[Way Cool Jr]

Guys,
I can't understand how some of you, rightful condemn this particular and intricate case of rape, but are willing to approve things like physical violence and hurtful injuries to the guy (which was also the boyfriend at that time).
I'm no layer, but I'm sure that beating someone that way in the States would earn you a trip to the nearest jail and courtroom, think about this...

[Cincinnatus]

(10-20-2012 06:06 AM)Way Cool Jr Wrote:  

I'm no layer, but I'm sure that beating someone that way in the States would earn you a trip to the nearest jail and courtroom, think about this...

I don't know where you grew up at but in my neighborhood, if you take a severe assbeating that requires a hospital trip, you don't tell the police who did it, even if you know. Especially if they beat your ass for performing anal on a drunk girl (and videotaping it).

We have shootings here all the time and the victims that survive almost NEVER tell the police who tried to gun them down - even though they know most of the time.

[Way Cool Jr]

This is maybe because you're talking about gang violence and organized criminality, he acted alone and we can suppose that it's not affiliated with some criminal group.
Anyway I'm not defending anoybody, since all of the people in this story are either weird (the marine, for seeing the video with the same guy in the same room, etc...) or borderline psycho and rapist like the old boyfriend.
The girls is irresponsible and weak for not taking action against the abuse.

[Cincinnatus]

(10-20-2012 08:16 AM)Way Cool Jr Wrote:  

This is maybe because you're talking about gang violence and organized criminality, he acted alone and we can suppose that it's not affiliated with some criminal group.
Anyway I'm not defending anoybody, since all of the people in this story are either weird (the marine, for seeing the video with the same guy in the same room, etc...) or borderline psycho and rapist like the old boyfriend.
The girls is irresponsible and weak for not taking action against the abuse.

Gang violence is part of the culture that doesn't go to the police, but I live in a mixed neighborhood - the drunken hillbillies and frat boys that brawl outside of bars every weekend generally don't go to to the police either.

[Basil Ransom]

The idea that a man can rape a woman with whom he has a sexual relationship is something of a feminist innovation. Feminists considered a woman's right to refuse more important than suffrage:

Quote:

Stanton: "'Woman's degradation is in man's idea of his sexual rights,' Stanton wrote to Anthony. 'How this marriage question grows on me. It lies at the very foundation of all progress.'" Stone: "It is clear to me, that [the marriage] question underlies, this whole movement and all our little skirmishing for better laws, and the right to vote, will yet be swallowed up, in the real question, viz, has woman, as wife, a right to herself? It is very little to me to have the right to vote, to own property &c. if I may not keep my body, and its uses, in my absolute right. Not one wife in a thousand can do that now, & so long as she suffers this bondage, all other rights will not help her to her true position." Hasday, Jill Elaine (2000). "Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape". California Law Review 88: 1425.

If a man is reduced to the use of non-consensual sex with a girlfriend or wife, the relationship is already dysfunctional, and they should separate. Whether an instance of non-consensual sex with a long-term partner constitutes 'rape' is up for debate. And there's definitely a spectrum to it - eg, deciding to penetrate your wife while she's sleeping, when you had sex four hours before, would be hard to consider as 'rape.' There's a certain assumption of consent, given by the continued presence of each party in the relationship, unless someone otherwise states they don't want to bang.

Just putting this out there to show that prior to feminism, this was not a clear cut issue. Feminism and progressives have been successful in making people believe that any beliefs that predate Women's Liberation are automatically evil and wrong.

In this instance, the anal sex sounds like genuine rape, given the nature of anal sex, its potential for injury and that she told him to stop.

[j r]

(10-20-2012 12:44 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

The idea that a man can rape a woman with whom he has a sexual relationship is something of a feminist innovation. Feminists considered a woman's right to refuse more important than suffrage:

Quote:

Stanton: "'Woman's degradation is in man's idea of his sexual rights,' Stanton wrote to Anthony. 'How this marriage question grows on me. It lies at the very foundation of all progress.'" Stone: "It is clear to me, that [the marriage] question underlies, this whole movement and all our little skirmishing for better laws, and the right to vote, will yet be swallowed up, in the real question, viz, has woman, as wife, a right to herself? It is very little to me to have the right to vote, to own property &c. if I may not keep my body, and its uses, in my absolute right. Not one wife in a thousand can do that now, & so long as she suffers this bondage, all other rights will not help her to her true position." Hasday, Jill Elaine (2000). "Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape". California Law Review 88: 1425.

