If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsChannel 5 Nashville)   Tennessee woman files false rape report because "the sex was bad"   (newschannel5.com) divider line 474
    More: Asinine, Tennessee Woman, Clarksville, Infraction  
•       •       •

18022 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Dec 2012 at 4:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-04 11:34:37 AM

Doc Daneeka: If two people get drunk and have sex, is that rape?


Depends how drunk they were, and whether it was voluntary intoxication or not, and whether voluntary intoxication is considered intent. The statutes depend on the jurisdiction.

And if so, who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?

By the logic of "diminished capacity," neither participant is competent to give consent, and sex without consent would seem to imply rape. Are they both victims and both rapists at the same time? Or is only the man guilty because he's a man? But then what if it's two men?


Due to that bit about voluntary intoxication, it could be both. It depends on the statutes.

/questions

/answers
//also, you should put questions in quotes, since you're not really asking questions, you're "just asking questions". Be bold, telegraph your concern trolling.
 
2012-12-04 11:36:40 AM

Doc Daneeka: And if what you say is true, what about cases in which two men get drunk and have sex? Or two women?


Then it's just plain hot, and it needs to be filmed!
 
2012-12-04 11:37:28 AM

Doc Daneeka: What the hell does this mean?


Sorry, should have been clearer with how I was using "agency". Agency in this sense is the ability to act.

Seems sexist to assume that a man is responsible for his actions while drunk but a woman is not.

Exactly. The man is assumed to be responsible because he is assumed to act rather than be acted upon. And yes, it is a fundamentally unequal view of the world but one that is deeply inculcated into our society. The issues arising from the same sex domestic abuse scenarios make this clear, often ascribing agency to the participant with the more masculine attributes.
 
2012-12-04 11:38:08 AM

BronyMedic: hasty ambush: BronyMedic: hasty ambush: Given the high rate of false rape reports by the biatches (about 25% according to The Innocense Project) about the only rape culture that really exists is women lying about it. Women have only themselves to blame if nobody believes them.

[i306.photobucket.com image 500x293]

Actually, the home office of the UK puts the number at about 3%. United States numbers vary from 2-8% of rape claims.

"Politically correct feminists claim false rape accusations are rare and account for only 2 percent of all reports. Men's rights sites point to research that places the rate as high as 41 percent. These are wildly disparate figures that cannot be reconciled."



"Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."

"these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and the National Institute of Justice's informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate."


"If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources."

Link

Link



Two things:

1) Anything that claims they are opposed because of "politically correct feminism" is not a reliable source. It's politically biased bullshiat.
2) You're comparing two different things here. You're comparing people who have made malicious claims of rape against other men - like the woman in this article here - with people who were wrongly convicted due to poor corroboration of physical evidence or wrongful identification. In addition, you're quoting a study from 1996, when forensic science was first starting to widely test DNA in rape cases.


So now false accusations are bad only if the intent is malicious. That's an interesting position to assert.

The rate of forensic evidence exoneration has held steady since that study. Please stop trying to claim that a 16 year old study is somehow irrelevant due to its age and circumstances; especially when its results have held constant since that time.

And I'm going to try and restate Dokushin's point about the study you linked to so I might help you see just what it was before this devolved into an argument about malicious accusations vs false accusations.

If you accept the premise that the crime of rape goes unreported and that this means rape occurs more often than the amount tried and convicted, you accept that some crimes occur and the perpetrators "gets away with it."

If you take that stance, then surely you can see the logic in saying that not all malicious accusations of rape are found out and brought to justice. Some portion of those people exonerated by forensics are victims of this crime. Some portion of people not exonerated by forensics are also victims of this crime. To claim that only cases where false accusations of a malicious nature occur is when they are brought before a court of law (which is what I take your argument to be based on the study you provided and your particular defense of it) is myopic. It's just as myopic as people claiming rapes never go unreported.

It's good to critically think about studies because they all have limitations. People try and stretch them into situations where the study matches their worldview. That's why peer review is important. There doesn't seem to be much peer review for rape studies which makes this more difficult to discuss logically.

/I am not volunteering to be on the rape peer review board
 
2012-12-04 11:38:11 AM
I'm going to assume TFA is accurate. In a larger sense, the guy might be getting off lucky. Being a `worthless' farker might well have prevented his hearing the far more common prevarication `I'm really sorry, hon, but I guess the pills weren't working. Aren't you excited, you're gonna be a daddy!' (look hard at that mugshot).

