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.

(Huffington Post)   Student charged with an honor code violation for "intimidating" her rapist by speaking publicly   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 1269
    More: Sick, Chapel Hill, honor code, sex crimes, Office of Civil Rights, Amherst College, art fair, U.S. Department of Education, graduate students  
•       •       •

28389 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2013 at 10:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-26 10:57:09 PM

ciberido: Yes, actually, you did. I even quoted you. Feel free to go back and re-read what you wrote.


I said "Women who claim to be victims are sometimes lying (and sometimes are whores)."

I never said "...and thus that makes it okay to rape her".
 
2013-02-26 10:57:31 PM

ramblinwreck: justinguarini4ever: It's sad that the problem of sexual assault on college campuses is not a problem that seems to be going away anytime soon.

Clearly, all men need to be banned from college campuses. It's the only way to be sure.

/oh, wait, 1/4 to 1/2 of lesbians report sexual assault or abuse by a FEMALE parner (Google is your friend) Of course the patriarchy is to blame!


Are you about to use the term feminazi or some other nonsense? I need to know so I can get drunk enough not to care that every women's issue gets reduced to a snarky conversation about the patriarchy, feminazis, and other crap with an intent to distract from the real issue and belittle the victims while dismissing their claims.

Remember: If you can't defeat it in a rational argument, mock it until the facts don't matter!
 
2013-02-26 11:08:02 PM

Genevieve Marie: This was such a weird thread.


You can say that again.
 
2013-02-26 11:18:05 PM

ciberido: The thing about the Vulcans on Star Trek is that they CLAIM to lack emotions (or at least to have "mastered" them) and to operate on pure logic, but if you watch the shows long enough, you'll see that they ACTUALLY are nearly as controlled by their emotions as, say, your average human. The real difference is that humans ADMIT how emotions generally control them, whereas Vulcans deny it. That's why I think "Vulcan" is a reasonably apt term, at least until I think of a better one.


Actually, if you bother to research it (or even read a wiki article), you'll find that Vulcans actually have quite strong emotions (stronger than, say, humans):

...Vulcans are exceptionally emotional. They developed techniques to suppress their emotions precisely because of the damage they can cause if unchecked. T'Pol once stated that paranoia and homicidal rage were common on Vulcan prior to the adoption of Surak's code of emotional control. In the original series episode "The Savage Curtain", Spock meets Surak and displays emotion, for which Surak reprimands him, and he asks forgiveness.

The advanced ritual of Kolinahr is intended to purge all remaining vestigial emotion; the word also refers to the discipline by which this state is maintained. Only the most devoted and trained Vulcan students attain Kolinahr; most Vulcans do retain control over their emotions, but do not completely eliminate them as Kolinahr attempts to do


If you want to go with that as analogy, then fine. I have emotions. But I seek to master them, to act on logic, not emotion. That is, after all, the sign of intelligence- to act on thought, not feelings or instinct.

It is logical to go to the police if you are assaulted. It is logical to have any evidence collected while it is still fresh (or indeed, still exists). It is emotional, and not logical, to whine and complain about how 'uncomfortable' this process is. If you dislike it that much, fine, don't go through it. But realize that skipping it means you lose any supporting evidence it might have provided. The world does not provide everything on a silver platter- sometimes one must undergo discomfort in pursuit of ones goals. To expect otherwise is incredibly immature.

So, call me 'Vulcan' if you wish. I prefer the description 'logical and without undue emotions'.

Our logical rational conscious mind is riding an "elephant" (our emotions and intuitions). We certain can hope to GUIDE our elephant, but we are not in absolute control and only fool ourselves with the conceit that we are.

Interesting. You feel you have no actual control over your own actions- that you can, at best, 'hope to guide' them. I'm no psychologist, but that seems like some sort of disorder to me. "It's not my fault, I can't help it"?
 
2013-02-26 11:44:55 PM

Weaver95: Mock26: Why is this even a school issue?  What happened to her was not a violation of school rules.  What happened to her was a horrific crime!  It should have been a matter for the police, not some "honor court" run by her fellow students.  While I have sympathy for her in regards to being raped, I have no sympathy for her if she never reported the crime to the police and instead sought to have the school handle the whole thing.

except that there's indications that she DID speak to the cops about what happened.  then she told the school about it and they were entirely unsympathetic to her situation.


This is from the article:
"[The Honor Court is] the venue in which Gambill attempted to resolve the sexual assault and stalking she claims she suffered at the hands of her ex-boyfriend."

To me that does not sound like she called the police to file a report.
 
2013-02-26 11:55:22 PM

Mock26: Weaver95: Mock26: Why is this even a school issue?  What happened to her was not a violation of school rules.  What happened to her was a horrific crime!  It should have been a matter for the police, not some "honor court" run by her fellow students.  While I have sympathy for her in regards to being raped, I have no sympathy for her if she never reported the crime to the police and instead sought to have the school handle the whole thing.

except that there's indications that she DID speak to the cops about what happened.  then she told the school about it and they were entirely unsympathetic to her situation.

This is from the article:
"[The Honor Court is] the venue in which Gambill attempted to resolve the sexual assault and stalking she claims she suffered at the hands of her ex-boyfriend."

