Forums > Social Discussion > women partially blamed if they are raped???
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
addict
667 posts
Location: Cannock, staffordshire, United Kingdom
addict
667 posts
Location: Cannock, staffordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
came across this in the news
web page
it has appalled me for the fact that imho no woman should be blamed if they are raped, wether they dress flirty, flirt with a man, ect NO means NO and all men should no that...
besides the majority of rapes these days are not spur of the moment attacks, the majority is either drug rape cases where it is hard to prove the case and in which case the attacker can drug any victim in the club and then escort them out with there friends not realising and ppl thinking they are genuinely drunk or where the victim actually knows there attacker and so then it is a hard conviction because its usually when they been out on a date or in domestic situations...
then how do you say any of these are the victims fault...
its intimidating for the victim as they are either dazed from the drug or embarrassed someone they thought they knew are like that and when they finally do stop feeling so intimidated there is not a lot of physical evidence...
with date rape the drug wears off in 12 hours or so and by time the memory comes back there is no proof as a ot of ppl who date rape use condoms so there is no dna evidence... there is a classic story line on hollyoaks regarding date rape drug at the minute...
and that third of the population that think that are probably rapists anyway as there is about that many amongst us.
came across this in the news
web page
it has appalled me for the fact that imho no woman should be blamed if they are raped, wether they dress flirty, flirt with a man, ect NO means NO and all men should no that...
besides the majority of rapes these days are not spur of the moment attacks, the majority is either drug rape cases where it is hard to prove the case and in which case the attacker can drug any victim in the club and then escort them out with there friends not realising and ppl thinking they are genuinely drunk or where the victim actually knows there attacker and so then it is a hard conviction because its usually when they been out on a date or in domestic situations...
then how do you say any of these are the victims fault...
its intimidating for the victim as they are either dazed from the drug or embarrassed someone they thought they knew are like that and when they finally do stop feeling so intimidated there is not a lot of physical evidence...
with date rape the drug wears off in 12 hours or so and by time the memory comes back there is no proof as a ot of ppl who date rape use condoms so there is no dna evidence... there is a classic story line on hollyoaks regarding date rape drug at the minute...
and that third of the population that think that are probably rapists anyway as there is about that many amongst us.
enticed, entrapped, entombed.
intoxicated, impaled, ingested.
bewitched, beaten, broken.
enter the love realm...
insert ur token
o jej, ale bym ci wylizal ten pepek
stepped up promotions
SILVER Member
Running hippy spinning lemming
15 posts
Location: Scotland
Running hippy spinning lemming
15 posts
Location: Scotland
Posted:
"A teenager has been found hanged at her home hours after it was reported to police she'd been raped. Detectives were investigating an attack on 17-year-old Nikki Dunbar in Wiltshire while she was walking her dog on Saturday."
these are not my words... just something i found on another forum,
if a woman is drunk, don't rape her.
if a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her.
if a women is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her.
if a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her.
if a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don't rape her.
if a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her.
if a woman is in a coma, don't rape her.
if a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her.
if a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her.
if a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her.
if your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her.
if your step-daughter is watching tv, don't rape her.
if you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her.
if your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend.
if your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
if your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and tell the guy he's a rapist.
tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it's not okay to rape someone.
don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl.
don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.
"A teenager has been found hanged at her home hours after it was reported to police she'd been raped. Detectives were investigating an attack on 17-year-old Nikki Dunbar in Wiltshire while she was walking her dog on Saturday."
these are not my words... just something i found on another forum,
if a woman is drunk, don't rape her.
if a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her.
if a women is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her.
if a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her.
if a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don't rape her.
if a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her.
if a woman is in a coma, don't rape her.
if a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her.
if a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her.
if a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her.
if your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her.
if your step-daughter is watching tv, don't rape her.
if you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her.
if your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend.
if your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
if your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and tell the guy he's a rapist.
tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it's not okay to rape someone.
don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl.
don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.
Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering...
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
Thanks Mr squirrel and Sethis - I wasn't trying to imply that you personally condone rape, apologies if it came across that way.
and thanks Psycho lemon, that was more along the lines of what i was trying to say
Thanks Mr squirrel and Sethis - I wasn't trying to imply that you personally condone rape, apologies if it came across that way.
and thanks Psycho lemon, that was more along the lines of what i was trying to say
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
I think this probably should be mentioned here...
I want to make clear first that I think the idea that any woman may be the cause of herself being raped is abscene. No-one deserves that.
With that said I'd like to say that there is another problem at hand. The incidence of women getting drunk sleeping with another drunk person and then calling rape is rapidly rising. There is also an alarming steady increase yearly on the number of false rape accusations made after consentual sex.
False accusations of rape destroy lives. Men have to live with the stigma for the rest of their lives regardless of whether they commited the crime or not.
I think the results of this survey are a confused British public saying that they no longer know who to believe. There was a time when anyone who claimed they had been raped was undoubtedly telling the truth. This is no longer the case.
I think this probably should be mentioned here...
I want to make clear first that I think the idea that any woman may be the cause of herself being raped is abscene. No-one deserves that.
With that said I'd like to say that there is another problem at hand. The incidence of women getting drunk sleeping with another drunk person and then calling rape is rapidly rising. There is also an alarming steady increase yearly on the number of false rape accusations made after consentual sex.
