303 replies to this topic

[Random]

Until someone frames your father, uncle, grandfather, cousin, friend, boyfriend, work acquaintance and are literally cheering for his death and watching them die a horrible, slow death. Then it turns out they were innocent, or were framed, and you get a half-arsed apology and a $10 gift certificate to use at Dennys.

That wouldn't happen to us. Trust me

[Waser Lave]

Statuary rape in is defined under the Sexual Offences Act 2004 as a person under the age of 13 and is very similar in many other Westernised countries. I think a lot of people forget that and assume that an 18 year old in a sexual relationship with a 15 year old is committing rape.

I was referring mainly to the US system, not the UK system since we don't usually refer to it as 'statutory rape'.

[Sweeney]

That wouldn't happen to us. Trust me

Because all your family members really are rapists?

[Nymh]

Why is bringing my culture into things always irrelevant

The man has a point.

At least he has the sagacity to point out on the front end that his opinions are molded my his culture. Most everyone else just throws around their mores as if they are unquestionable but don't recognize that they are not universal. I'm not defending coltom but I do think it's hypocritical that he is told that his culture is irrelevant when everyone else's opinions are likewise shaped, at least in part, by their own respective cultures. I am sure there is at least one culture in which rape as a punishment is a common, socially accepted practice. The way they were raised is no more irrelevant than the way coltom was or any of the other people who have posted their opinions here.

[Random]

Because all your family members really are rapists?

Obviously.

[Sage]

Wow, smart enough to correct my phone's auto-correct but not smart enough to know about the subject. Statutory rape has nothing to do with the age of consent and if you could read correctly without jumping too conclusions you'll know I used the UK as an example.

Mm, no, I didn't know offhand that the Sexual Offences Act was a UK law (it's also worth noting that you opened yourself up to my response because you stated "similar in many other Westernised countries," so snipping at its irrelevance because I refer to the US law is unfair) but thanks for leaping straight to condescension instead of elaborating on your point. I'd like to know what statutory rape in the UK does include, then, because in the US, age of consent has a lot to do with it.

I will also say the what-if-they-get-it-wrong defense never holds water with me, because we can't very well undo the psychological (and often physical) damage of a long prison sentence either. Yes, mistakes happen, but flinching away from the reality that felons are going to wind up suffering no matter what we do to them is dishonest.

Edited by Sage, 24 July 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[Mishelle]

What kind of legal structure are you basing this on? I've never seen anything classified as "forcible rape" in PACE guidelines, the Sexual offences Act or Home Office Charging guidelines. There are such things as aggravating factors but I think you've been reading too much cosmo.

I've actually never read Cosmo, so no.


The FBI listed their definition of rape as "

The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Included are rapes by force and attempts or assaults to rape. Statutory offenses (no force used–victim under age of consent) are excluded."

Apparently they've finally changed it this year, they hadn't changed it since the 1920s. I'm happy all the work of the feminist activists finally paid off. (http://www.usatoday....-men/52398350/1) I'm also talking about the GOP has been desperately trying to redefine rape instead of creating jobs. http://feministing.c...discounting-it/

We live in a culture of rape where it's only considered valid if a woman was attacked randomly by some stranger and even then people point out things she should've done to prevent the rape. Why was she running alone? Why was she by herself? Why was she drinking so much? This teenage girl is actually facing jail time for naming her attackers. She drank too much and passed out. While she was passed out they sexually assaulted her and took pictures and showed everyone. These kids got a plea deal and she was court ordered not to name them because they're minors. She's a minor as well and it's infuriating that they didn't get charged with distributing child pornography. http://unicornbooty....of-her-rapists/

And people are coming out of the woodworks blaming her. Why did she get so drunk? She should know better not to drunk because if you're a 17 year old girl and your alcohol tolerance is low you deserve to be raped and humiliated, obvi.

[Frizzle]

I was referring mainly to the US system, not the UK system since we don't usually refer to it as 'statutory rape'.

Maybe not in the media, but it's a standard legal definition.

Mm, no, I didn't know offhand that the Sexual Offences Act was a UK law (it's also worth noting that you opened yourself up to my response because you stated "similar in many other Westernised countries," so snipping at its irrelevance because I refer to the US law is unfair) but thanks for leaping straight to condescension instead of elaborating on your point. I'd like to know what statutory rape in the UK does include, then, because in the US, age of consent has a lot to do with it.