To me that does not sound like she called the police to file a report.


Totally.

Gambill says she went to the Dean of Students Office to report an abusive ex-boyfriend for stalking in March 2012. She filed a complaint with the university's Honor Court system in the hopes that it'd be faster and less complicated than the legal system.

Well, to her credit, it would be hard to miss on that count. Oh wait...

But when the trial came in May, Gambill said the students and faculty on the Honor Court were focused on why she hadn't done anything to stop the alleged abuse.

In all fairness, Miss Gambill has been blessed with the opportunity to attain a degree and depth of cynicism it's taken many of us decades longer to achieve.
 
2013-02-27 12:17:45 AM

dready zim: Not all fish in the sea are sharks but sharks are in the sea and are fish. I am not a shark but I am aware of their existence. I am constantly aware there may be one near me, or just out of view when I swim or dive. Just because I see angelfish, pufferfish and rays does not mean I should not stay alert for sharks. It would be stupid to swim without some protection in waters known to have sharks by claiming "This fish I have known for 12 years is not a shark so all the other fish are not sharks"


You're trying WAY too hard...

vygramul: Legios: Yes, he can. Legally it's more tricky because of physiology, you're likely to get medical experts claiming (in court) he couldn't possibly get it up if he was that drunk. But absolutely. I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this. Statistically the rape of females is statiscially more prevalent, but not saying they're exclusive

/male
//studied psychology, criminology and justice

I think what's going on here is that he is suggesting if both of them were drunk, what stops him, when she files charges that she didn't give consent, from filing charges of his own, stating he didn't give consent.


How didn't he give consent? He's the one that put it in.
 
2013-02-27 12:29:19 AM

orbister: Abacus9: True, but this is not even remotely the same thing. In fact, the errors in judgment mad buy a drunk driver are exactly why a rape victim is not held accountable for being raped while drunk.

We hold drunk drivers responsible for the acts they commit while drunk.


Because drunk drivers have impaired judgment, causing them to be dangerous on the road. The same kind of impaired judgment that the law says makes consent impossible. Seriously, this is SUCH a stupid comparison.
 
2013-02-27 12:31:30 AM

Benjamin Orr: Jesus you guys and gals are really sexually abusing this thread


Point out where the thread said no to this.  The thread consented, it's posters' word against the thread.  The thread shouldn't have had a drink in our company, and shouldn't have dressed so provocatively.  And since the thread didn't go to an authority, it must've liked it.
 One more thing: to the whomever that said it's just "putting a guy's hoo hoo dilly in a girl's cha cha", does that mean if that didn't take place, it wasn't sexual assault?  Does that mean guys sticking broomsticks up another guy's ass, or someone forcing someone else into oral sex is not sexual assault?  Or is it no big deal, and the assaulted needs to put some mud on it and get on with life?
 
2013-02-27 12:31:50 AM

orbister: Abacus9: . And on a college campus, if you're talking reputation, it's probably worse for the rape victim than the rapist.

However, as Genevieve Marie has repeatedly said, nobody has inalienable right to a good reputation.


Which is true. I'm just saying that things on campus can be a little bit backwards, and that this stuff is way underreported.
 
2013-02-27 01:13:49 AM

fredklein: ciberido: The thing about the Vulcans on Star Trek is that they CLAIM to lack emotions (or at least to have "mastered" them) and to operate on pure logic, but if you watch the shows long enough, you'll see that they ACTUALLY are nearly as controlled by their emotions as, say, your average human. The real difference is that humans ADMIT how emotions generally control them, whereas Vulcans deny it. That's why I think "Vulcan" is a reasonably apt term, at least until I think of a better one.

Actually, if you bother to research it (or even read a wiki article), you'll find that Vulcans actually have quite strong emotions (stronger than, say, humans):

...Vulcans are exceptionally emotional. They developed techniques to suppress their emotions precisely because of the damage they can cause if unchecked. T'Pol once stated that paranoia and homicidal rage were common on Vulcan prior to the adoption of Surak's code of emotional control. In the original series episode "The Savage Curtain", Spock meets Surak and displays emotion, for which Surak reprimands him, and he asks forgiveness.

The advanced ritual of Kolinahr is intended to purge all remaining vestigial emotion; the word also refers to the discipline by which this state is maintained. Only the most devoted and trained Vulcan students attain Kolinahr; most Vulcans do retain control over their emotions, but do not completely eliminate them as Kolinahr attempts to do

If you want to go with that as analogy, then fine. I have emotions. But I seek to master them, to act on logic, not emotion. That is, after all, the sign of intelligence- to act on thought, not feelings or instinct.

It is logical to go to the police if you are assaulted. It is logical to have any evidence collected while it is still fresh (or indeed, still exists). It is emotional, and not logical, to whine and complain about how 'uncomfortable' this process is. If you dislike it that much, fine, don't go through it. But realize that skipping it means yo ...


People don't always act logically after a traumatic experience. You are no different, no matter how robotic you try to be, tough guy.
 
2013-02-27 02:22:11 AM

ciberido: Genevieve Marie: For what it's worth, as much as that particular poster grated on me in this thread, I don't see any contradiction in being a woman and being opposed to circumcision. I'm mildly against it. I don't believe it's incredibly cruel or damaging or anything along those lines, I just tend to be wary of any elective surgery performed on someone for cosmetic purposes before that person is old enough to consent to what's happening to them.