If a man is reduced to the use of non-consensual sex with a girlfriend or wife, the relationship is already dysfunctional, and they should separate. Whether an instance of non-consensual sex with a long-term partner constitutes 'rape' is up for debate. And there's definitely a spectrum to it - eg, deciding to penetrate your wife while she's sleeping, when you had sex four hours before, would be hard to consider as 'rape.' There's a certain assumption of consent, given by the continued presence of each party in the relationship, unless someone otherwise states they don't want to bang.

Just putting this out there to show that prior to feminism, this was not a clear cut issue. Feminism and progressives have been successful in making people believe that any beliefs that predate Women's Liberation are automatically evil and wrong.

In this instance, the anal sex sounds like genuine rape, given the nature of anal sex, its potential for injury and that she told him to stop.

It goes well beyond feminism. It's a basic enlightenment principle: the idea that every adult human being is a fully formed moral agent with the ability to make his or her own decisions. You simply cannot have a free society in which half the population is reduced to the legal status of children. The only way that such a situation can be maintained is if there is some overarching authoritarian structure that keeps everyone in line, like religion. This is why the Muslim theocracies are the only places that can maintain this sort of system. And as much as I dislike feminism, I'm in no hurry to trade it for theocracy.

I also have an issue with the notion of a relationship constituting implied consent. Let's say your friend Joe comes over every weekend to watch football and drink beer at your house. One Sunday you decide that you're not up for company and would rather just be alone. If Joe walks in and grabs a beer, it would be a bit much to call him a burglar and a thief, but once you tell Joe that you're not up for it this week, Joe should leave. It doesn't mean that you're not friends anymore. It just means that at this particular moment, you don't want Joe in your house drinking your beer. The ongoing relationship doesn't give Joe any special rights to your property.

My problem with the feminist conception of rape is that it tries to turn it into a political act, something that "men" commit against "women." Bullshit. Rape is what a criminal does to a victim. And just like any other crime, guilt is established by looking at the particular facts and weighing them against some objective measure. In rape, the objective measure is consent. If the alleged rapist has consent, he didn't rape. If he doesn't have consent, he's guilty. You're doing something very similar to the feminists, except from the opposite direction.

When you use the phrase "reduced to the use of non-consensual sex," that sounds very contrived to me. Criminals aren't "reduced" to anything. They make a conscious choice to commit an act. If some destitute guy mugged you, would you say that he was reduced to robbing you? Probably not. If you're girlfriend doesn't want you to bang her, tough luck. Dump her and find one who will.

[Samseau]

Quote:

You simply cannot have a free society in which half the population is reduced to the legal status of children.

I don't know about that man. It depends on how you define "free". Non-free societies have been the norm for tens of thousands of years, and yet there have been many times when people lived fulfilling, happy, and stressless lives. It all depends on who the current ruler is. A good dictator can run a very prosperous society where people are free to do things but within the ruler's bounds.

[MikeCF]

Question for you guys who are quick to call this rape (even though the only version in the media is the girl's).

If they continued dating after the sexual encounter, then was it actually rape?

I have had broken noses and torn shoulders and shit. Some would call that assault and battery. If I popped some guy in the jaw, it'd be a crime. Within the *context* of a gym, injuries and brutality were just a regular day in the life.

Do you think context matters?

If they parties continued dating for several weeks or months after the sexual encounter, would you still consider it rape?

[j r]

(10-20-2012 03:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

You simply cannot have a free society in which half the population is reduced to the legal status of children.

I don't know about that man. It's been the norm for tens of thousands of years.

So was slavery, but neither of those things make for a free society.

Now, if you don't value freedom, that's fine. Some might argue that too much freedom is dangerous and social cohesion is more important. Personally, I value freedom.