I will also say the what-if-they-get-it-wrong defense never holds water with me, because we can't very well undo the psychological (and often physical) damage of a long prison sentence either. Yes, mistakes happen, but flinching away from the reality that felons are going to wind up suffering no matter what we do to them is dishonest.

Well I thought the whole westernised comment would give you the common sense to apply that to most European/North American countries.

Also, a death penalty is permanent. I don't see you can even compare that to sitting in prison for a few years.

I've actually never read Cosmo, so no.


The FBI listed their definition of rape as "

The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Included are rapes by force and attempts or assaults to rape. Statutory offenses (no force used–victim under age of consent) are excluded."

Apparently they've finally changed it this year, they hadn't changed it since the 1920s. I'm happy all the work of the feminist activists finally paid off. (http://www.usatoday....-men/52398350/1) I'm also talking about the GOP has been desperately trying to redefine rape instead of creating jobs. http://feministing.c...discounting-it/

We live in a culture of rape where it's only considered valid if a woman was attacked randomly by some stranger and even then people point out things she should've done to prevent the rape. Why was she running alone? Why was she by herself? Why was she drinking so much? This teenage girl is actually facing jail time for naming her attackers. She drank too much and passed out. While she was passed out they sexually assaulted her and took pictures and showed everyone. These kids got a plea deal and she was court ordered not to name them because they're minors. She's a minor as well and it's infuriating that they didn't get charged with distributing child pornography. http://unicornbooty....of-her-rapists/

And people are coming out of the woodworks blaming her. Why did she get so drunk? She should know better not to drunk because if you're a 17 year old girl and your alcohol tolerance is low you deserve to be raped and humiliated, obvi.

How dare the GOP attempt to re-classify legislature and legal definitions like all political parties have done for all time? I'm also 100% sure they are spending 100% of their time and effort into that one particular priority and we should all judge a huge political organisation on one motive/goal.

Also, I'd like to point out. If I had left my car, unlocked, with my laptop on the dash, sitting in a dark alleyway and it gotten broken into, I would have questions asked. Why didn't you take more care? Why didn't you put more thought into securing your property? So forth.

I don't blame victims, but it's hard to have sympathy for people who put themselves into dangerous situations very recklessly.

[Elle]

I don't think you understand the complexities and seriousness of this subject. Rape is not always rape and sometimes culture is relevant. Hell, your own opinion is based on the culture that dictates how you should feel.

Perhaps I don't understand the complexities, but who are you to assume I don't understand the seriousness of the subject? Indeed, sometimes culture is relevant, however this statement: 'I'd love for y'all all to adopt my culture point of view, that sex with a stranger is a blasphemy, but I don't expect you to.' is not.

[Ladida]

..And now we know one reason why so many rapes go unreported. This attitude of "You should have made sure you couldn't have been raped!" needs to change. People do stupid things all the time, that doesn't mean they should suffer the trauma of being raped. Women need to take precautions, but sometimes they fuck up. It doesn't matter what she was doing, what she was drinking, what she was wearing. That shouldn't even be the focus. The focus should be on the rapist and on the crime that was committed. Stop making it all about the women and what they should have done differently. Start making it about men not raping women, no matter what the situation is. I feel sympathy for anyone who has their body violently violated, whether they were drunk or not, whether they were scantily dressed or not.

[Elle]

Why is bringing my culture into things always irrelevant, historically rape was an unknown crime among the Longhouse men, considering our lives are in the hands of the women I suspect that has something to do with it. Also, we actually were taught to respect women, that they are a little closer to God than we are, that they actually have souls. The Women of the Longhouse had political power when your women were powerless chattel, and your men bowed at the feed of your unworthy Kings. Why is that irrelevant. I suppose everything I have to say is irrelevant because I was half raised in such a culture, that there can not be any way nor manner different than the current dominant culture

Also, in my culture a one night stand/pick-up is a crime. How can you respect and know a person enough to have trust after just meeting them?

Just to clarify some more about calling your culture irrelevant, i meant in regards to your 'I'd love for y'all all to adopt my culture point of view, that sex with a stranger is a blasphemy, but I don't expect you to.' statement, and its relevance to the topic/ debate. The above post ^ I have no objections to, perhaps because its somewhat relevant .