Oh, sure, but there's a difference between saying, for example, "If I ever have any male children, I probably won't have them circumcised" and "GRAWR!  ZOMG THEy're multiatimng BABIES !!!!!111ty"

In a weird way it's a little like homophobia.  If you think gay marriage is bad, don't marry a gay person.  If you think gay sex is bad, don't have gay sex.  That's all fine.  But when you start getting red in the face and screaming about how homosexuality is disgusting end evil and is bringing about the downfall of America, you have a problem.  I could say nearly the same about the "Intactivists," the ones who get REALLY worked up about circumcision, and who want to pass laws outlawing it, etc.

(I refuse, by the way, to call circumcision "male circumcision" because there is no such thing as "female circumcision."   FGM is not in any way, shape, or form, comparable to circumcision.)


On a different note, one thing I find interesting about the kinds of people I call "Vulcans" (such as heili skrimsli and fredklein, to name two in this thread) is how often they'll claim to be calm, cool, and rational even when their actual behaviour is more like that unto a raging hell-beast of furiously redundant rage.  Compare, for example, heili skrimsli description of herself in her profile ("I am often overly rational in situations where people expect emotional responses") with what she says when people disagree with her ("Hey dipshiat, I'm female and I still think you are batshiat insane paranoid if you're fearful of an elevator ride or you ...


Well said.
 
2013-02-27 03:58:51 AM

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus:
Are you sure she didn't swear an oath?

If you really were a lawyer (and it's obvious you are not), you would know the legal difference between swearing under oath in a court (or signing under the penalty of perjury) and swearing to something outside of a courtroom.

You're not a lawyer, so you can be forgiven for basing your knowledge on what you've seen on Boston Legal. Believe it or not, there are many, many places where you can be considered under oath and face penalty for perjury, even if it's outside of a courtroom. I engage in one of them almost daily, and I've only set foot in a courtroom once in my life.


I am quite aware of the circumstances where an oath is legally binding and lying can get you thrown in the pokey.  I simply doubt that a university honor code hearing is one of those.

I will repeat what I originally stated.  She should have gone to the police.  Since she did not, the university is acting reasonably by telling her to stop spreading nasty rumors about another student.  Isn't it possible the university could be held liable for promoting a hostile environment for the ex-boyfriend?  After all, he has not been convicted of a crime.  He has not been charged.  There isn't even a complaint filed against him.
 
2013-02-27 05:04:58 AM
I`m sure we can all agree though that to legally be able to say someone committed a crime they should be prosecuted first or the claimant should have some proof and to claim in public verbally that someone committed a crime without a conviction or showing any proof is slander.

This is very basic law.

If she wants to shout in the marketplace that someone has done an act and public opinion of that act is negative then she should need to have him convicted first, or have proof he performed the act, otherwise she is committing slander.

It`s simple to not commit slander, you just have to prove what you say is true then he has no recourse and should be arrested and jailed. Personally, I don`t think it`s right he should still be walking free if he did what she said and she should have him arrested and have him convicted using due process. A college court can not do this, she should go to an authority with more power, like the police. Unfortunately, whatever she says he has done, if he is not convicted or if she cannot show other proof then the law says she can`t go around saying he did it.

Now you can carry on with your knee-jerk mouth frothing and white knighting.
 
2013-02-27 06:26:47 AM

Abacus9: dready zim: Not all fish in the sea are sharks but sharks are in the sea and are fish. I am not a shark but I am aware of their existence. I am constantly aware there may be one near me, or just out of view when I swim or dive. Just because I see angelfish, pufferfish and rays does not mean I should not stay alert for sharks. It would be stupid to swim without some protection in waters known to have sharks by claiming "This fish I have known for 12 years is not a shark so all the other fish are not sharks"

You're trying WAY too hard...

vygramul: Legios: Yes, he can. Legally it's more tricky because of physiology, you're likely to get medical experts claiming (in court) he couldn't possibly get it up if he was that drunk. But absolutely. I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this. Statistically the rape of females is statiscially more prevalent, but not saying they're exclusive

/male
//studied psychology, criminology and justice

I think what's going on here is that he is suggesting if both of them were drunk, what stops him, when she files charges that she didn't give consent, from filing charges of his own, stating he didn't give consent.

How didn't he give consent? He's the one that put it in.




The usual objection when both people are drunk is based on a nonviolent hypothetical, where both people enthusiastically engage in sex. However, the drunkenness definitionally means it wasn't consentual. She could have been in a dominant cowoy position and lowered herself onto his member and it wouldn't matter. She is drunk and therefore not giving consent. But so is he - he is not giving consent either. That is the scenario that creates the troubling asymmetry.
 
2013-02-27 06:49:37 AM

ciberido: Compare, for example, heili skrimsli description of herself in her profile ("I am often overly rational in situations where people expect emotional responses") with what she says when people disagree with her ("Hey dipshiat, I'm female and I still think you are batshiat insane paranoid if you're fearful of an elevator ride or you need to look over your shoulder in your makeup mirror just to make it down the street").