False accusations of rape destroy lives. Men have to live with the stigma for the rest of their lives regardless of whether they commited the crime or not.
I think the results of this survey are a confused British public saying that they no longer know who to believe. There was a time when anyone who claimed they had been raped was undoubtedly telling the truth. This is no longer the case.
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
I think that has only been the case in fairly recent times.
There was a time, for a long time, when rape was considered to be a shame on the woman and the family, no matter what the circumstances. You only have to look at the old testament of the bible which says that if a woman does not cry for help, then she is responsible for the rape. And that includes when her cries are not heard. (NB: I suspect that is more of a cultural artefact than a religious one, and so please don't take it as a religious argument).
Over time it evolved into "a woman must be lying" or "she somehow indicated she was up for it (dress or behaviour)". This even included the "there is no such thing as rape within marriage", and I could probably find you quotes from Australian judges within the last 15 years on that one.
Yes, there was a period where in reaction to this the voice of "a woman must always be telling the truth" was more powerful than "a woman must be lying". But the "must be lying" camp was always there, muttering away.
I hope that we are moving to a world where each case is judged on its merits, and we are better able to understand and educate about the grey areas of consent. But it will take a long long time because our underpinning ideas about consent are too simplistic to be able to deal with the nuances of the situation.
Written by: Seye
There was a time when anyone who claimed they had been raped was undoubtedly telling the truth. This is no longer the case.
I think that has only been the case in fairly recent times.
There was a time, for a long time, when rape was considered to be a shame on the woman and the family, no matter what the circumstances. You only have to look at the old testament of the bible which says that if a woman does not cry for help, then she is responsible for the rape. And that includes when her cries are not heard. (NB: I suspect that is more of a cultural artefact than a religious one, and so please don't take it as a religious argument).
Over time it evolved into "a woman must be lying" or "she somehow indicated she was up for it (dress or behaviour)". This even included the "there is no such thing as rape within marriage", and I could probably find you quotes from Australian judges within the last 15 years on that one.
Yes, there was a period where in reaction to this the voice of "a woman must always be telling the truth" was more powerful than "a woman must be lying". But the "must be lying" camp was always there, muttering away.
I hope that we are moving to a world where each case is judged on its merits, and we are better able to understand and educate about the grey areas of consent. But it will take a long long time because our underpinning ideas about consent are too simplistic to be able to deal with the nuances of the situation.
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
SILVER Member
addict
667 posts
Location: Cannock, staffordshire, United Kingdom
addict
667 posts
Location: Cannock, staffordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
thankyou and well said
to the person who complained about my punctuation my apologies but i am dyslexic to the point i get my words back to front and i drop all punctuation and no matter how much i concentrate i still miss them out a lot of the time, it was proven by specialists and i had to have special consideration in my english exams at school and college...
as for me saying i was on drugs i said i used to take recreational drugs and the time my drink was spiked it was while out with male friends who turned out not to be friends obviously but i knew the effects and removed myself from a situation. yes there is things that you can do to prevent things happening but then as someone else said it doesnt matter what you wear and where you are if your in the wrong place at the wrong time no one can stop it happening but the rapist themselves and so justice should be harder, victims shouldnt have to read that its partally there fault and all the sad girls out there that falsely accuse of rape should also have some kind of justice against them.
Written by: Psycho_lemming
"A teenager has been found hanged at her home hours after it was reported to police she'd been raped. Detectives were investigating an attack on 17-year-old Nikki Dunbar in Wiltshire while she was walking her dog on Saturday."
these are not my words... just something i found on another forum,
if a woman is drunk, don't rape her.
if a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her.
if a women is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her.
if a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her.
if a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don't rape her.
if a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her.
if a woman is in a coma, don't rape her.
if a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her.
if a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her.
if a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her.
if your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her.
if your step-daughter is watching tv, don't rape her.
if you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her.
if your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend.
if your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
if your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and tell the guy he's a rapist.
tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it's not okay to rape someone.
don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl.
don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.
thankyou and well said
to the person who complained about my punctuation my apologies but i am dyslexic to the point i get my words back to front and i drop all punctuation and no matter how much i concentrate i still miss them out a lot of the time, it was proven by specialists and i had to have special consideration in my english exams at school and college...
as for me saying i was on drugs i said i used to take recreational drugs and the time my drink was spiked it was while out with male friends who turned out not to be friends obviously but i knew the effects and removed myself from a situation. yes there is things that you can do to prevent things happening but then as someone else said it doesnt matter what you wear and where you are if your in the wrong place at the wrong time no one can stop it happening but the rapist themselves and so justice should be harder, victims shouldnt have to read that its partally there fault and all the sad girls out there that falsely accuse of rape should also have some kind of justice against them.
enticed, entrapped, entombed.
intoxicated, impaled, ingested.
bewitched, beaten, broken.
enter the love realm...