Now, there's a prison sentence for ya.

/hormones are extremely dangerous drugs (`she's crazy but, hey, it's just `casual'...)

/no technical excuse, at this late date, not to record all encounters for posterity/the law
 
2012-12-04 11:38:40 AM

Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: If two people get drunk and have sex, is that rape?

Depends how drunk they were, and whether it was voluntary intoxication or not, and whether voluntary intoxication is considered intent. The statutes depend on the jurisdiction.

And if so, who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?

By the logic of "diminished capacity," neither participant is competent to give consent, and sex without consent would seem to imply rape. Are they both victims and both rapists at the same time? Or is only the man guilty because he's a man? But then what if it's two men?

Due to that bit about voluntary intoxication, it could be both. It depends on the statutes.

/questions

/answers
//also, you should put questions in quotes, since you're not really asking questions, you're "just asking questions". Be bold, telegraph your concern trolling.


It was an honest question. People getting drunk and having sex is a fairly common occurrence. Seems like it would be good to know when it is rape and when it is not. Particularly in cases where both participants are drunk, which is probably one of the most common scenarios, but seems the most legally hazy.

You're awfully quick to accuse someone of trolling, btw.
 
2012-12-04 11:43:49 AM

A Terrible Human: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Never argued otherwise but to be honest, the following exchange doesn't strike me as particularly rapey:

OMG I'm gonna cum!
NO!

You do know the body react involuntarily to shiat like that right? Like if I had an orgrasm during any of the sexual abuse I endured as a child doesn't mean I enjoyed it or wanted it.


I probably should have made it clearer that it was a conversation between two people. i.e.

Him: OMG, I'm gonna cum!
Her: No!

The joke is that she's not telling him no to sex but rather not to complete the act which runs counter to "continuing after she says no is pretty rapey" comment I was responding to. He might have every desire in the world to comply with her command but may be unable to do so.
 
2012-12-04 11:43:58 AM

RobSeace: r two women?

Then it's just plain hot, and it needs to be filmed!


Non-consensual girl-on-girl action seems like an unexplored genre of pornography.
 
2012-12-04 11:44:25 AM
The sex was not that good...
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-04 11:46:00 AM

Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: If two people get drunk and have sex, is that rape?

Depends how drunk they were, and whether it was voluntary intoxication or not, and whether voluntary intoxication is considered intent. The statutes depend on the jurisdiction.

And if so, who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?

By the logic of "diminished capacity," neither participant is competent to give consent, and sex without consent would seem to imply rape. Are they both victims and both rapists at the same time? Or is only the man guilty because he's a man? But then what if it's two men?

Due to that bit about voluntary intoxication, it could be both. It depends on the statutes.

/questions

/answers
//also, you should put questions in quotes, since you're not really asking questions, you're "just asking questions". Be bold, telegraph your concern trolling.

It was an honest question. People getting drunk and having sex is a fairly common occurrence. Seems like it would be good to know when it is rape and when it is not. Particularly in cases where both participants are drunk, which is probably one of the most common scenarios, but seems the most legally hazy.


It depends on your jurisdiction's statutes.

You're awfully quick to accuse someone of trolling, btw.

If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, is it probably a duck? I'm just asking questions, ducky.
 
2012-12-04 11:47:57 AM

freewill: RobSeace: r two women?

Then it's just plain hot, and it needs to be filmed!

Non-consensual girl-on-girl action seems like an unexplored genre of pornography.


New to the Internet, huh?

Lesbian rape porn is pretty tame and common compared to some of the stuff out there.

//yeah, I need to stay off 4chan
 
2012-12-04 11:48:03 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: He might have every desire in the world to comply with her command but may be unable to do so.


If he's physically unable to comply, then he lacked the intent to commit rape, yes? Therefore, it's not rape, which is a crime that requires intent.
 
2012-12-04 11:48:06 AM

Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: If two people get drunk and have sex, is that rape?

Depends how drunk they were, and whether it was voluntary intoxication or not, and whether voluntary intoxication is considered intent. The statutes depend on the jurisdiction.

And if so, who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?

By the logic of "diminished capacity," neither participant is competent to give consent, and sex without consent would seem to imply rape. Are they both victims and both rapists at the same time? Or is only the man guilty because he's a man? But then what if it's two men?