[Samseau]

(10-20-2012 03:50 PM)j r Wrote:  

(10-20-2012 03:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

You simply cannot have a free society in which half the population is reduced to the legal status of children.

I don't know about that man. It's been the norm for tens of thousands of years.

So was slavery, but neither of those things make for a free society.

Now, if you don't value freedom, that's fine. Some might argue that too much freedom is dangerous and social cohesion is more important. Personally, I value freedom.

JR - I edited my comment when I realized it needed to be elaborated upon. Sometimes I post things in a haste inbetween my "other" activities and miss important details.

My contention about "Free" is upon how you define it.

If by free, you mean people have good property rights, freedom of speech, and a strong rule of law, then there have been plenty of examples throughout history where you have authoritarian rule by a dictator or oligarchy, that wasn't a theocracy, and the people have had plenty of freedom.

[Hades]

I have a hard time calling this rape. Sure, it was a humiliating sexual encounter that she regretted. Yeah, the pirate guy is some kind of psycho. The whole "saving my new girlfriend from her horrible ex-boyfriend's memory" situation is out of some kind of white knight's masturbation fantasy. But I don't think she stopped dating the guy after this happened.

[j r]

(10-20-2012 03:39 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Question for you guys who are quick to call this rape (even though the only version in the media is the girl's).

If they continued dating after the sexual encounter, then was it actually rape?

I have had broken noses and torn shoulders and shit. Some would call that assault and battery. If I popped some guy in the jaw, it'd be a crime. Within the *context* of a gym, injuries and brutality were just a regular day in the life.

Do you think context matters?

If they parties continued dating for several weeks or months after the sexual encounter, would you still consider it rape?

Yes, because I have an objective definition of rape that is largely divorced from those contextual issues. Rape is a non-consensual sexual act. Period. There are situations where consent may be implied, like an ongoing sexual relationship, but either person has the right to withdraw that consent any time they want (except for after the fact, of course).

There has to be an objective measure that exists independently of your sympathies for either party. Otherwise, you're doing the exact same thing that feminists do when they try to call a consensual act rape because of how the girl felt afterward or because she may have been in a certain state of mind before.

ps - Note that I am speaking in the abstract. The facts of this case are up to a court of law to decide. I am believer in innocent until proven guilty.

[Samseau]

j r Wrote:

Rape is a non-consensual sexual act.

Define consent? If she stayed in the relationship, and had sex with him many times afterwards, doesn't that imply consent?

[Samseau]

Here's something else to consider, from the thread where a pizza delivery man raped a woman:

Quote:

here we have a clear example of what an actual rape looks like...

a.) Signs of intense struggle
b.) Victims who fight back and alerts everyone around them (in this case, the victim chased the attacker down to the lobby and alerted the doorman who also alerted the customer that ordered the pizza)
c.) Attacker who was trespassing
d.) Authorities were alerted immediately

Compare this to most false rape accusations...

a.) Zero struggle, no signs of anything ever happened
b.) Victim never fights back, and usually occurs with a man she already knew beforehand, never tells anyone about it
c.) The "attacker" is let onto the victim's premises or the victim willingly goes to the "attacker"'s home
d.) Authorities are alerted a day, week, or month after the incident occurs

So, let's put this in context of this rape accusation in this thread:

a.) Zero signs of struggle? Check
b.) Victim never tells anyone about it, never fought back? Check
c.) The "attacker" was her longstanding boyfriend who most likely she continued to date? Check
d.) Authorities are being alerted years after the fact...? Check


Verdict: It's all bullshit

[j r]

(10-20-2012 04:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

j r Wrote:

Rape is a non-consensual sexual act.

Define consent? If she stayed in the relationship, and had sex with him many times afterwards, doesn't that imply consent?

No. This is what I mean when I say that this is essentially just an inversion of the feminist argument.

If a woman had consensual sex with a man and then the next day decided that it made her feel bad and that she couldn't stand the guy anymore and never wanted to see him, does that suddenly turn the consensual act into rape?