insert ur token
o jej, ale bym ci wylizal ten pepek
stepped up promotions
member
79 posts
Location: nsw camden
79 posts
Location: nsw camden
Posted:
i believe that yes there are precautions you can take to reduce the chance or being raped or abused in any way but i also think that if society didnt have the hole image of women and labeling them with names then we wouldnt have as big of a problem
the men that are the preditors are the ones that obviously have no respect for women abd belive they can have what they want when they want
us women should be able to dress how we want walk where we want whatever the time and not have sleezy men whistling howling or even following us people that agree with the statement of women ask for it if they dress certian ways well let me ask them 'what woman would lie there and say oh please rape me' not one would and i also recall it being a muslium (i think thats how you spell it) that said that so when you think about it muslium women cover them selves from head to toe with lose fited clothing but they still get raped what it boils down to is certain men have no respect for woman and have even less for themselves because they can bring thereselves down to such a low level then live with it for tehre lives and not care about it
i believe that yes there are precautions you can take to reduce the chance or being raped or abused in any way but i also think that if society didnt have the hole image of women and labeling them with names then we wouldnt have as big of a problem
the men that are the preditors are the ones that obviously have no respect for women abd belive they can have what they want when they want
us women should be able to dress how we want walk where we want whatever the time and not have sleezy men whistling howling or even following us people that agree with the statement of women ask for it if they dress certian ways well let me ask them 'what woman would lie there and say oh please rape me' not one would and i also recall it being a muslium (i think thats how you spell it) that said that so when you think about it muslium women cover them selves from head to toe with lose fited clothing but they still get raped what it boils down to is certain men have no respect for woman and have even less for themselves because they can bring thereselves down to such a low level then live with it for tehre lives and not care about it
look inside yourself for YOUR answers
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I'm afraid you are completely mistaken about what the Old Testament law says. It says that if a woman could have cried out for help and been heard (like in a city), but didn't, you are to assume that it was consensual.
However, it says that if they are in a place where she couldn't be heard (like a field) you are to presume that it was rape.
In other words, when in doubt, you are to rule in favor of believing the woman. There are probably plenty of old, unjust rules when it comes to rape that disfavor the woman (i've heard some examples from muslim law), but this is not one of them.
Written by: Rozi
There was a time, for a long time, when rape was considered to be a shame on the woman and the family, no matter what the circumstances. You only have to look at the old testament of the bible which says that if a woman does not cry for help, then she is responsible for the rape. And that includes when her cries are not heard. (NB: I suspect that is more of a cultural artefact than a religious one, and so please don't take it as a religious argument).
I'm afraid you are completely mistaken about what the Old Testament law says. It says that if a woman could have cried out for help and been heard (like in a city), but didn't, you are to assume that it was consensual.
However, it says that if they are in a place where she couldn't be heard (like a field) you are to presume that it was rape.
In other words, when in doubt, you are to rule in favor of believing the woman. There are probably plenty of old, unjust rules when it comes to rape that disfavor the woman (i've heard some examples from muslim law), but this is not one of them.
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
Don't worry, I am quite prepared to be proven wrong on the exact law on this one.
However I still have two points coming out of it.
The first is that the law still lays responsibility for the crime on the action or inaction of the woman. There are few other crimes which are so defined. Would you contest that one person had murder another based on whether the victim had actively fought them?
However this brings me to my second point. Such laws are a good attempt to deal with what is a very difficult area. As per my previous post, the issue of consent is complex. It is easier to place arbitrary rules upon it in order to better make a judgement, hence:
And more recently our society swinging between "it must be rape" and "she must have been asking for it".
Think about the last time you had sex. Or the last time you didn't. Did you actively say "yes"? Did you actively say "no"? It is more likely that you indicated consent through enthusiastic participation, or lack of consent through removing a misplaced hand or making an excuse.
I recently had a very scary experience at a gig, where a mate of mine had to intercede in order to distract the attentions of a pretty freaky drunk aggressive guy. That was a very clear cut case of someone being a potential rapist fuckwit. However there are a lot of instances that are more about the grey areas of consent.
What these arbitrary rules mean are that there are few safe spaces for a woman to explore her sexuality. A woman might want to have sex with multiple partners, and would enjoy it, but the "she must be up for it" rule means that if she says yes once she must mean yes always.
I am aware that I am not proposing solutions, just posing problems. So, are there any solutions out there?
Don't worry, I am quite prepared to be proven wrong on the exact law on this one.
However I still have two points coming out of it.
The first is that the law still lays responsibility for the crime on the action or inaction of the woman. There are few other crimes which are so defined. Would you contest that one person had murder another based on whether the victim had actively fought them?
However this brings me to my second point. Such laws are a good attempt to deal with what is a very difficult area. As per my previous post, the issue of consent is complex. It is easier to place arbitrary rules upon it in order to better make a judgement, hence:
Written by:
It says that if a woman could have cried out for help and been heard (like in a city), but didn't, you are to assume that it was consensual.
However, it says that if they are in a place where she couldn't be heard (like a field) you are to presume that it was rape.
And more recently our society swinging between "it must be rape" and "she must have been asking for it".
Think about the last time you had sex. Or the last time you didn't. Did you actively say "yes"? Did you actively say "no"? It is more likely that you indicated consent through enthusiastic participation, or lack of consent through removing a misplaced hand or making an excuse.
I recently had a very scary experience at a gig, where a mate of mine had to intercede in order to distract the attentions of a pretty freaky drunk aggressive guy. That was a very clear cut case of someone being a potential rapist fuckwit. However there are a lot of instances that are more about the grey areas of consent.