Due to that bit about voluntary intoxication, it could be both. It depends on the statutes.

/questions

/answers
//also, you should put questions in quotes, since you're not really asking questions, you're "just asking questions". Be bold, telegraph your concern trolling.

It was an honest question. People getting drunk and having sex is a fairly common occurrence. Seems like it would be good to know when it is rape and when it is not. Particularly in cases where both participants are drunk, which is probably one of the most common scenarios, but seems the most legally hazy.

It depends on your jurisdiction's statutes.

You're awfully quick to accuse someone of trolling, btw.

If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, is it probably a duck? I'm just asking questions, ducky.


You forgot your quotes.
 
2012-12-04 11:48:54 AM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
"Call it half cuddle, half rape."
 
2012-12-04 11:50:06 AM

freewill: Non-consensual girl-on-girl action seems like an unexplored genre of pornography.


You're just not looking hard enough. Google "Ultimate surrender". Basically wrestling where the winner gets to do the loser. It's about as real as any other pro wrestling or porn.
 
2012-12-04 11:50:10 AM

Exception Collection: Rape culture still exists...


Yeah but they haven't put out a new album in years
 
2012-12-04 11:51:19 AM

Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: He might have every desire in the world to comply with her command but may be unable to do so.

If he's physically unable to comply, then he lacked the intent to commit rape, yes? Therefore, it's not rape, which is a crime that requires intent.


You're really not reading what I'm writing, are you?
 
2012-12-04 11:54:07 AM

MOGGEE: "Call it half cuddle, half rape."


Crepe?
 
2012-12-04 11:56:40 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: MOGGEE: "Call it half cuddle, half rape."

Crepe?


If I could link to Will Ferrell being pinned to the table in Taladega Nights I would.

/I love crepes!
 
2012-12-04 11:58:30 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: He might have every desire in the world to comply with her command but may be unable to do so.

If he's physically unable to comply, then he lacked the intent to commit rape, yes? Therefore, it's not rape, which is a crime that requires intent.

You're really not reading what I'm writing, are you?


Give it up, man. I had to put that guy on ignore a long time ago, since he's pretty much always been a caricature of a feminist that even Rush Limbaugh himself would blush at creating; I got sick of knowing exactly what kind of crap he would post.

But he's 100% for-real. He's a zealot. You will never have a rational discussion with him on anything touching upon gender politics.

The sun rises in 5 hours, so I'm to bed. Cheers, all.
 
2012-12-04 12:00:38 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: He might have every desire in the world to comply with her command but may be unable to do so.

If he's physically unable to comply, then he lacked the intent to commit rape, yes? Therefore, it's not rape, which is a crime that requires intent.

You're really not reading what I'm writing, are you?


Yeah, I am:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: BronyMedic: However, at any point during the act, your partner says no/safeword and you keep going, yeah. That's pretty rapey.

Never argued otherwise but to be honest, the following exchange doesn't strike me as particularly rapey:

Him: OMG, I'm gonna cum!
Her: No!

The joke is that she's not telling him no to sex but rather not to complete the act which runs counter to "continuing after she says no is pretty rapey" comment I was responding to. He might have every desire in the world to comply with her command but may be unable to do so.


Hence, my response. If your partner says no, and you're physically unable to comply - she said stop a half second before you ejaculate, you couldn't hear her say no, etc. - then you had no intent to commit rape.

I'm sorry, is there some other way to interpret your post?
 
2012-12-04 12:05:05 PM

KingsleyZisou: So now false accusations are bad only if the intent is malicious. That's an interesting position to assert.


I never asserted that in the least. I said you're comparing two different issues.

There's a difference. If you're going to put words in my mouth, atleast try to quote me saying something along the lines of that.

KingsleyZisou: The rate of forensic evidence exoneration has held steady since that study. Please stop trying to claim that a 16 year old study is somehow irrelevant due to its age and circumstances; especially when its results have held constant since that time.


Exonerations in the United States by Crime, 1989 to 2012.

Out of 873 exonerations during the time period, 203 - or 23% of them were for adult rape. 84% of them were based on DNA evidence, rather than witness recanting. In addition, those being exonerated served, on average, 11.9 to 13 years in prison at the time of their exoneration, putting many of those convictions before the widespread use of DNA evidence.

This does not fit with the argument that "25% of Accused Rapists being exonerated" that was originally put forth.