I know how to push buttons when I want to, but if you read that with some kind of actual anger behind it, you're adding a component to my text that doesn't exist. She made a dumb assumption that anyone who disagrees with her is clearly some guy who has all the male privilege in the world. It's pathetic in that whole first-semester-women's-studies major thinking she's some guru of infinite wisdom kind of way, but really, calling someone a dipshiat is hardly blind emotional rage. I say 'fark' a lot too, in the same tone of voice and with the same emotional backdrop as I say 'toast'.

As for my opinions regarding the cosmetic amputations of foreskin, they are consistent with my belief that permanent cosmetic alteration of any human should only be done with that human's explicit consent. That is not the topic of this thread, so that is all I will say on the matter.

You seem to have expended some amount of effort in poking about to figure me out. I hope you will understand that I have absolutely no inclination to do the same regarding you, because frankly I don't farking care as much as you seem to think.
 
2013-02-27 07:20:39 AM
Theaetetus:

The quote you cut off before the next sentence? Let me guess, those things are addressed by said next sentence.

/or is it the pedantic "bu-bu-but this is  text so it's  libel!"? Because honestly, that's a distinction without teeth in this context
//good luck with the rest of your first year


No, it really isn't.  But again, continue to act like you were able to get into law school and/or complete enough courses to understand the basics of defamation.  While it is great that you can throw around all of those big scary legal terms, your lack of actual understanding shows through quite clearly.  Give a clear outline of how the statements as presented constitute a case of libel in any court.  Show your work... Calling someone a psycho ex-girlfriend in comments on Fark does not muster outside of the Court of Public Opinion, nor would these comments meet criteria even in a favorable atmosphere.

I hear the coursework is getting harder, though they say that mail order law degrees are still an excellent investment.
 
2013-02-27 07:53:50 AM

fredklein: ciberido: The thing about the Vulcans on Star Trek is that they CLAIM to lack emotions (or at least to have "mastered" them) and to operate on pure logic, but if you watch the shows long enough, you'll see that they ACTUALLY are nearly as controlled by their emotions as, say, your average human. The real difference is that humans ADMIT how emotions generally control them, whereas Vulcans deny it. That's why I think "Vulcan" is a reasonably apt term, at least until I think of a better one.

Actually, if you bother to research it (or even read a wiki article), you'll find that Vulcans actually have quite strong emotions (stronger than, say, humans):

...Vulcans are exceptionally emotional. They developed techniques to suppress their emotions precisely because of the damage they can cause if unchecked. T'Pol once stated that paranoia and homicidal rage were common on Vulcan prior to the adoption of Surak's code of emotional control. In the original series episode "The Savage Curtain", Spock meets Surak and displays emotion, for which Surak reprimands him, and he asks forgiveness.

The advanced ritual of Kolinahr is intended to purge all remaining vestigial emotion; the word also refers to the discipline by which this state is maintained. Only the most devoted and trained Vulcan students attain Kolinahr; most Vulcans do retain control over their emotions, but do not completely eliminate them as Kolinahr attempts to do

If you want to go with that as analogy, then fine. I have emotions. But I seek to master them, to act on logic, not emotion. That is, after all, the sign of intelligence- to act on thought, not feelings or instinct.

It is logical to go to the police if you are assaulted. It is logical to have any evidence collected while it is still fresh (or indeed, still exists). It is emotional, and not logical, to whine and complain about how 'uncomfortable' this process is. If you dislike it that much, fine, don't go through it. But realize that skipping it means ...



simpsonswiki.net
 
2013-02-27 08:10:53 AM

spiderpaz: liam76: spiderpaz: If not ... it might have been rape and they might just not want to deal with it.

So if soemone doesn't want sex in the morning that is a good infication of rape, and the person consenting that night doesn't matter?

I've never hooked up with someone that didn't want it again the next day ... but maybe that's a result of skill and endowment.


I am real glad you got a chance to brag on Fark abotu yoru sex skills. I hope that helps your self esteem, but it doesn't have fark all to do with our conversation.


spiderpaz: Maybe that's why they didn't want anything to do with you when they were sober.


"Not wanting to hook up" = "not wanting anything to do" with, to you, or are you just making shiat up again that has nothing to do with what I said?


spiderpaz: Regardless, if it's commonplace for you that, after sleeping with someone, they don't want anything to do with you, it's a clue that you may have done something wrong.

If it is common place for you (and from the last couple posts it appears it is) to make shiat up rather than adress what they said when you disagree with someone, it is a clue you are wrong.

spiderpaz: And that thing can range all the way from terrible-sex to rape.

No you moron. Consensual sex doesn't magically turn into rape the next day because it was bad, you don't like the person as much the next morning, you don't want to have sex the next morning or whatever other stupid things you are going to pull out of your ass next. Peopel like you diminishing "rape" tot hings that trivial are part of the problem.
 
2013-02-27 08:35:54 AM

InitialCommentGuy: Theaetetus:

The quote you cut off before the next sentence? Let me guess, those things are addressed by said next sentence.

