Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Wow. I've stayed out of this thread before because it seemed like a toxic shitfest. Impression confirmed.

To admit I shouldn't have jumped on the idea that the person was saying that victims have an opinion and everyone else should just bow to that opinion.

It really could have just been "It is insulting to be so legalistic when real people are out there being hurt by this", which deserves a completely other response.

Of which the response to that is: "You need to be legalistic and technical because enforcement requires such. We are working the definition so that it can be applied so that there are less victims"

---

Also come on... this has been one of the better conversations of this type. No one has thrown around insults yet or intentionally tried to get the thread closed.

Also we are still waiting for Anita to make a new video... DANG IT!

[Rolan7]

Wow. I've stayed out of this thread before because it seemed like a toxic shitfest. Impression confirmed.

To admit I shouldn't have jumped on the idea that the person was saying that victims have an opinion and everyone else should just bow to that opinion.

It's the sort of nonsense assumption that's making actual discussion impossible, though.  That and the broad redefinitions of "rape", which apparently now includes "Whatever any self-described victim says is rape".

[Rolepgeek]

it doesn't give you any new insight

holy shit

No I am retaining it. "It is bad" isn't anything new. The degree of bad isn't anything new.

Boiling down arguments to a series of victim-fu is just boiling down arguments to garbage. It just becomes "who was victimized more" and is unhelpful.

There are better ways to use a victim's experience and knowledge.

-Edit: On second though, lets not support this... I'd rather people move past this then try to prove or disprove it.

No, this is a big deal. Because that is completely and demonstrably untrue. To the point that I am flabbergasted(yay I got to use that word-wait, bad surrounding circumstances shit) that you would even think it.

This isn't about victims talking about justice or anything. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with rape victims being the most credible source on whether or not they were raped. Not the rapist's opinion. I think that prosecution and pressing charges should have to do with intent, because 'justice'(not the perfect term, but it works) in that manner is meant as punishment and confinement, not simply compensation. Same with murderers. Manslaughter is more along the lines of compensation(or should be >.>) and punishment for failing to meet standards of safety or common sense that led to the deaths of the victims. But telling someone they don't know whether they're the victim, or don't understand what they themselves went through?

I'm refraining from extremely vulgar language regarding what I think of people who do that are on the basis that I can still pretend to hope to think that maybe you just made a really really bad type and then failed to realize you did so for a while.

regardless of what the victim thinks. Keeping your definitions straight is apparently more important than accepting a victim's perspective.

Wait, what victim?  Huh?
I honestly don't know what you're saying here.  You can't be suggesting that every actual victim gets to redefine "rape".

If we know someone's an actual victim, then there's already been an investigation and trial, and we know what happened...  They still don't get to change what "rape" means.  Why would they want to?

They aren't redefining it. It's not about fucking semantics or the technical definition. Nobody here gives a shit about that. Or if they do, they shouldn't. It's about someone being violated in such a manner that they feel like they've been raped. Which is rape. If I punch you in the face by accident, but say I wasn't punching you in the face because I was stretching/running/dancing and your face was just in the way of my fist, it's still punching you in the fucking face. You have been punched in the face, regardless of my intent to do so or not. If someone gets raped, and the rapist didn't intend to do so, or thought they were given consent at the time (if, in the case of being drunk, it's entirely possible that they wouldn't have really thought about informed consent, and wasn't trying to purposefully take advantage of them), and were in fact accidentally raping someone(can also happen in weird other circumstances mostly relating to people being assholes and blind dates/sex and the like), that person was still raped. You cannot change that fact. The rapist, in such a case, obviously doesn't deserve jailtime; they might need to tender an apology or ask what they can do to make up for their mistakes(which may be staying as far away from the person as possible if they were traumatized by it; in some cases having as little to do as possible with the victim is the best response, but it depends on the victim), possibly help pay for counseling and therapy, but jailtime is a bit much(I dislike our commercialized prison system anyway).

[Neonivek]

It has to do with rape victims being the most credible source on whether or not they were raped. Not the rapist's opinion.

One big issue with rape victims is they often don't know they have been raped or simply cannot handle it. It is something very well known in criminal law and psychology.

People also can easily falsely victimize themselves, give false testimony, or have a botched perspective.

Victims of crimes are not necessarily reliable sources.

But ultimately your statement has a temporal issue: We don't KNOW they are a rape victim in that situation, we just know there is someone claiming they are raped. If you knew they were raped as in they are a "rape victim" then their input is entirely unnecessary.

I think that prosecution and pressing charges should have to do with intent

To admit that is a good idea. "The Criminal Mind" is SOMEWHAT of a good idea for criminal law (except for... quite a few bad situations it doesn't cover) in that rape must be an intentional act. I don't QUITE think it fills in enough gaps but that is what fiddling with the law is meant to help with.

