You might have seen a lot of MMA cage fights, but you obviously don't know much about competitive fighting. Winning and preservation are the motivations, not subjecting someone to a prolonged a humiliating ordeal. I haven't met a cage fighter yet who wouldn't prefer to walk out there and flatten the opponent with one punch and walk away the winner, rather then a prolonged assault. Rape is about controlling and subjecting someone to something against their will for your own satisfaction - Cage fighting is about two willing people getting either the opponent or the ref to step in and announce you the winner as quick as possible. There is no comparison.

Well libstaK didn't say "winning and preservation", if that was what she said, then you're right that it wouldn't have anything to do with rape.   The reason why fighters want to end the fight in one punch is so they don't get hurt.  This doesn't mean that they don't subjugate another person with violent force.  They do.  

If that's all rape was (and it isn't), then the comparison is sound.

Edited by Yamato, 07 January 2013 - 11:25 AM.

[Lilly]

Far too many assumptions are being made here. I suggest looking at what actual research has concluded on the subject of rape. Take a look here: http://www.d.umn.edu...3925/myths.html

Read the one page conclusions (myths verses facts) and it becomes clear that provocative dress isn't the trigger for rape. Even if women were to dress in a manner completely covering their bodies rape would still exist.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Lilly, on 07 January 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

Far too many assumptions are being made here. I suggest looking at what actual research has concluded on the subject of rape. Take a look here: http://www.d.umn.edu...3925/myths.html

Read the one page conclusions (myths verses facts) and it becomes clear that provocative dress isn't the trigger for rape. Even if women were to dress in a manner completely covering their bodies rape would still exist.

it could happen to anyone and anywhere

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 07 January 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Well libstaK didn't say "winning and preservation", if that was what she said, then you're right that it wouldn't have anything to do with rape.   The reason why fighters want to end the fight in one punch is so they don't get hurt.  This doesn't mean that they don't subjugate another person with violent force.  They do.  

If that's all rape was (and it isn't), then the comparison is sound.

You are missing the point of why your comparison isn't sound. Put it this way: have you seen many rapists congratulate the victim afterwards on putting up a good fight, shake their hand and wish them well for the future? Of course not, the motivation behind rape is violence and control, for the purpose of subjecting someone to something they haven't consented too. Most fighters respect each other, they understand fear and what it takes to step into that ring, their purpose there isn't primarily to humiliate and subject someone to something for the kick of degrading them, it is to win the fight and not get hurt themselves.

Violence against an unwilling victim and violence against a willing opponent are not even in the same ball park, let alone the same discussion about rape.

[Yamato]

I think we need to expand the discussion into the causes of rape.   Alcohol and drug use is an individually-controllable behavior linked to rape.  I believe this is far more common in the sequence of events which lead to rape than clothing.  But libstaK's argument would tell me that it doesn't matter how much a girl has to drink, the rapist has no right to rape her.  I agree with that as much as she does.  But agreeing with that is not mutually exclusive to learning more about rape and what we can do to prevent it.   When I can't even get acknowledgement of the definition in the dictionary to base our discussion on, it's obvious that some of the people here want to absolve women of all responsibility no matter what their behavior is, and that's not going to prevent the crime, that's going to do the opposite.