What these arbitrary rules mean are that there are few safe spaces for a woman to explore her sexuality. A woman might want to have sex with multiple partners, and would enjoy it, but the "she must be up for it" rule means that if she says yes once she must mean yes always.
I am aware that I am not proposing solutions, just posing problems. So, are there any solutions out there?
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I agree with most of what else you're saying, but this IMO is a bit wrong. There are plenty of ways for males and females to explore their sexuality in safe ways. Ideally, why don't you do it in a long term relationship in the safety of your own bedroom? If you fancied a bit of light bondage, you wouldn't go out and look for a guy who likes beating the hell out of people then invite him back to your room.
Same goes for anything else. If you happen to want to try a threesome, then why not get 2 people you know quite well? Don't go out to a bar and invite 2 drunks back to your room.
Problem is, most people don't feel comfortable suggesting things like this when they're sober, so they get drunk before they ask anyone. And as I hope everyone is aware, drunk is *not* the ideal state to be in when you suggest sex to someone.
Basically, if you want to explore, fine. But do it with someone you know and trust, rather than some drunk person who may or may not pay attention to the boundaries you try and set.
Written by: Rozi
What these arbitrary rules mean are that there are few safe spaces for a woman to explore her sexuality. A woman might want to have sex with multiple partners, and would enjoy it, but the "she must be up for it" rule means that if she says yes once she must mean yes always.
I agree with most of what else you're saying, but this IMO is a bit wrong. There are plenty of ways for males and females to explore their sexuality in safe ways. Ideally, why don't you do it in a long term relationship in the safety of your own bedroom? If you fancied a bit of light bondage, you wouldn't go out and look for a guy who likes beating the hell out of people then invite him back to your room.
Same goes for anything else. If you happen to want to try a threesome, then why not get 2 people you know quite well? Don't go out to a bar and invite 2 drunks back to your room.
Problem is, most people don't feel comfortable suggesting things like this when they're sober, so they get drunk before they ask anyone. And as I hope everyone is aware, drunk is *not* the ideal state to be in when you suggest sex to someone.
Basically, if you want to explore, fine. But do it with someone you know and trust, rather than some drunk person who may or may not pay attention to the boundaries you try and set.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Bellsspinning, you don't want women to be labelled, and yet you've found quite a few ways to label men in just a few sentences. If it's okay for us to label men (and we all do), we must be prepared to be labelled in return (yup, and we all are).
Patriarch, I still don't like that law... a man only has to cover a woman's mouth or rape her when the neighbours are away/there's loud noise and she's "consented" because noone heard her. I also remember some laws on what happened to men and women who'd committed adultery and I think the women were punished worse than men, but I've not got a bible here so I may be wrong.
Bellsspinning, you don't want women to be labelled, and yet you've found quite a few ways to label men in just a few sentences. If it's okay for us to label men (and we all do), we must be prepared to be labelled in return (yup, and we all are).
Patriarch, I still don't like that law... a man only has to cover a woman's mouth or rape her when the neighbours are away/there's loud noise and she's "consented" because noone heard her. I also remember some laws on what happened to men and women who'd committed adultery and I think the women were punished worse than men, but I've not got a bible here so I may be wrong.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
The problem with that is that-
1. a woman being raped is probably aware, on some level, that, if she cries out, the rapist may well do whatever is necessary to shut her up- ie knock her out or kill her: so, not crying out, is far from consenting
2. she could also be aware that crying out may well be futile, as passers by/residents often don't want to get involved. I once saw a handbook on safety issues for women which recommended, in the case of being assaulted, that she doesn't cry 'Rape!', but instead cries 'Fire!', as, that way, it's far more likely that help will come.
Written by: Patriarch917
I'm afraid you are completely mistaken about what the Old Testament law says. It says that if a woman could have cried out for help and been heard (like in a city), but didn't, you are to assume that it was consensual.
However, it says that if they are in a place where she couldn't be heard (like a field) you are to presume that it was rape.
In other words, when in doubt, you are to rule in favor of believing the woman. There are probably plenty of old, unjust rules when it comes to rape that disfavor the woman (i've heard some examples from muslim law), but this is not one of them.
The problem with that is that-
1. a woman being raped is probably aware, on some level, that, if she cries out, the rapist may well do whatever is necessary to shut her up- ie knock her out or kill her: so, not crying out, is far from consenting
2. she could also be aware that crying out may well be futile, as passers by/residents often don't want to get involved. I once saw a handbook on safety issues for women which recommended, in the case of being assaulted, that she doesn't cry 'Rape!', but instead cries 'Fire!', as, that way, it's far more likely that help will come.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
Please excuse the cuts, just done for length. But I think I have kept the gist of it.
There is truth in what you are saying, absolutely. And yet the situations you describe, of safe exploration, are usually only available to a female (I won't say "or a male" because I simply don't know) in restricted circumstances, or when they are older. An understanding long term relationship where the partner is capable of enjoying and respecting. A group of friends who are non-judgemental and unlikely to be freaked out.