 

But telling someone they don't know whether they're the victim, or don't understand what they themselves went through?

I swear this can't be an alien concept... It isn't unusual it is quite common.

It is often what makes victimization even more tragic.

I'm refraining from extremely vulgar language regarding what I think of people who do that are on the basis that I can still pretend to hope to think that maybe you just made a really really bad type and then failed to realize you did so for a while

I am personally hoping that we don't disagree, but that we are both completely misinterpreting what the other person said.

Though me making typos is possible... But I don't understand the objection to what I am saying. Since to me: "Victims are not necessarily knowledgeable of their own victimization" is common knowledge... and I don't mean in a "they didn't notice" sort of way like a victim of a con-artist would be.

Likewise there are people who would describe themselves as victims who aren't or at least aren't in the same ways they are describing.

 

Manslaughter is more along the lines of compensation(or should be >.>) and punishment for failing to meet standards of safety or common sense that led to the deaths of the victims

Manslaughter is more or less you killing someone in a moment of criminal negligence. That you did something with willful ignorance of the safety of others. If it was truly an accident it usually wasn't under this.

[Vector]

If you knew they were raped as in they are a "rape victim" then their input is entirely unnecessary.

geez

[Neonivek]

If you knew they were raped as in they are a "rape victim" then their input is entirely unnecessary.

geez

Rolepgeek said that victims are best qualified for identifying that they are victims. (or rather that they always know)

If you ALREADY knew the person was a victim Vector... Why would you need them to identify that they are a victim?

It is a temporal issue. Rolepgeek's statement RELIES on you already knowing the person is a victim for them to prove they are a victim by saying they are a victim.

But if you already know they are a victim then their statement of victimhood is unnecessary because you already know they are a victim.

[Rolepgeek]

What?

I said victims are best qualified for identifying that they are indeed victims. That's it's own thing. That has nothing to do with that somehow being their only input into the situation.

And then everything else after that is a different matter. Victim and Offender are not always equally proportioned, if that makes any sense.

[Neonivek]

What?

I said victims are best qualified for identifying that they are indeed victims. That's it's own thing. That has nothing to do with that somehow being their only input into the situation.

And then everything else after that is a different matter. Victim and Offender are not always equally proportioned, if that makes any sense.

And what I am saying is that victims are not necessarily "best qualified" for identifying that they are indeed victims and that it is common for someone to be a victim but not know it.

As well even if I accept your statement that victims are the most qualified to identify their own victimization... Their statement still had the problem with you not knowing they are victims in the first place... and if you did, then their input is already inputted.

That has nothing to do with that somehow being their only input into the situation

That isn't quite what I am saying.

I am saying... that you have a person and they MIGHT be a victim of a crime. This person MAY or MAY NOT be a victim. This person MAY or MAY NOT say they are a victim. You May or May Not know if they are a victim. All these statements are true.

Due diligence is required.

A victim might easily say they are not a victim and believe it. While a non-victim might easily say they are a victim and believe it.

[Rolepgeek]

First off, in regards to rape, pretty sure that's bullshit. Unless you're talking about people that were fucked whilst asleep and never realized it, which is it's own thing. Once they find out, if they feel violated, and indeed they should and probably will, then they're still the best person to ask. If you don't identify that X was rape, then it probably wasn't rape unless you've got a stockholm syndrome thing going on. So yeah, that's bullshit here.

No, it isn't. It's not a one-point thing, and it does not rely on that at all. It relies on there being a doubt that they were the victim. Which comes into play when people bring in all the shit like 'well you were the one to choose to drink' or the rapist claiming they got consent. And yes, there will be people faking it. You cannot automatically assume they're lying about this, though.

[Neonivek]

I am not talking about "Not realizing it" (as in asleep or have amnesia), and yeah they can often feel violated (this is of course assumes one kind of Rape, which is fine for this discussion)

It is tragic, but it isn't unusual for someone who was raped to just not be able to comprehend that they were or come up with excuses to convince themselves that they weren't.

 

Once they find out, if they feel violated, and indeed they should and probably will, then they're still the best person to ask

You have to know what you are looking for though. Especially if the victim is... lets say... a child or someone with a diminished mental capacity... Or someone who is outright insane. Or someone who just is a normal person and they just do not process what happened to them.

You cannot automatically assume they're lying about this, though.

No of course not, but I wouldn't be able to believe them "without a shadow of a doubt" which is required for a court case. I couldn't convict someone just on that. I'd need actual proof and would never EVER take a single person's testimony as undeniable proof.

I'd never doubt someone who said they were raped unless I had some reason to believe they weren't (Like they are a pathologic liar or something), and even then I'd still have to take it seriously. Yet that is just me out and about on the street.

[Rolepgeek]

...This is a dicussion about drunken sex/rape.