Whether something is rape or not has to be decided independent of how the chick feels about it afterwards. Otherwise you're abandoning all principles and basically arguing from a purely subjective position.

[Samseau]

(10-20-2012 04:10 PM)j r Wrote:  

(10-20-2012 04:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

j r Wrote:

Rape is a non-consensual sexual act.

Define consent? If she stayed in the relationship, and had sex with him many times afterwards, doesn't that imply consent?

No. This is what I mean when I say that this is essentially just an inversion of the feminist argument.

If a woman had consensual sex with a man and then the next day decided that it made her feel bad and that she couldn't stand the guy anymore and never wanted to see him, does that suddenly turn the consensual act into rape?

Whether something is rape or not has to be decided independent of how the chick feels about it afterwards. Otherwise you're abandoning all principles and basically arguing from a purely subjective position.

True, but when discussing implied consent we need to evaluate the entire context.


Let's use a different example. Let's say your mom steals from you. (Purely hypothetically speaking)

Your mom takes $1000 from your credit without asking or telling you. You confront her about it. She says she needed the cash and will pay you back. She never pays you back.

Two years later, you decide to go to the police and press charges against your mother for theft.

What would happen in this case? It would be your word against your mothers; would the police have enough evidence to convict her for theft, especially given the fact that you didn't press charges when the crime originally took place?

[j r]

Let's make a distinction between whether or not there's enough evidence to convict in a court of law and whether or not this is acceptable behavior. If this dude got this chick blackout drunk so he could do things that he knew she'd never consent to while sober and then proceeded to do them anyway even though she was saying no, but was too fucked up to put up a fight, then he committed a sexual assault. That fact that it was his girlfriend doesn't change anything.

I am a little nonplussed about the desire to defend this guy. Does it come from a legitimate belief that the chick was cool with this at the time and is just pretending now to get the guy back or is more of a "fuck her, she deserves it for being a stupid slut?"

It seems like you guys are just saying that all women are sluts, who are asking for the dick, until they can prove otherwise, which is the same thing as feminists saying that all men are part of the rape culture until they can prove otherwise. There's got to be some set of objective set of principles that you can rely on, otherwise, this just becomes a rhetorical power struggle.

ps - In the example above, the mother has objectively committed an act of theft. For any number of reasons, there's probably not enough to bring the charge to court or to get a conviction, but it's still theft. Like I said above, I'm not talking about whether this guy should be charged or even convicted. I'm talking about passing judgment on what he allegedly did.

[MikeCF]

(10-20-2012 04:00 PM)j r Wrote:  

Yes, because I have an objective definition of rape that is largely divorced from those contextual issues. Rape is a non-consensual sexual act

How can you define consent without looking at context?

If a girl says no, is she refusing consent?

How long does this refusal of consent last?

What if she says no but then moans after you put your penis in?

If a girl says, "We shouldn't be doing this," and you keep going, are you a rapist?

[MikeCF]

(10-20-2012 04:22 PM)j r Wrote:  

Let's make a distinction between whether or not there's enough evidence to convict in a court of law and whether or not this is acceptable behavior. If this dude got this chick blackout drunk so he could do things that he knew she'd never consent to while sober and then proceeded to do them anyway even though she was saying no, but was too fucked up to put up a fight, then he committed a sexual assault. That fact that it was his girlfriend doesn't change anything.

Did he slip roofies in her drink?

Did he get her drunk or did she get herself drunk?

What if she choose to get blackout drunk so that she could be "turned out" and "raped" while allowing herself a way to deny her own responsibility for wanting to be used and abused?

Would he be raping her?

[Samseau]

Quote:

If this dude got this chick blackout drunk so he could do things that he knew she'd never consent to while sober and then proceeded to do them anyway even though she was saying no, but was too fucked up to put up a fight, then he committed a sexual assault.

"If". That's the word here. That's why I said we need more context to judge, because the big question is what kind of relationship she had with her old boyfriend.

Quote:

I am a little nonplussed about the desire to defend this guy. Does it come from a legitimate belief that the chick was cool with this at the time and is just pretending now to get the guy back or is more of a "fuck her, she deserves it for being a stupid slut?"