/or is it the pedantic "bu-bu-but this is  text so it's  libel!"? Because honestly, that's a distinction without teeth in this context
//good luck with the rest of your first year

No, it really isn't.  But again, continue to act like you were able to get into law school and/or complete enough courses to understand the basics of defamation.  While it is great that you can throw around all of those big scary legal terms, your lack of actual understanding shows through quite clearly.  Give a clear outline of how the statements as presented constitute a case of libel in any court.  Show your work... Calling someone a psycho ex-girlfriend in comments on Fark does not muster outside of the Court of Public Opinion, nor would these comments meet criteria even in a favorable atmosphere.

I hear the coursework is getting harder, though they say that mail order law degrees are still an excellent investment.


I'd be happy to help you study for your finals, kid. My hourly rate is currently $415. Shoot me an email and I'll run a conflict check.
 
2013-02-27 09:50:33 AM

dready zim: If she wants to shout in the marketplace that someone has done an act and public opinion of that act is negative then she should need to have him convicted first, or have proof he performed the act


I agree, but what level of proof do you expect?  In my opinion the only proof acceptable would be the criminal conviction.
She could have blood stained underwear, a piece of the guy's penis that she bit off during the attack, and video of the whole thing, and the marketplace would still be the wrong venue to tell people about it.  Show that evidence in a courtroom, then after the jury says the guy's guilty you can talk shiat.
 
2013-02-27 10:04:14 AM

liam76: No you moron. Consensual sex doesn't magically turn into rape the next day because it was bad, you don't like the person as much the next morning, you don't want to have sex the next morning or whatever other stupid things you are going to pull out of your ass next.


The dangerous thing is that it can and will, as soon as the prohibitions against prosecution of retroactive laws are removed by popular demand.

/laws are no more real than gods, and no less important
//the fact that they can be turned into something horrifying if enough people with "good intentions" decide to change them is the best reason to remain involved in this fight
 
2013-02-27 10:13:17 AM
media.dth.s3.amazonaws.com

Not sure why we've neglected to discuss it but.....CRAZY EYES!
 
2013-02-27 11:04:57 AM

Ebbelwoi: [media.dth.s3.amazonaws.com image 146x200]

Not sure why we've neglected to discuss it but.....CRAZY EYES!


THIS
 
2013-02-27 11:06:55 AM

Duck_of_Doom:  One more thing: to the whomever that said it's just "putting a guy's hoo hoo dilly in a girl's cha cha", does that mean if that didn't take place, it wasn't sexual assault?  Does that mean guys sticking broomsticks up another guy's ass, or someone forcing someone else into oral sex is not sexual assault?  Or is it no big deal, and the assaulted needs to put some mud on it and get on with life?


Some people, and some laws, define rape as involving a penis and a vagina, which eliminates even the possibility of same-sex rape.  Some places even define rape in such a way that legally, the only way charges can be brought is if the victim is female and the accused male.

Ethically, I think more reasonable people would agree if you're forcing oral sex on someone or using a broomstick, it's still rape.  But as is often the case, laws tend to lag behind reality.
 
2013-02-27 11:16:04 AM

ciberido: Some people, and some laws, define rape as involving a penis and a vagina, which eliminates even the possibility of same-sex rape. Some places even define rape in such a way that legally, the only way charges can be brought is if the victim is female and the accused male.


Can you provide some examples of these places?  I think your information might be out of date.  Also, I'd like to avoid those places.

/I thought the trend was to eliminate any crime technically called "rape", and replace it with "sexual assault"?
 
2013-02-27 11:24:18 AM

Abacus9: People don't always act logically after a traumatic experience. You are no different, no matter how robotic you try to be, tough guy.


In fact, there is considerable evidence that MOST people don't act logically after a traumatic experience.  A good bit of research has been done over the years on traumatic and stress-related disorders such  rape trauma syndrome (RTS),  to focus back on rape specifically.  It's not like this is some brad new discovery.  The information has been out there for decades.  But we're dealing with people who are sticking their heads in the sand.
 
2013-02-27 11:29:12 AM

heili skrimsli: You seem to have expended some amount of effort in poking about to figure me out. I hope you will understand that I have absolutely no inclination to do the same regarding you, because frankly I don't farking care as much as you seem to think.


Sure you don't.  You don't care so much you just HAD to post about it.

Enjoy your delusions.
 
2013-02-27 12:32:51 PM

Abacus9: People don't always act logically after a traumatic experience. You are no different, no matter how robotic you try to be, tough guy


I don't like the mentality that says that instinctive behavior is automatically acceptable and should therefore be approved.  People don't always obey the speed limit.  People don't always hold their farts in until they're in a different room from their friends.

Despite the fact that people don't always do those things, they're always expected to do those things.  And when they don't live up to expectations, they're open to varying degrees of scrutiny, whether it's a speeding ticket or your friends criticizing you for farting.

If you let a rapist walk free because you're too traumatized to behave logically, you can't just excuse it by saying "oh but I was traumatized and it would have been uncomfortable to go to trial".  See what his next victim thinks of that excuse.
 
2013-02-27 12:47:10 PM

Abacus9: People don't always act logically after a traumatic experience.


If they don't, then they have to face the consequences. As an example, if you are gambling, there are some bets that have worse odds than others. If you choose to take bets with bad odds, that is your choice. But you have to face the fact you'll most likely lose a lot of money. And if you choose to not do the obvious and logical thing (like get evidence collected after a crime), you'll have to face the fact that you'll most likely lose the court case. It's not a male conspiracy, nor a plot against women of any sort. It's just the way it is.
 