This is not a discussion about child molestation. Please do not try to equate the circumstances.

The idea of trying to tell someone 'well, sorry sweetie, but you were raped' reeks of so much arrogance and overbearing patronism(or matronism or whatever the fuck you wanna call it) that it makes me upset to imagine.

In that case, nothing is ever beyond the shadow of a doubt, going by that. A rape victim serves as an expert witness in their case, at the very very least. So. Yeah. If you can take other people's perspectives, you can take theirs too, with at least the same amount of belief.

But I'm not talking about convicting someone anyway. I've said previously that that should rely on someone's intent as well.

[Neonivek]

Those were examples Rolepgeek so that you could link onto the concept easily and apply it, alcohol just compounds the problem.

The idea of trying to tell someone 'well, sorry sweetie, but you were raped' reeks of so much arrogance and overbearing patronism(or matronism or whatever the fuck you wanna call it) that it makes me upset to imagine.

I swear this isn't some unknown concept...

NORMAL people... sometimes need EXACTLY that. Well perhaps not exactly that, they need help coming to that conclusion.

It isn't because they are stupid or that there is anything wrong with them. It is just something that happens.

A rape victim serves as an expert witness in their case, at the very very least

To my knowledge a victim is RARELY allowed to be an expert in their case, and even then it is a rare situation. That is because victims are not allowed to give 'expert opinions' they can only give straight facts.

In that case, nothing is ever beyond the shadow of a doubt, going by that.

Evidence.

But I'm not talking about convicting someone anyway. I've said previously that that should rely on someone's intent as well

I should clarify I am not talking about "people who aren't rape victims because they were asking for it" BS like that. >_< I am trying to seek a definition or at least a rule of thumb that works as a definitive definition.

Edit: This topic has saddened me... After reading enough articles this is starting to get REALLY depressing. I am going to take a break for a bit.

[Reelya]

But calling it rape, ignoring that they chose to drink, ignoring that they chose to have sex...  Sure, when you misstate your opponents' position like that, it does seem unreasonable!  Thanks for your helpful contribution!

Okay, every time somebody says that nobody's saying, "You weren't really raped", I'm linking to this post. Or, honestly, probably not posting, because this thread's starting to make me angry. Because this is literally what you're doing - defining rape as needing to meet your own personal threshold of badness, regardless of what the victim thinks. Keeping your definitions straight is apparently more important than accepting a victim's perspective.

Hold up, you're conflating several UNRELATED issues here and projecting them onto other people's posts. Which is an extremely poor argument technique.

1) The main argument, and what Rolan7 was talking about is the discussion of whether drunken consent is automatically invalid, hence, makes the other person automatically rapist. This is an actual position taken by some people in this thread. And it has zero to do with what the person thinks about it afterwards.

2) What you're talking about is allegations of rape which is an entirely different discussion from what Rolan7 is talking about.

we're talking about what people on this thread call rape. not what the women themselves call rape.

If you take women's opinions on the matter as gospel then the campus rape statistics fall by 50-75%. But I don't see lip service to the veracity of women's opinions when it falls the other way. If women aren't holding the majority of incidents to be rape, but someone else is then that "measure of rape" is equally "regardless of what the victim thinks" and you can't then fault someone else's definition for not conforming 100% with women's opinions, because your measure doesn't even come close.

[Rolan7]

regardless of what the victim thinks. Keeping your definitions straight is apparently more important than accepting a victim's perspective.

Wait, what victim?  Huh?
I honestly don't know what you're saying here.  You can't be suggesting that every actual victim gets to redefine "rape".

If we know someone's an actual victim, then there's already been an investigation and trial, and we know what happened...  They still don't get to change what "rape" means.  Why would they want to?

They aren't redefining it. It's not about fucking semantics or the technical definition. Nobody here gives a shit about that. Or if they do, they shouldn't. It's about someone being violated in such a manner that they feel like they've been raped. Which is rape. If I punch you in the face by accident, but say I wasn't punching you in the face because I was stretching/running/dancing and your face was just in the way of my fist, it's still punching you in the fucking face. You have been punched in the face, regardless of my intent to do so or not. If someone gets raped, and the rapist didn't intend to do so, or thought they were given consent at the time (if, in the case of being drunk, it's entirely possible that they wouldn't have really thought about informed consent, and wasn't trying to purposefully take advantage of them), and were in fact accidentally raping someone(can also happen in weird other circumstances mostly relating to people being assholes and blind dates/sex and the like), that person was still raped. You cannot change that fact. The rapist, in such a case, obviously doesn't deserve jailtime; they might need to tender an apology or ask what they can do to make up for their mistakes(which may be staying as far away from the person as possible if they were traumatized by it; in some cases having as little to do as possible with the victim is the best response, but it depends on the victim), possibly help pay for counseling and therapy, but jailtime is a bit much(I dislike our commercialized prison system anyway).