And what if you are not in a long term relationship? Or don't have that group of understanding friends? Or simply don't want to sleep with those friends (cos you only think of them as your mates)? Yep, you are right, drunk guys in pubs = not a smart idea.
Your "safer" options then are mainly outside the mainstream with people into various fetish scenes who at least understand the physical boundaries people have. Because for a woman to explore these things within the mainstream is often to expose herself to judgement (the word "slut" is the classic one used). And what if you have no access to fetish scenes? Or quite simply, they don't appeal?
So the whole "do it with someone you know and trust" is fine. But it is not often available in the mainstream when it comes to issues such as this, which are such contentious issues and open to judgement.
Written by: SethisWritten by: Rozi
What these arbitrary rules mean are that there are few safe spaces for a woman to explore her sexuality. A woman might want to have sex with multiple partners, and would enjoy it, but the "she must be up for it" rule means that if she says yes once she must mean yes always.
I agree with most of what else you're saying, but this IMO is a bit wrong. There are plenty of ways for males and females to explore their sexuality in safe ways. Ideally, why don't you do it in a long term relationship in the safety of your own bedroom?...
Same goes for anything else. If you happen to want to try a threesome, then why not get 2 people you know quite well?...
Problem is, most people don't feel comfortable suggesting things like this when they're sober, so they get drunk before they ask anyone. And as I hope everyone is aware, drunk is *not* the ideal state to be in when you suggest sex to someone.
Basically, if you want to explore, fine. But do it with someone you know and trust, rather than some drunk person who may or may not pay attention to the boundaries you try and set.
Please excuse the cuts, just done for length. But I think I have kept the gist of it.
There is truth in what you are saying, absolutely. And yet the situations you describe, of safe exploration, are usually only available to a female (I won't say "or a male" because I simply don't know) in restricted circumstances, or when they are older. An understanding long term relationship where the partner is capable of enjoying and respecting. A group of friends who are non-judgemental and unlikely to be freaked out.
And what if you are not in a long term relationship? Or don't have that group of understanding friends? Or simply don't want to sleep with those friends (cos you only think of them as your mates)? Yep, you are right, drunk guys in pubs = not a smart idea.
Your "safer" options then are mainly outside the mainstream with people into various fetish scenes who at least understand the physical boundaries people have. Because for a woman to explore these things within the mainstream is often to expose herself to judgement (the word "slut" is the classic one used). And what if you have no access to fetish scenes? Or quite simply, they don't appeal?
So the whole "do it with someone you know and trust" is fine. But it is not often available in the mainstream when it comes to issues such as this, which are such contentious issues and open to judgement.
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Well it was my understanding that a women saw some appeal in whatever "non-mainstream" activity she was thinking of anyway... otherwise why would she want to try it?
I'm aware that not many people find the "Fetish" scene attractive, or indeed, available. But I wasn't really referring to fetishism (an overly strong word IMO) in my post. I read a survey somewhere (some book or other) which said 80-something percent of people had tried tying their partner up a bit. That's not a fetish, that's a normal, fun and entertaining thing to do. SO why is it still considered "Weird" when over 80% of the population has at least tried it? No idea.
You say:
I would reply that the simple, safe and sensible idea would be not to indulge your curiosity at the present time. Sure you might fancy something "Unorthodox" but if you don't have someone you trust to do it with, it's much better to go without. At least then you're not running the risks inherent with picking up a random partner at a club.
I seem to be wandering off topic a bit... Tried to bring it back in the last couple of sentences though. Maybe I should stop posting at 1.40am...
Written by: Rozi
Your "safer" options then are mainly outside the mainstream with people into various fetish scenes who at least understand the physical boundaries people have. Because for a woman to explore these things within the mainstream is often to expose herself to judgement (the word "slut" is the classic one used). And what if you have no access to fetish scenes? Or quite simply, they don't appeal?
Well it was my understanding that a women saw some appeal in whatever "non-mainstream" activity she was thinking of anyway... otherwise why would she want to try it?
I'm aware that not many people find the "Fetish" scene attractive, or indeed, available. But I wasn't really referring to fetishism (an overly strong word IMO) in my post. I read a survey somewhere (some book or other) which said 80-something percent of people had tried tying their partner up a bit. That's not a fetish, that's a normal, fun and entertaining thing to do. SO why is it still considered "Weird" when over 80% of the population has at least tried it? No idea.
You say:
Written by: Rozi
And what if you are not in a long term relationship? Or don't have that group of understanding friends? Or simply don't want to sleep with those friends (cos you only think of them as your mates)?
I would reply that the simple, safe and sensible idea would be not to indulge your curiosity at the present time. Sure you might fancy something "Unorthodox" but if you don't have someone you trust to do it with, it's much better to go without. At least then you're not running the risks inherent with picking up a random partner at a club.
I seem to be wandering off topic a bit... Tried to bring it back in the last couple of sentences though. Maybe I should stop posting at 1.40am...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
I think rape is only one part of the whole sexual abuse story, which exists in our society where about 25% of people are sexually abuse.
The religions of the book are all patriarchal, so I would suggest that they are all very one sided, and women who'd commit adultery are still “stoned to death” in some countries. I don’t think much happens to the men, after all they wrote the books.