2013-02-27 12:57:10 PM

serial_crusher: ciberido: Some people, and some laws, define rape as involving a penis and a vagina, which eliminates even the possibility of same-sex rape. Some places even define rape in such a way that legally, the only way charges can be brought is if the victim is female and the accused male.

Can you provide some examples of these places?  I think your information might be out of date.  Also, I'd like to avoid those places.


The entirety of the United Kingdom, for one, as mentioned upthread. The FBI 'redefinition' still has a couple of holes in it, I believe. The fact the CDC survey doesn't categorize 'forced to penetrate' under 'rape' supports this assertion.
 
2013-02-27 07:02:53 PM

Theaetetus: InitialCommentGuy: Theaetetus:

I'd be happy to help you study for your finals, kid. My hourly rate is currently $415. Shoot me an email and I'll run a conflict check.


$415 an hour for someone who lacks basic understanding of the law?
 
2013-02-27 11:56:44 PM

vygramul: Abacus9: dready zim: Not all fish in the sea are sharks but sharks are in the sea and are fish. I am not a shark but I am aware of their existence. I am constantly aware there may be one near me, or just out of view when I swim or dive. Just because I see angelfish, pufferfish and rays does not mean I should not stay alert for sharks. It would be stupid to swim without some protection in waters known to have sharks by claiming "This fish I have known for 12 years is not a shark so all the other fish are not sharks"

You're trying WAY too hard...

vygramul: Legios: Yes, he can. Legally it's more tricky because of physiology, you're likely to get medical experts claiming (in court) he couldn't possibly get it up if he was that drunk. But absolutely. I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this. Statistically the rape of females is statiscially more prevalent, but not saying they're exclusive

/male
//studied psychology, criminology and justice

I think what's going on here is that he is suggesting if both of them were drunk, what stops him, when she files charges that she didn't give consent, from filing charges of his own, stating he didn't give consent.

How didn't he give consent? He's the one that put it in.

The usual objection when both people are drunk is based on a nonviolent hypothetical, where both people enthusiastically engage in sex. However, the drunkenness definitionally means it wasn't consentual. She could have been in a dominant cowoy position and lowered herself onto his member and it wouldn't matter. She is drunk and therefore not giving consent. But so is he - he is not giving consent either. That is the scenario that creates the troubling asymmetry.


I see your point, and it can be a bit of a gray area. I'm just saying that in the case where they're both drunk, it's almost always the girl who didn't consent. The guy knows what he's doing, and is the one doing the actual penetrating. This is done willingly. The sentence of yours that I've bolded is sort of ridiculous. The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy.
 
2013-02-28 12:07:13 AM

dready zim: I`m sure we can all agree though that to legally be able to say someone committed a crime they should be prosecuted first or the claimant should have some proof and to claim in public verbally that someone committed a crime without a conviction or showing any proof is slander.

This is very basic law.

If she wants to shout in the marketplace that someone has done an act and public opinion of that act is negative then she should need to have him convicted first, or have proof he performed the act, otherwise she is committing slander.

It`s simple to not commit slander, you just have to prove what you say is true then he has no recourse and should be arrested and jailed. Personally, I don`t think it`s right he should still be walking free if he did what she said and she should have him arrested and have him convicted using due process. A college court can not do this, she should go to an authority with more power, like the police. Unfortunately, whatever she says he has done, if he is not convicted or if she cannot show other proof then the law says she can`t go around saying he did it.

Now you can carry on with your knee-jerk mouth frothing and white knighting.


This entire post is 100% bullshiat.
 
2013-02-28 12:15:29 AM

serial_crusher: Abacus9: People don't always act logically after a traumatic experience. You are no different, no matter how robotic you try to be, tough guy

I don't like the mentality that says that instinctive behavior is automatically acceptable and should therefore be approved.  People don't always obey the speed limit.  People don't always hold their farts in until they're in a different room from their friends.


You're comparing rape victims to people who break laws and have no consideration for their friends. I can see why it's so easy for you to blame the victim, you think of them as the bad person in the scenario.

fredklein: If they don't, then they have to face the consequences. As an example, if you are gambling, there are some bets that have worse odds than others. If you choose to take bets with bad odds, that is your choice. But you have to face the fact you'll most likely lose a lot of money. And if you choose to not do the obvious and logical thing (like get evidence collected after a crime), you'll have to face the fact that you'll most likely lose the court case. It's not a male conspiracy, nor a plot against women of any sort. It's just the way it is.


You're comparing rape victims to gamblers. And who said anything about plots or conspiracies? It's obvious you think the opposite is true: that women are conspiring against you.
 
2013-02-28 03:17:56 AM

Abacus9:I see your point, and it can be a bit of a gray area. I'm just saying that in the case where they're both drunk, it's almost always the girl who didn't consent. The guy knows what he's doing, and is the one doing the actual penetrating. This is done willingly. The sentence of yours that I've bolded is sort of ridiculous. The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy.




So, Genevieve, we have 2 accounts in this thread of men who were sexually coerced and, quite possibly, raped by women.  Now we have his person blaming the victim, implicitly calling them liars, and insinuating that not only did they deserve it but were, in fact, the instigators of their own assault.