KingsleyZisou: If you take that stance, then surely you can see the logic in saying that not all malicious accusations of rape are found out and brought to justice. Some portion of those people exonerated by forensics are victims of this crime. Some portion of people not exonerated by forensics are also victims of this crime. To claim that only cases where false accusations of a malicious nature occur is when they are brought before a court of law (which is what I take your argument to be based on the study you provided and your particular defense of it) is myopic. It's just as myopic as people claiming rapes never go unreported.


I never claimed that all malicious accusations are found out. And I never claimed that the ones who didn't means that they were gulity of rape in and of itsself. And we know that many rapes go unreported, it's not myopic to state that. The fact of the matter is that the system is incredibly hostile to rape victims, right down to cops discouraging victims of rape from reporting it.
 
2012-12-04 12:05:39 PM

Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: He might have every desire in the world to comply with her command but may be unable to do so.

If he's physically unable to comply, then he lacked the intent to commit rape, yes? Therefore, it's not rape, which is a crime that requires intent.

You're really not reading what I'm writing, are you?

Yeah, I am:
Monkeyhouse Zendo: BronyMedic: However, at any point during the act, your partner says no/safeword and you keep going, yeah. That's pretty rapey.

Never argued otherwise but to be honest, the following exchange doesn't strike me as particularly rapey:

Him: OMG, I'm gonna cum!
Her: No!

The joke is that she's not telling him no to sex but rather not to complete the act which runs counter to "continuing after she says no is pretty rapey" comment I was responding to. He might have every desire in the world to comply with her command but may be unable to do so.

Hence, my response. If your partner says no, and you're physically unable to comply - she said stop a half second before you ejaculate, you couldn't hear her say no, etc. - then you had no intent to commit rape.

I'm sorry, is there some other way to interpret your post?


Well this is just a shot in the dark here but you could assume it was consensual sex and she would be disappointed that it was about to end. Likely without her climaxing before he does.

/you know, like a joke
//who's trolling now?
 
2012-12-04 12:06:16 PM
i1172.photobucket.com

i came for the rape hysteria. leaving satisfied.

anyone remember the article a while back about the guy who was accused of rape by his ex wife and then it turned out to be an elaborate plot to take away his visitation rights with his kids. women can be extremely violent and sadistic, except it doesnt look that way because they commit their crimes by proxy.
 
2012-12-04 12:06:25 PM

Theaetetus: Hence, my response. If your partner says no, and you're physically unable to comply - she said stop a half second before you ejaculate, you couldn't hear her say no, etc. - then you had no intent to commit rape.

I'm sorry, is there some other way to interpret your post?


Yes, as a humorous response. I can see where you might be confused.

/that means I think you're humorless
 
2012-12-04 12:07:08 PM
Personal bet man lost beer goggle in the morning and she was hurt and offended.
 
2012-12-04 12:07:24 PM

Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: If two people get drunk and have sex, is that rape?

Depends how drunk they were, and whether it was voluntary intoxication or not, and whether voluntary intoxication is considered intent. The statutes depend on the jurisdiction.

And if so, who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?

By the logic of "diminished capacity," neither participant is competent to give consent, and sex without consent would seem to imply rape. Are they both victims and both rapists at the same time? Or is only the man guilty because he's a man? But then what if it's two men?

Due to that bit about voluntary intoxication, it could be both. It depends on the statutes.

/questions

/answers
//also, you should put questions in quotes, since you're not really asking questions, you're "just asking questions". Be bold, telegraph your concern trolling.

It was an honest question. People getting drunk and having sex is a fairly common occurrence. Seems like it would be good to know when it is rape and when it is not. Particularly in cases where both participants are drunk, which is probably one of the most common scenarios, but seems the most legally hazy.

It depends on your jurisdiction's statutes.

You're awfully quick to accuse someone of trolling, btw.

If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, is it probably a duck? I'm just asking questions, ducky.


Good lord. I've been a regular poster on Fark since 2004, and I think this is the first time I've ever been called a troll.

I ask an honest question about a common but legally-murky scenario and you give me a brush-off non-answer and accuse me of being a troll. Twice.

Someone's getting Farkied as "self-righteous condescending asshat."
 
2012-12-04 12:08:22 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
Nailed what to the table?
 