As a westerner, I’m not sure why Muslim women are forced to cover them selves from head to toe with loose clothing. I’m told it’s because god told them, but I can’t help thinking it is due to some kind of male chauvinism.
I think rape is only one part of the whole sexual abuse story, which exists in our society where about 25% of people are sexually abuse.
The religions of the book are all patriarchal, so I would suggest that they are all very one sided, and women who'd commit adultery are still “stoned to death” in some countries. I don’t think much happens to the men, after all they wrote the books.
As a westerner, I’m not sure why Muslim women are forced to cover them selves from head to toe with loose clothing. I’m told it’s because god told them, but I can’t help thinking it is due to some kind of male chauvinism.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I’m tempted to write a treatise on case law interpretation (I’m in Law School, and it dominates my every waking moment). I will try not to sound like my law professors.
Response to various quotes:
Quote:
“the law still lays responsibility for the crime on the action or inaction of the woman. There are few other crimes which are so defined. Would you contest that one person had murder another based on whether the victim had actively fought them?”
-It does not lay responsibility for a crime on the woman. It is an “affirmative defense” available to the man to prove that it was consensual. If she could have cried for help, and didn’t, this is evidence that it might have been consensual (though not necessarily, as the next two quotes indicate).
-There are people who want the law to treat consensual killing (assisted suicide) different from nonconsensual killing.
Quote:
“Patriarch, I still don't like that law... a man only has to cover a woman's mouth or rape her when the neighbours are away/there's loud noise and she's "consented" because noone heard her. I also remember some laws on what happened to men and women who'd committed adultery and I think the women were punished worse than men, but I've not got a bible here so I may be wrong.”
-Obviously in the circumstance you have described the woman is unable to cry out and be heard. Those situations are all similar to being alone in a field. In those circumstances, the law instructs us to assume that she did NOT consent. By this we can see that the law has a strong prejudice in favor of believing the woman. This serves as a deterrent both to actual rape, and having consensual sex in a situation that could possibly be rape.
-You are incorrect in thinking that the punishment for adultery is different for women and men. It is identical for both sexes.
Quote:
“The problem with that is that-
1. a woman being raped is probably aware, on some level, that, if she cries out, the rapist may well do whatever is necessary to shut her up- ie knock her out or kill her: so, not crying out, is far from consenting
2. she could also be aware that crying out may well be futile, as passers by/residents often don't want to get involved. I once saw a handbook on safety issues for women which recommended, in the case of being assaulted, that she doesn't cry 'Rape!', but instead cries 'Fire!', as, that way, it's far more likely that help will come.”
1. If she is unable to cry out and be helped (such as having a knife held to your throat, or being drugged) then the law assumes that she would have cried out if she could have, and that she should be believed in claiming rape. I suspect that a court would likely find that a woman who fears that crying out would actually hurt rather than help her would accept her claim. However, if it is a “date rape” situation with an unarmed rapist and friends in the next room who could easily hear her cries, it is more reasonable to assume that it might have been consensual.
2. Certainly, the situation described here more closely fits the rule where crying out would do no good, and we might infer that we should assume that it was rape. A court should be cautious before laying down such a rule, however, else every time people have sex in New York we would have to believe a woman who claims rape. Perhaps the counter argument is that a woman should, if possible, make any cry for help (such as “fire”). The law does not require one to actually say the word “help” or “rape.”
I’m not sure what the big problem with this law is, unless it stems from a prejudice against old legal systems. There are only three methods I can think of to prove rape: 1) Testimony of the woman or man involved, 2) Physical evidence of violence, 3) Testimony of other witnesses.
Physical evidence of violence may be the best evidence, but it is not present in many rape cases.
Choosing to believe the woman or the man, based on their “credibility” alone is a very, very hard choice to make.
Ideally, there will be nearby witnesses who can say whether the woman was raped or not.
All this law does is lay out a simple formula. If there are witnesses nearby who the woman could have informed of the rape, but did not, this helps the man’s claim that it was consensual.
However, if there are no witnesses available, we must always believe the woman that it was rape.
I am surprised that everyone hasn’t jumped on the fact that this law assumes the man is a dirty lying rapist unless he can produce witnesses that can prove otherwise. Far from being weighted against the woman, this law makes it very hard for a man’s claim of consensual sex to be believed in the face of a rape charge.
I personally don’t mind a law that puts such a heavy burden on the man, but perhaps there are people out there that would prefer a law that treats men and women as equals.
I’m tempted to write a treatise on case law interpretation (I’m in Law School, and it dominates my every waking moment). I will try not to sound like my law professors.
Response to various quotes:
Quote:
“the law still lays responsibility for the crime on the action or inaction of the woman. There are few other crimes which are so defined. Would you contest that one person had murder another based on whether the victim had actively fought them?”
-It does not lay responsibility for a crime on the woman. It is an “affirmative defense” available to the man to prove that it was consensual. If she could have cried for help, and didn’t, this is evidence that it might have been consensual (though not necessarily, as the next two quotes indicate).
-There are people who want the law to treat consensual killing (assisted suicide) different from nonconsensual killing.
Quote:
“Patriarch, I still don't like that law... a man only has to cover a woman's mouth or rape her when the neighbours are away/there's loud noise and she's "consented" because noone heard her. I also remember some laws on what happened to men and women who'd committed adultery and I think the women were punished worse than men, but I've not got a bible here so I may be wrong.”