It seems like you guys are just saying that all women are sluts, who are asking for the dick, until they can prove otherwise, which is the same thing as feminists saying that all men are part of the rape culture until they can prove otherwise.

The difference is that feminists hate men, but players love women.

[j r]

(10-20-2012 04:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

If this dude got this chick blackout drunk so he could do things that he knew she'd never consent to while sober and then proceeded to do them anyway even though she was saying no, but was too fucked up to put up a fight, then he committed a sexual assault.

"If". That's the word here. That's why I said we need more context to judge, because the big question is what kind of relationship she had with her old boyfriend.

Quote:

I am a little nonplussed about the desire to defend this guy. Does it come from a legitimate belief that the chick was cool with this at the time and is just pretending now to get the guy back or is more of a "fuck her, she deserves it for being a stupid slut?"

It seems like you guys are just saying that all women are sluts, who are asking for the dick, until they can prove otherwise, which is the same thing as feminists saying that all men are part of the rape culture until they can prove otherwise.

The difference is that feminists hate men, but players love women.

Again, let's be objective here. There are lot of men out there who hate women. Misogyny is a real thing (which oddly enough tends to pop up in men who have no luck with women and men who have lots of luck with women).

What I'm seeing here is basically a lot of mood affiliation. "I hate feminists. I hate false rape claims. Therefore, I'm just going to argue against claims of rape in any but the most obvious of situations. If it didn't happen in a dark alley by a stranger in a ski mask, then it wasn't rape."

Being objective is difficult, because it's easy enough to imagine yourself in a position where some woman does make false claims against you. If, however, you're going to make an argument that men are the more rational sex, then you've got to actually be objective.

[Samseau]

J R: I listed objective criteria at post 39 on this page.

[j r]

(10-20-2012 04:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

J R: I listed objective criteria at post 39 on this page.

You listed reasons why this case might never go to court and why a conviction for rape is unlikely. And like I said, there may well be too many circumstances to make a conviction possible, that don't mean that this guy isn't a rapist any more than it means that OJ Simpson ain't a murderer.

[MikeCF]

(10-20-2012 04:38 PM)j r Wrote:  

What I'm seeing here is basically a lot of mood affiliation. "I hate feminists. I hate false rape claims. Therefore, I'm just going to argue against claims of rape in any but the most obvious of situations. If it didn't happen in a dark alley by a stranger in a ski mask, then it wasn't rape."

You got the term "mood affiliation" from Marginal Revolution. Reading Tyler Cowen's blog isn't going to help you. Cowen has autism. You are talking to some guys who don't have Asperger's and/or Autism.

Consent as it relates to sex is extremely complicated.

If a girl chooses to get so drunk so that she can be turned out, is that rape?

If a man gets into a ring to fight another man, is he being assaulted?

If you get into a ring, you don't want to get hit. So the guy is hitting you against your consent and will. Is that really assault?

[j r]

(10-20-2012 05:01 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(10-20-2012 04:38 PM)j r Wrote:  

What I'm seeing here is basically a lot of mood affiliation. "I hate feminists. I hate false rape claims. Therefore, I'm just going to argue against claims of rape in any but the most obvious of situations. If it didn't happen in a dark alley by a stranger in a ski mask, then it wasn't rape."

You got the term "mood affiliation" from Marginal Revolution. Reading Tyler Cowen's blog isn't going to help you. Cowen has autism. You are talking to some guys who don't have Asperger's and/or Autism.

Consent as it relates to sex is extremely complicated.

If a girl chooses to get so drunk so that she can be turned out, is that rape?

If a man gets into a ring to fight another man, is he being assaulted?

If you get into a ring, you don't want to get hit. So the guy is hitting you against your consent and will. Is that really assault?

Dude, you can ask me a million and one questions and my answer is still the same. I've just written a bunch of posts stating my position. Rape is objectively defined by consent. If a girl gives consent, her demeanor before and after can't change it into rape. Likewise, if a girl doesn't give consent, her demeanor before and after don't make it not rape.

If you feel differently, fine. We agree to disagree.