2012-12-04 12:09:54 PM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: anyone remember the article a while back about the guy who was accused of rape by his ex wife and then it turned out to be an elaborate plot to take away his visitation rights with his kids. women can be extremely violent and sadistic, except it doesnt look that way because they commit their crimes by proxy.


Reminds me of a quote that popped up on my facebook feed the other day:

"Anybody who thinks the world would be a better place if it were run by women doesn't remember high school." - Madeline Albright
 
2012-12-04 12:10:16 PM

Doc Daneeka: Good lord. I've been a regular poster on Fark since 2004, and I think this is the first time I've ever been called a troll.


That's okay. I've been here since 2004 on another name, and I still get called a troll.
 
2012-12-04 12:10:41 PM

Doc Daneeka: Good lord. I've been a regular poster on Fark since 2004, and I think this is the first time I've ever been called a troll.


Bullshiat. I've called you a troll before.

I ask an honest question about a common but legally-murky scenario and you give me a brush-off non-answer and accuse me of being a troll. Twice.

Actually, I answered it quite specifically, as well as explaining why it wouldn't be legally murky. It has to do with whether that statute reads voluntary intoxication as intent. Some do, some don't. In the ones that do, it could be rape. In the ones that don't, it's not. It depends on the wording of the specific laws.
That's not a brush off, that is the answer. If you like something more specific, name a state.

Someone's getting Farkied as "self-righteous condescending asshat."

Someone's getting Farkied as "calls you an asshat when he gets an answer but doesn't like it".
 
2012-12-04 12:11:13 PM
wtvf.images.worldnow.com

I'd say she didn't enjoy it, what with that bag over her head and all.
 
2012-12-04 12:11:35 PM

Theaetetus: whether that statute


/s/statute/state
 
2012-12-04 12:14:38 PM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 640x512]

i came for the rape hysteria. leaving satisfied.


I forgot to mention, that's some pretty nice rope work.
 
2012-12-04 12:21:47 PM

aagrajag: Lesbian rape porn is pretty tame and common compared to some of the stuff out there.


Well, I just found some new bookmarks.
 
2012-12-04 12:25:43 PM

Theaetetus: Actually, I answered it quite specifically, as well as explaining why it wouldn't be legally murky. It has to do with whether that statute reads voluntary intoxication as intent. Some do, some don't. In the ones that do, it could be rape. In the ones that don't, it's not. It depends on the wording of the specific laws.
That's not a brush off, that is the answer. If you like something more specific, name a state.


No, you didn't answer my question, which pertained specifically to situations in which both participants are drunk. Let me spell it out for you more. In jurisdictions in which drunken sex can be considered intent and be prosecuted as rape, what happens when both participants are drunk? Are they both guilty of rape? Or both victims? Or is only the man guilty (and if so, how does the law consider responsibility in same-sex encounters)?

It's a goddamn simple question, and I find it annoying to be branded by you as a troll (three times now) simply for posing it.

Fark it, I don't know why I'm still even bothering.
 
2012-12-04 12:27:35 PM

BronyMedic: Dokushin: Do you understand what you're saying? This very article we are discussing would not be a "false report" without her confession, even though it was false.

The 2-8 percent so oft cited is of cases in which they could prove, through confession or evidence, that the woman was lying. Citing that number as the only reports in which the man was innocent is literally saying that if the woman says rape, and there is zero evidence, that the man is still guilty.

More fearmongering, in other words.

You're right. False reports happen all the time. It's just the evil Femnazi Liberal agenda trying to keep that quiet to make men suffer. Damn you libtard media! Damn you to Christian Hell with the diapers of Baby Jesus!



Your argument basically boils down to "if there's no evidence a rape actually occured, it's a false report". That's an insane strawman. It's also the reason why so many rapes are unreported.


You're right. After reading this there's no way someone could think you claimed that the study you cited is the only reasonable measure of false reports.

If you keep having to tell people that they're "putting words in your mouth" at what point do you stop to consider that maybe you're a poor communicator?
 
2012-12-04 12:32:47 PM

Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Actually, I answered it quite specifically, as well as explaining why it wouldn't be legally murky. It has to do with whether that statute reads voluntary intoxication as intent. Some do, some don't. In the ones that do, it could be rape. In the ones that don't, it's not. It depends on the wording of the specific laws.
That's not a brush off, that is the answer. If you like something more specific, name a state.

No, you didn't answer my question, which pertained specifically to situations in which both participants are drunk.