-Obviously in the circumstance you have described the woman is unable to cry out and be heard. Those situations are all similar to being alone in a field. In those circumstances, the law instructs us to assume that she did NOT consent. By this we can see that the law has a strong prejudice in favor of believing the woman. This serves as a deterrent both to actual rape, and having consensual sex in a situation that could possibly be rape.
-You are incorrect in thinking that the punishment for adultery is different for women and men. It is identical for both sexes.
Quote:
“The problem with that is that-
1. a woman being raped is probably aware, on some level, that, if she cries out, the rapist may well do whatever is necessary to shut her up- ie knock her out or kill her: so, not crying out, is far from consenting
2. she could also be aware that crying out may well be futile, as passers by/residents often don't want to get involved. I once saw a handbook on safety issues for women which recommended, in the case of being assaulted, that she doesn't cry 'Rape!', but instead cries 'Fire!', as, that way, it's far more likely that help will come.”
1. If she is unable to cry out and be helped (such as having a knife held to your throat, or being drugged) then the law assumes that she would have cried out if she could have, and that she should be believed in claiming rape. I suspect that a court would likely find that a woman who fears that crying out would actually hurt rather than help her would accept her claim. However, if it is a “date rape” situation with an unarmed rapist and friends in the next room who could easily hear her cries, it is more reasonable to assume that it might have been consensual.
2. Certainly, the situation described here more closely fits the rule where crying out would do no good, and we might infer that we should assume that it was rape. A court should be cautious before laying down such a rule, however, else every time people have sex in New York we would have to believe a woman who claims rape. Perhaps the counter argument is that a woman should, if possible, make any cry for help (such as “fire”). The law does not require one to actually say the word “help” or “rape.”
I’m not sure what the big problem with this law is, unless it stems from a prejudice against old legal systems. There are only three methods I can think of to prove rape: 1) Testimony of the woman or man involved, 2) Physical evidence of violence, 3) Testimony of other witnesses.
Physical evidence of violence may be the best evidence, but it is not present in many rape cases.
Choosing to believe the woman or the man, based on their “credibility” alone is a very, very hard choice to make.
Ideally, there will be nearby witnesses who can say whether the woman was raped or not.
All this law does is lay out a simple formula. If there are witnesses nearby who the woman could have informed of the rape, but did not, this helps the man’s claim that it was consensual.
However, if there are no witnesses available, we must always believe the woman that it was rape.
I am surprised that everyone hasn’t jumped on the fact that this law assumes the man is a dirty lying rapist unless he can produce witnesses that can prove otherwise. Far from being weighted against the woman, this law makes it very hard for a man’s claim of consensual sex to be believed in the face of a rape charge.
I personally don’t mind a law that puts such a heavy burden on the man, but perhaps there are people out there that would prefer a law that treats men and women as equals.
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
Once again, cuts for length
I guess really that comes to the crux of what I am arguing. If a woman wants to get into something that is not really that fetish-y, but considered to be a little on the outer realms of society acceptability, her options are limited if she doesn't have a partner or friends she can explore this with. It comes down to getting into the fetish scene, which might have more extreme associated behaviours than she is seeking which she feels uncomfortable with (this can be drug use, or even just dress sense) or just "not going there" cos it ain't safe. And that is pretty limiting. Like I said, not many safe spaces a woman can explore her sexuality.
BTW, just wanted to say thanks for an interesting and thought-provoking discussion, Sethis.
Hey Patriarch917, just to again provide the context, as I said in my original post "Such laws are a good attempt to deal with what is a very difficult area.". So whilst the intent may be to provide a defense in law for the male against false accusations of rape, it does so by making an arbitrary rule based on the action or inaction of the woman. Hence the onus is on the woman to act or not act.
Such arbitrary rules disadvantage both men and women. Yes, thus far we have been concentrating a lot on the idea that rape has been committed. I suspect that this is a little to do with human nature, and the fact that this is a deep seated fear held by many women. And yes, as you have said yourself, arbitrary rules disadvantage men also, yet this is not always broadly recognised. So effectively we are in agreement that such laws are an attempt to deal with a complex situation and that they cannot always be effective.
I would be interested if you could provide for us the exact text of the law you are referring to. Just for clarification.
Thanks
Written by: Sethis
Well it was my understanding that a women saw some appeal in whatever "non-mainstream" activity she was thinking of anyway... otherwise why would she want to try it?
I'm aware that not many people find the "Fetish" scene attractive, or indeed, available. But I wasn't really referring to fetishism (an overly strong word IMO) in my post. I read a survey somewhere (some book or other) which said 80-something percent of people had tried tying their partner up a bit. That's not a fetish, that's a normal, fun and entertaining thing to do. SO why is it still considered "Weird" when over 80% of the population has at least tried it? No idea.
...the simple, safe and sensible idea would be not to indulge your curiosity at the present time. Sure you might fancy something "Unorthodox" but if you don't have someone you trust to do it with, it's much better to go without. At least then you're not running the risks inherent with picking up a random partner at a club.
I seem to be wandering off topic a bit... Tried to bring it back in the last couple of sentences though. Maybe I should stop posting at 1.40am...
