Dressing like a slut

"Rape is about power. Period."

It would he helpful not to make sweeping generalizations about a crime as varying as this.

"rape is not about sex. It's not about attraction. It's not about arousal. Rape is about power. Period."

Still pushing this dogma, are we? *sigh*

@Karalora: Don't know if you noticed what I posted a couple of pages ago, but again; legally-speaking courts (depending on the jurisdiction) will take into account such circumstances as whether the man in question might reasonably believe he still had permission to continue or whether he was "led on" or otherwise inflamed when considering whether to reduce a sentence or not.

So actually yes, there actually is a chain of events that might lead to a reduced sentence and although "No" always mean "No", it doesn't always mean "Rape".

edited 12th Jun '11 2:28:06 AM by DanEile

edited 10th Jan '13 9:43:28 AM by JosefBugman

"since (apparently) doing something difficult has become a badge of shame people are more than willing to come up with excuses for their behaviour."

Now that's what I call a burrrrn!

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that it's impossible to stop, just that it's not as black and white as some may think.

edited 10th Jan '13 9:43:10 AM by JosefBugman

If that was the case, we wouldn't have nearly as much legislation in place or cases on the subject. Trust me on this, as far as the law is concerned, there are distinctions, certainly in the British and Irish jurisdictions at least.

For example, there was one case in Britain where the woman decided part of the way through that she no longer wanted to take part. She didn't physically communicate this to the man, later claiming that she was too afraid. There are several others, but unfortunately I'm currently in London, and as such away from my law texts.

edited 12th Jun '11 3:29:09 AM by DanEile

edited 10th Jan '13 9:42:14 AM by JosefBugman

And yet it's still under the heading of sexual offences. She was bringing a rape case against him. You're missing my point here; that's not the only case, it's just the only one I can think of off of the top of my head. My point is that the court does not always see it as black and white, because in law, as in life, there are usually grey areas. There has to be some flexibility in the law in order for it to be just.

edited 12th Jun '11 3:33:00 AM by DanEile

edited 10th Jan '13 9:41:45 AM by JosefBugman

Actually it came under rape cases; I believe she lost.

Well, that's actually kind of what I'm driving at; while it's hard to envision, there are in fact scenarios where it's feasible that the woman in question may have wanted to stop, but for whatever reason didn't, or felt she couldn't, simply say no. In such scenarios, it might be unfair to slap the man involved with a rape conviction. Perhaps she's scared of the man, or perhaps she struggled a bit and he somehow interpreted it as part of the act. The fact is, the law has to be prepared to investigate such claims and not be entirely close-minded.

edited 12th Jun '11 3:38:35 AM by DanEile

edited 10th Jan '13 9:40:48 AM by JosefBugman

Well if rape isn't about power, what on earth could it be about?

I beg your pardon? Unfair to have to stop? I presume you mean that that belief is incorrect, which as I said above, I already agreed with.

Sexual gratification?

edited 12th Jun '11 3:41:45 AM by DanEile

edited 10th Jan '13 9:40:40 AM by JosefBugman

Ah, I think what we have here is a misunderstanding. When I said that "No" doesn't always mean "rape", I didn't mean simply saying no, I meant other indicators that might be interpreted as an unwillingness to continue. I suspect we've been agreeing with each other all along.

edited 10th Jan '13 9:38:34 AM by JosefBugman

Likewise!

I just have a hypothetical scenario, simply because I'm curious:

Say I meet a girl at a bar, we hit it off and go to her place or mine for some hanky-panky. We get undressed, do the whole foreplay thing, and then get to the main event. My penis is actually INSIDE of the woman at this point, okay? Well, I get to thrusting a bit, and I'm almost at climax, when she suddenly says: "On second thought, I don't want this. Could you please stop?" In any other scenario, I'd say "Yeah, sure." and pack up my shit and go(or make her pack up her shit and go), then masturbate to deal with the built up baby batter. We might've ended the night disappointed, but at least nobody got raped.

However, in this situation, because I'm so deep into it, I don't stop. I have so many endorphins being released in my brain that the very idea of stopping or anything else doesn't register. I continue till I climax, and she gets upset and presses charges.

Now, I'm not suggesting that such an act wouldn't be wrong on my part. No means no regardless of how little you were thinking at the time. However, do I really deserve to be compared to and punished with the same severity as some scumbag who jumped a random woman in a dark alley simply because what I did is technically defined as rape?

I think I would deserve to be punished, obviously, but would I deserve to be looked at as a Complete Monster because I didn't stop at a point where stopping was almost impossible?

That's a loaded question simply because we'd have to assume that mid-coitus endorphins are impossible to overrule.

I remember that 'almost raped' article on Encyclopedia Dramatica used to have a screenshot from livejorunal where a woman claimed that her boyfriend almost raped her. Basically, the girl was repeatedly (during one date) engaging in borderline sexual activities and when he tried to do more, she always backed out. He always listened to her but he was still supposed to be the villain of the story. Because he wanted to have sex with woman... who dry humped him while they were both in their underwear. Flat "What"

Standard rape deserves 20 years. Ommetta's example deserves 6 months.

"Are you fucking someone whose said 'No' to you at any point of coitus?"

I prefer "Are you fucking someone who did not say 'Yes' prior to coitus?"

I think I would deserve to be punished, obviously, but would I deserve to be looked at as a Complete Monster because I didn't stop at a point where stopping was almost impossible?

Rapists shouldn't be seen as Complete Monsters at all in my view, but you certainly are just as culpable as any other rapist.

What you're doing is essentially telling the victim how to react. "You can't feel as raped if you withdrew consent as you could if you never gave it!" That's never kosher.

Removal of consent during the coitus is a pretty weird thing, but it's still not nearly as retarded as an idea of post-coital removal of consent