Does this person receive the verbal pee pee smack, so to speak? He's attacked much harder than the person up thread that questioned the female victim about her social status, right?


People like this, people like you, and morons like Weaver are feeding the beliefs of loons that believe that every rape accusation is a lie. They see logical inconsistency, moral inconsistency, and name calling. They also, apparently, see statements making it appear at men cannot in fact be chemically coerced. Either smack him down or wallow in hypocrisy.

You, Gen, appear to be the best of a bad lot. Don't let it go to your head.


/out
 
2013-02-28 03:44:17 AM

armypilot: Abacus9:I see your point, and it can be a bit of a gray area. I'm just saying that in the case where they're both drunk, it's almost always the girl who didn't consent. The guy knows what he's doing, and is the one doing the actual penetrating. This is done willingly. The sentence of yours that I've bolded is sort of ridiculous. The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy.

So, Genevieve, we have 2 accounts in this thread of men who were sexually coerced and, quite possibly, raped by women.  Now we have his person blaming the victim, implicitly calling them liars, and insinuating that not only did they deserve it but were, in fact, the instigators of their own assault.
Does this person receive the verbal pee pee smack, so to speak? He's attacked much harder than the person up thread that questioned the female victim about her social status, right?
People like this, people like you, and morons like Weaver are feeding the beliefs of loons that believe that every rape accusation is a lie. They see logical inconsistency, moral inconsistency, and name calling. They also, apparently, see statements making it appear at men cannot in fact be chemically coerced. Either smack him down or wallow in hypocrisy.

You, Gen, appear to be the best of a bad lot. Don't let it go to your head.
/out


Why are you quoting me? You don't seem to be responding to anything I said.
 
2013-02-28 03:49:50 AM
Because I'm using you as an example of a terrible person.
 
2013-02-28 03:58:23 AM
I'm a terrible person for not blaming the victim and saying that date rape actually counts as rape?!
 
2013-02-28 04:01:42 AM
No you're a terrible person for coming into a thread in which men have related stories of being raped by women while drunk and saying it is "basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy".
 
2013-02-28 04:02:53 AM
I also forgot to call you a pro-rapist, sociopath, or loon.

Pic any 2.
 
2013-02-28 04:13:55 AM

armypilot: No you're a terrible person for coming into a thread in which men have related stories of being raped by women while drunk and saying it is "basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy".


And if you read earlier in the thread, you'll see the part where I mentioned knowing guys who did this in college. I never said I condoned it or was friends with those clowns, just that that is how some guys operate. Other people in the thread were blaming the rape victim, saying that "she knew what she was getting into". I was arguing AGAINST that point. Another point someone made was that it both parties are intoxicated, it can't be rape, and I argued that in some cases the perpetrator uses that as an excuse. I don't know how you so completely missed the point...
 
2013-02-28 05:00:58 AM
I didn't miss a point, I went exactly by your words.  I even quoted you.  You didn't say some cases.  You didn't say, "this is how some guys operate" until I called you on it.  You said (I'll quote again), "The guy knows what he's doing, and is the one doing the actual penetrating. This is done willingly. The sentence of yours that I've bolded is sort of ridiculous. The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy."

One man in this thread who was raped described exactly the "ridiculous" situation you're referring to.  The other was coerced into oral sex and had to fight off penetrative sex in this manner.  Either a man can give consent while intoxicated or he cannot.  If he can, then the law is a double standard and doesn't protect men from rape from either sex.  If he cannot, then the female is equally a rapist, whoever is intoxicated.

You're doing what you argued against earlier, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
 
2013-02-28 05:40:33 AM
I can't believe I read 25 pages of this.  Really made a 12hour shift go by.  What I got from all this is that hyperbole is misused by everyone and no one wants to concede much to the counterpoint.  Bottom line: Rape = Bad.  Accusation of Rape should = investigation.  I think we need to educate women from a young age about examinations and the need for them in case of sexual assault/rape and that it is the best thing to get a rapist behind bars.  Perhaps a counselor with the patient during the process or just a caring person.  Neutrality until conviction for both parties.
 
2013-02-28 05:46:59 AM
That's the most sane and intelligent comment I've read here.

Congrats.  You don't belong on Fark.
 
2013-02-28 05:51:03 AM

armypilot: I didn't miss a point, I went exactly by your words.  I even quoted you.  You didn't say some cases.  You didn't say, "this is how some guys operate" until I called you on it.  You said (I'll quote again), "The guy knows what he's doing, and is the one doing the actual penetrating. This is done willingly. The sentence of yours that I've bolded is sort of ridiculous. The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy."

One man in this thread who was raped described exactly the "ridiculous" situation you're referring to.  The other was coerced into oral sex and had to fight off penetrative sex in this manner.  Either a man can give consent while intoxicated or he cannot.  If he can, then the law is a double standard and doesn't protect men from rape from either sex.  If he cannot, then the female is equally a rapist, whoever is intoxicated.

You're doing what you argued against earlier, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.