I answered it, and I will again, using my previous quote:
Let me spell it out for you more. In jurisdictions in which drunken sex can be considered intent and be prosecuted as rape, what happens when both participants are drunk? Are they both guilty of rape? Or both victims? Or is only the man guilty (and if so, how does the law consider responsibility in same-sex encounters)?

Prior answer: "Due to that bit about voluntary intoxication, it could be both. It depends on the statutes."
See? Now, to be even more specific, you didn't include the condition "in jurisdictions in which drunken sex can be considered intent and be prosecuted as rape" previously, which is why I had that "it depends on the statutes." Since you've now posed it as in a jurisdiction in which the statutes line up that way, then the answer is "both".

It's a goddamn simple question, and I find it annoying to be branded by you as a troll (three times now) simply for posing it.

I find it annoying that I have to answer the same goddamn simple question three times:
1. "Due to that bit about voluntary intoxication, it could be both. It depends on the statutes."
2. "It has to do with whether that statute reads voluntary intoxication as intent. Some do, some don't. In the ones that do, it could be rape."
And now this post.

Cripes. If you're going to complain about your question not being answered, maybe you should read the answers.
 
2012-12-04 12:36:54 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Exception Collection: Rape culture still exists

Not where I'm at. Everyone around here is pretty anti-rape.


Same. None of my friends are pro-rape. Prudes.
 
2012-12-04 12:40:25 PM

Theaetetus: theMightyRegeya: Has anyone stopped to consider what "rape culture" means? It means you have a culture where rape and sexual abuse are normal, toerated, and even acceptable.

Actually, it could also mean a culture where rape is divided into "forcible" or "violent" or "legitimate" or "rape-rape" rape that is condemned, and date/acquaintance rape, diminished capability rape, or other rape that is excused or minimized, with victims being blamed for the way they dress, where they were, whether they drank, etc. and a culture where it's considered not just acceptable, but encouraged, to talk about plying some honey with a few drinks to lower her inhibitions, or going around the bars looking for the drunkest girls to bang. A key is that those participating in rape culture don't actually view it as rape, which is the problem.


And you believe we live in a culture where these attitudes are prevalent, accepted, and encouraged by a majority of people.
 
2012-12-04 12:40:33 PM
Also, Daneeka, if you don't like the fact that I'm saying "could" rather than "is", it still depends on the state, and you haven't named one yet. Other factors that may apply are whether knowledge that the other person is impaired is required.
The point stands, though - jurisdictional differences will apply to both participants, and either both will be rapists or neither will, with the exception of a few very backwards states in the south which have rape statutes that explicitly require penile penetration. If you'd care to name a state rather than complaining that your question hasn't been definitively answered, then we can definitively answer it.
 
2012-12-04 12:40:42 PM

Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: If two people get drunk and have sex, is that rape?

Depends how drunk they were, and whether it was voluntary intoxication or not, and whether voluntary intoxication is considered intent. The statutes depend on the jurisdiction.

And if so, who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?

By the logic of "diminished capacity," neither participant is competent to give consent, and sex without consent would seem to imply rape. Are they both victims and both rapists at the same time? Or is only the man guilty because he's a man? But then what if it's two men?

Due to that bit about voluntary intoxication, it could be both. It depends on the statutes.

/questions

/answers
//also, you should put questions in quotes, since you're not really asking questions, you're "just asking questions". Be bold, telegraph your concern trolling.

It was an honest question. People getting drunk and having sex is a fairly common occurrence. Seems like it would be good to know when it is rape and when it is not. Particularly in cases where both participants are drunk, which is probably one of the most common scenarios, but seems the most legally hazy.

You're awfully quick to accuse someone of trolling, btw.


I'm glad you asked because I've also wondered the same thing. It does seem odd that only 1 sex tends to be punished for it. I know plenty of guys (raises hands) who have had sex with women who they never would have had the women not bought shots. I assume this is different than when a guy does it to a woman, but I'm not totally sure why.
 
2012-12-04 12:42:26 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Dafatone: Also, most importantly, "Rape Culture" does not mean people thinking rape is acceptable.

Okay, define "rape culture". I checked wikipedia and their definition includes people thinking rape is acceptable.


Sure, the definition includes that. It includes other things too.

Basically, it's the idea that our culture puts forth a set of ideas and beliefs that make rape more likely, more accepted, and make it harder for women to get treatment and come forward after rape.