[Elle]

I don't blame victims, but it's hard to have sympathy for people who put themselves into dangerous situations very recklessly.

Please, define 'dangerous situations' for me. Should they not be wearing a short skirt or revealing clothing? Or not be walking home alone at night? Should they not be having a few drinks at the pub by themselves?

[Romy]

Really, to degrade another soul, a living breathing person into nothing more than their physical form. To take the most intimate act, the complicated dance that lovers share, and turn it into just a physical nothingness. The whole concept bothers me, why would anyone want to do that with a stranger. Do you not understand that the very best moment, the very best thing is when you look into your lover's eye, and see nothing but love and passion staring back at you. How can you dehumanize that into just a selfish act of flesh.

Aiyee, it taints the memories of those I loved, the very thought.

Passion does not equate to love.

[Romy]

Without love, it becomes just a pale shadow of what it should be. When you love someone, when you give all of your heart to them, when there is nothing in the world except for the desire to be with your love, to please your love, to celebrate the dance, to make her flesh sing and show her all that your heart has for her. When your all, when your soul goes into the sweat and the sighs and the cruel delay until there is nothing in the world except wanting to be with her. Then, and only then, is it right.

So, no, I don't understand rape, and I'm pretty sure I'm glad that I don't.

Giving your body to someone can be done without loving them. All you have to do is let your passion run rampant while maintaining yourself emotionally detached. It's not difficult really.
Read the any carpe diem poem.


Rape is to degrade another soul, a living breathing person into nothing more than their physical form while fully understanding that you are doing it against their will.

(This is basically what you wrote btw. I hope this is a bit clearer.)

Edited by Ivysaur, 24 July 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[Sage]

Well I thought the whole westernised comment would give you the common sense to apply that to most European/North American countries.

Also, a death penalty is permanent. I don't see you can even compare that to sitting in prison for a few years.

I did apply it to other Westernised countries. And when I considered the US's--you know, a Westernised country, what with being Western and all?--take on it, I found it contradictory to your point and said so.

Death is permanent, and so is psychological trauma, though the latter can sometimes be lessened with years of intensive therapy. The comparison of death to imprisonment wasn't the comparison I made, however; my point was that choosing to ignore the death penalty as an option solely because it can't be taken back is hypocritical, when you can't give a wrongfully imprisoned man back the ten, fifteen, twenty years of his life that he could have been, say, raising a family, building a career, and not living in constant fear of his fellow inmates. "We might be wrong and then we can't fix it" is not a valid reason on its own.

Also, I'd like to point out. If I had left my car, unlocked, with my laptop on the dash, sitting in a dark alleyway and it gotten broken into, I would have questions asked. Why didn't you take more care? Why didn't you put more thought into securing your property? So forth.

If you left your car unlocked and all the valuables sitting in open view, it's the fault of the thief for stealing your shit. If the thief had not stolen your shit, you would not be a victim of theft. That is the problem of victim blaming, and while people would ask you what you were thinking not locking up and such, that doesn't make it right that they do. The same is applicable to a rape victim; it is not his/her job to stop rape from happening, it's the job of the rapist not to rape people.

I don't blame victims, but it's hard to have sympathy for people who put themselves into dangerous situations very recklessly.

Try harder.

Edited by Sage, 24 July 2012 - 11:33 PM.

[Elle]

I just don't see a bright line in dehumanizing a woman, considering her a collection of parts and physical techniques, and this brutal crime we speak. If a man lies, creates false stories of caring and affection just to bed a foolish woman, why is that so different than the same act done to avoid physical violence. My observation, the pain of discovering that a man is a scum lying sack of toad vomit, after he's had access to the goodie, goodies is a pretty traumatic experience.

Although this is off topic, yet again, I have to say, why the sexism? Women do the same to men.

[Elindoril]

Similar, but not the same. I've drank the tears from this story many times, and it is never the same.

You say it is off topic, yet I say that there is little difference between seduction without heart and rape.

It's up to the woman to decide if the man is being deceitful or not when she consents to have sex with him, if she is so eager to give up her "innocense" to the man, she cannot be upset if she finds out he was a jackass.