What hypocrisy? You ignored the part of my quote, from the very same post, where I said the other person had a point and that it was a bit of a gray area when both parties are intoxicated. The question then is: Who is the victim? Both? Neither? Legally, neither can give consent, and yet still at least one of them did. I pointed out cases I knew of where guys purposely would drink with girls to get them drunk and take advantage, and they would drink too as an excuse to not be held responsible. I wasn't saying rape was ever okay, regardless of who did it. Only that with men, they are more likely to be the rapist than the victim.
 
2013-02-28 06:07:49 AM
You just said exactly what I was insinuating you we're saying except you left out where you called the poster's allegations ridiculous.  You also left out the part where you said, without qualifier, that in such situations it was prior planning on the part of the guy.  You didn't back off on this until I pointed it out.

Listen, I don't get anything for being right.  No reward, no applause, nothing tangible.  This isn't just me attacking you randomly, though I am attacking you.  Consider what I'm saying minus your ego.

What I'm saying is that you said, point blank, that in these situations, the man is responsible and acted with malice aforethought.  I'm pointing out, that in making that assertion, you are being just as bad as those you rail against.  We have examples here in this thread that men can be raped by women.  Either we, as a society, need to hold both or neither accountable (read:equality under the law)  in that situation or we need to throw up our hands and make the decision that rape is ok for some, not for others.
 
2013-02-28 06:30:42 AM

armypilot: You just said exactly what I was insinuating you we're saying except you left out where you called the poster's allegations ridiculous.


It wasn't worth repeating.

armypilot: You also left out the part where you said, without qualifier, that in such situations it was prior planning on the part of the guy. You didn't back off on this until I pointed it out.


I didn't say absolutely 100% of the time either. It was a generalization, and only applied to the part where they were both drunk. I've already explained this, and had you read my comments earlier in the thread, you would know this (as everyone else here seems to).

armypilot: Listen, I don't get anything for being right. No reward, no applause, nothing tangible. This isn't just me attacking you randomly, though I am attacking you. Consider what I'm saying minus your ego


Uh, you're not right, and this has nothing to do with ego. It has to do with you being an ass for no reason.

What I'm saying is that you said, point blank, that in these situations, the man is responsible and acted with malice aforethought. I'm pointing out, that in making that assertion, you are being just as bad as those you rail against. We have examples here in this thread that men can be raped by women. Either we, as a society, need to hold both or neither accountable (read:equality under the law) in that situation or we need to throw up our hands and make the decision that rape is ok for some, not for others.

I never said men couldn't get raped. Again, I was talking about a very specific circumstance, and even admitted it was a gray area. Stop being disingenuous.
 
2013-02-28 07:08:16 AM
Ok, if you want to pretend you never said what you said, fine.
If your comments weren't worth repeating, they weren't worth posting in the first place, I'm glad you concede that point.

The second part of your reply is just you being unable to admit you were wrong and then telling a lie.  You said if it happens at all its the result of a guy planning ahead.  I get it and I'll drop it since you seem unwilling or unable to be truthful.

If pointing out the truth is being an ass, then yes, I'm an ass to you.

I never said you said that men can't get raped. I said that you said when both are drunk, it is almost always the man's fault. I then pointed out that if a man is responsible when both are drunk, he has to, logically, be responsible when only he is drunk. That's your allegation, not mine. I'm simply pointing out the logical end to your argument and you're putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, "Nuh Uh!" I don't see how you can say i was being dishonest when i quoted you. If i had said, "in situations with little physical evidence, the woman is almost always telling a lie, you would have been up in arms, with good reason. I'm amused by your allegations of me being disingenuous when you won't even own what you posted. Your inability to even admit a flaw in wording puts lie to your assertion of a lack of ego in this discussion.
 
2013-02-28 07:11:04 AM

Abacus9: armypilot: You just said exactly what I was insinuating you we're saying except you left out where you called the poster's allegations ridiculous.

It wasn't worth repeating.

armypilot: You also left out the part where you said, without qualifier, that in such situations it was prior planning on the part of the guy. You didn't back off on this until I pointed it out.

I didn't say absolutely 100% of the time either. It was a generalization, and only applied to the part where they were both drunk. I've already explained this, and had you read my comments earlier in the thread, you would know this (as everyone else here seems to).

armypilot: Listen, I don't get anything for being right. No reward, no applause, nothing tangible. This isn't just me attacking you randomly, though I am attacking you. Consider what I'm saying minus your ego

Uh, you're not right, and this has nothing to do with ego. It has to do with you being an ass for no reason.

What I'm saying is that you said, point blank, that in these situations, the man is responsible and acted with malice aforethought. I'm pointing out, that in making that assertion, you are being just as bad as those you rail against. We have examples here in this thread that men can be raped by women. Either we, as a society, need to hold both or neither accountable (read:equality under the law) in that situation or we need to throw up our hands and make the decision that rape is ok for some, not for others.

I never said men couldn't get raped. Again, I was talking about a very specific circumstance, and even admitted it was a gray area. Stop being disingenuous.


I get that you aren't saying that only men can rape, but this sentence of yours :"The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy."
That is very one sided and farked up on a few levels. I can see where Armypilot (I assume), myself and any other guy who doesn't rape women can get very offended and actually worried at such a cavalier generalization.
 
Displayed 50 of 1269 comments

First | « | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report