The whole slew of people going "ugh shut up you pseudo-intellectuals, we wanna joke about how ugly this chick is" is part of the problem. The people who don't want to discuss this are part of the problem. People who have a kneejerk reaction to anything they perceive as "feminism" are also part of the problem.

/Man. That is not a good looking woman.
 
2012-12-04 12:44:17 PM

theMightyRegeya: Theaetetus: theMightyRegeya: Has anyone stopped to consider what "rape culture" means? It means you have a culture where rape and sexual abuse are normal, toerated, and even acceptable.

Actually, it could also mean a culture where rape is divided into "forcible" or "violent" or "legitimate" or "rape-rape" rape that is condemned, and date/acquaintance rape, diminished capability rape, or other rape that is excused or minimized, with victims being blamed for the way they dress, where they were, whether they drank, etc. and a culture where it's considered not just acceptable, but encouraged, to talk about plying some honey with a few drinks to lower her inhibitions, or going around the bars looking for the drunkest girls to bang. A key is that those participating in rape culture don't actually view it as rape, which is the problem.

And you believe we live in a culture where these attitudes are prevalent, accepted, and encouraged by a majority of people.


See, e.g. Whoopi Goldberg, Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh, Steve King, Roger Rivard, etc.
 
2012-12-04 12:45:18 PM

fredbox: Exception Collection:Rape culture

ks1415:Rape culture

Seriously, how do you two even leave the house? We live in rape culture, murder culture, auto theft culture, starting wars under false pretenses culture, cheating on tax return culture.

Not all men promote or condone rape. Not all men are compelled by their penises to achieve intercourse at any possible cost. Stop lumping me in with them. I also don't steal cars, murder, start wars, cheat on my taxes (though my last audit turned up a couple math errors and a relative lack of understanding of how in the hell I was really supposed to do depreciation, so you got me there.)

Jesus.


You don't get it. A woman filing a false report is only representative of that woman. A man who is unconvinced of the validity of a rape accusation represents all men and all rape accusations. I hope that clears things up.
 
2012-12-04 12:50:03 PM

LL316: I'm glad you asked because I've also wondered the same thing. It does seem odd that only 1 sex tends to be punished for it. I know plenty of guys (raises hands) who have had sex with women who they never would have had the women not bought shots. I assume this is different than when a guy does it to a woman, but I'm not totally sure why.


There are several factors. First, a few states have gender-discriminatory statutes regarding this. They're probably unconstitutional, and are just waiting for someone to file a suit.
Second and more importantly, it's not just "have you been drinking," but are you so drunk that you are physically incapacitated and unable to consent. Typically, a guy in this state is unlikely to be able to get it up, so it's somewhat self-limiting. That said, there are cases where the guy could engage in penetrative sex while incapacitated, as well as cases in which the guy is penetrated at which point a lack of erection is irrelevant. Point being that if you're farking someone rather than being farked, it's going to be tougher to show that you were incapacitated.
 
2012-12-04 12:51:50 PM

Theaetetus: See, e.g. Whoopi Goldberg, Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh, Steve King, Roger Rivard, etc.


I think the reason this gets shat all over is because of the language used, which is usually along the lines of "we have a culture of rape" or "our rape culture".

It would be more appropriate to talk about a rape subculture in which some people participate.

I don't know about your circle, but I didn't know anybody who voiced agreement with either Whoopi Goldberg or Todd Akin. If anything, they became pariahs at that moment. I won't speak to the other situations because, frankly, I wasn't paying attention, but I think that we, collectively, do not have anything that can be described as a "rape culture". Some circles in our society certainly do, and those people are generally not welcome among the rest of us once they out themselves.
 
2012-12-04 12:55:10 PM

Theaetetus:
See, e.g. Whoopi Goldberg, Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh, Steve King, Roger Rivard, etc.


www.graffitiwithpunctuation.net

and we're done here.
 
2012-12-04 12:57:20 PM

theMightyRegeya: Theaetetus:
See, e.g. Whoopi Goldberg, Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh, Steve King, Roger Rivard, etc.

[www.graffitiwithpunctuation.net image 814x500]

and we're done here.


Ah, no true scotsman. Got it. I guess we are done here.
 
2012-12-04 01:07:33 PM
This is the thread where Men's Rights Activists hold up this single case as absolute proof that all women are liars and whores, correct?
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report