Okay, I guess I understand better?  You're using the fourth definition of rape:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t

4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.

Instead of the first two:

1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

That's very misleading of you.  Maybe you should use clearer language.

Otherwise you come up with absurd conclusions like "The rapist, in such a case, obviously doesn't deserve jailtime".  That's silly, rapists always deserve jailtime.  They're dangerous scum who have forced themselves on others, dealing massive psychological and likely physical damage.  It's a widespread and tragic problem.

A college kid who says yes to drunken sex, on the other hand, probably isn't a rapist.  Even if the other person regrets it later.  Unless they spiked drinks, or performed sexual assault or something...  But generally, not rape!  I know this can be confusing somehow.

Gosh, can you imagine calling that person a rapist in front of their peers?  They'd probably be ostracised, investigated...  People might think you're making a felony accusation, when actually you're describing an awkward situation.  Haha!

That's why you should use correct words!  The words we've defined and put in books called dictionaries.  Dictionaries are *like* people who co-opt terms from actual victims, except...  Actually dictionaries are nothing like that.  That's a nice thing about dictionaries.

Anyway...  Words have meanings.  "rape victim" does not mean "someone who says they feel raped".  Call me a "victim doubter" as if that means anything, but at least I'm not stealing the term rape from actual people with ruined lives, or destroying trust in victims by treating their every word as sacred unquestionable gospel.

The idea of trying to tell someone 'well, sorry sweetie, but you were raped' reeks of so much arrogance and overbearing patronism(or matronism or whatever the fuck you wanna call it) that it makes me upset to imagine.

I swear this isn't some unknown concept...

NORMAL people... sometimes need EXACTLY that. Well perhaps not exactly that, they need help coming to that conclusion.

It isn't because they are stupid or that there is anything wrong with them. It is just something that happens.

Yeah...  People in abusive relationships often desperately cover for their abuser, and self-delude that it isn't happening.  It's tricky because the manipulation can be less concrete than drugs, yet more effective...

A rape victim serves as an expert witness in their case, at the very very least

To my knowledge a victim is RARELY allowed to be an expert in their case, and even then it is a rare situation. That is because victims are not allowed to give 'expert opinions' they can only give straight facts.

Obviously!  Expert Witness, noun:

a person who is permitted to testify at a trial because of special knowledge or proficiency in a particular field that is relevant to the case

Not only that, but victims have a vested interest in a guilty verdict.  It sometimes isn't known whether they actually are victims, until the trial is over.

[GavJ]

If you think drunk people shouldn't screw each other, then please make that case.  But calling consensual sex "rape" is nonsense, and leads to particularly ridiculous concepts like "mutual rape".  It lumps actual rape in with consensual sex.

"Your definition is wrong because it would lump my definition in with things that aren't my definition"  Uh, yeah. that's the point. I don't agree with what you're calling rape, and I am INTENDING to lump additional things in, because I think additional things are rape than you do.

It's about consent and has always been about consent. Consent, IMO, implies RATIONAL consent. "Yes" by itself is meaningless if the person isn't in a state to realize the consequences.

That's exactly the same reason why we make sex with children illegal. They can say yes all they want and occasionally might mean it quite sincerely, but by not yet being able to comprehend all the ramifications or consequences at a sufficiently rational level, we do not consider this consent.

A person who is drunk (as in, into the realm of not their normal decision making state) should be treated with the same logic -- they are rendered incapable of making proper considerations of consequences due to an artificially inhibition lowering drug, and thus their "yes" should not be considered consent any more than a child's.

Specifically, since "child" in most places for consent = as old as 17 years old, the amount of drunkenness that should be illegal to have sex with is the amount that renders the average adult with equivalent decision making ability as a 17 year old, or less. Which is way the hell less than blackout levels.




Edit: if you disagree, then I think you should be obligated to explain why we shouldn't lower the age of consent by your same logic. For example, if you think all the way to near-blackout "don't even know your own name" is the level at which it becomes rape, then basically you're saying that you have to be so drunk as to be dumber than a 3 year old who can easily tell you their name. Yet before that, you're saying they are fine to give consent? If so, do you think we should lower the age of consent to 3? If not, why not, if 3-year-old levels of rationality are sufficient to give consent?

You've made decent arguments that people should, to be on the safe side, refuse sex with people who are particularly drunk.  I respect that, and agree it should be a factor in practical decision making.  If someone's gotten themselves drunk and is making bad decisions, it's likely unwise to be involved.  I think most of us agree on this point.

Why is it unwise for personal decision making of "everyone involved" and yet ridiculous to suggest that it be made more explicitly into law? Things that are wise for everyone and that affect people other than yourself (including possible harm) are precisely the sorts of things that make great laws.