Once again, cuts for length
I guess really that comes to the crux of what I am arguing. If a woman wants to get into something that is not really that fetish-y, but considered to be a little on the outer realms of society acceptability, her options are limited if she doesn't have a partner or friends she can explore this with. It comes down to getting into the fetish scene, which might have more extreme associated behaviours than she is seeking which she feels uncomfortable with (this can be drug use, or even just dress sense) or just "not going there" cos it ain't safe. And that is pretty limiting. Like I said, not many safe spaces a woman can explore her sexuality.
BTW, just wanted to say thanks for an interesting and thought-provoking discussion, Sethis.
Written by:
Response to various quotes:
Quote:
“the law still lays responsibility for the crime on the action or inaction of the woman. There are few other crimes which are so defined. Would you contest that one person had murder another based on whether the victim had actively fought them?”
-It does not lay responsibility for a crime on the woman. It is an “affirmative defense” available to the man to prove that it was consensual. If she could have cried for help, and didn’t, this is evidence that it might have been consensual (though not necessarily, as the next two quotes indicate).
-There are people who want the law to treat consensual killing (assisted suicide) different from nonconsensual killing.
Hey Patriarch917, just to again provide the context, as I said in my original post "Such laws are a good attempt to deal with what is a very difficult area.". So whilst the intent may be to provide a defense in law for the male against false accusations of rape, it does so by making an arbitrary rule based on the action or inaction of the woman. Hence the onus is on the woman to act or not act.
Such arbitrary rules disadvantage both men and women. Yes, thus far we have been concentrating a lot on the idea that rape has been committed. I suspect that this is a little to do with human nature, and the fact that this is a deep seated fear held by many women. And yes, as you have said yourself, arbitrary rules disadvantage men also, yet this is not always broadly recognised. So effectively we are in agreement that such laws are an attempt to deal with a complex situation and that they cannot always be effective.
I would be interested if you could provide for us the exact text of the law you are referring to. Just for clarification.
Thanks It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Patriarch, I've looked it up online and you're right about the adultery thing. I clearly remember something though that results in the man making a sacrifice and the woman having her hair cut off and being chased out of the community - can't remember what it was about though
I'm still not sure how the rape law from leviticus could differentiate between a woman making false accusations and one actually not being able to cry for help, but I'll leave that bit of the discussion.
Patriarch, I've looked it up online and you're right about the adultery thing. I clearly remember something though that results in the man making a sacrifice and the woman having her hair cut off and being chased out of the community - can't remember what it was about though
I'm still not sure how the rape law from leviticus could differentiate between a woman making false accusations and one actually not being able to cry for help, but I'll leave that bit of the discussion.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
i dont know if any of you have any experience of rape or sexual abuse, but women do feel ashamed afterwards, you feel dirty, used and like you're a piece of meat. When i was 15, my boyfriend raped me, I was a virgin. Since then I've always felt i was damaged goods.
I dont know what the point of this thread is, but rape certainly isnt a topic worth arguing about. Its horrible and violent. I never reported it to the police, i felt too ashamed, i didnt want anyone to know. I didnt tell anyone until three years later. I'm still messed up because of what happened.
i dont know if any of you have any experience of rape or sexual abuse, but women do feel ashamed afterwards, you feel dirty, used and like you're a piece of meat. When i was 15, my boyfriend raped me, I was a virgin. Since then I've always felt i was damaged goods.
I dont know what the point of this thread is, but rape certainly isnt a topic worth arguing about. Its horrible and violent. I never reported it to the police, i felt too ashamed, i didnt want anyone to know. I didnt tell anyone until three years later. I'm still messed up because of what happened.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Yes patriarch917, I have a big problem with archaic laws based on biblical legal systems because it’s the same old patriarchal paradigm. Nothings changes since Leviticus was carves in stone by men. While the laws might appear identical for both male and female, women are punished much more severely than men.
Now I don’t now that much about other cultures and religions, but in Iran since May 1997, 25 stoning sentences have been executed, 17 of the convicted persons were women International Society for Human Rights
In many cases, under the Zina (Adultery) Ordinance woman who make allegations of rape are convicted for adultery, whilst the rapist are acquitted.
Not sure about this site but it says that “1996-MAR: Afghanistan: Some strict interpretations of Islamic law calls for the death penalty for any woman found in the company of a man other than a close family member. Sexual activity is assumed to have happened. A woman, Jamila, was found guilty of trying to leave the country with such a man. She was caught and stoned to death on 1996-MAR-28.”
On a more positive note it was good to see Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon launch a Project to research adult sexual assault.
Yes patriarch917, I have a big problem with archaic laws based on biblical legal systems because it’s the same old patriarchal paradigm. Nothings changes since Leviticus was carves in stone by men. While the laws might appear identical for both male and female, women are punished much more severely than men.
Now I don’t now that much about other cultures and religions, but in Iran since May 1997, 25 stoning sentences have been executed, 17 of the convicted persons were women International Society for Human Rights
In many cases, under the Zina (Adultery) Ordinance woman who make allegations of rape are convicted for adultery, whilst the rapist are acquitted.
Not sure about this site but it says that “1996-MAR: Afghanistan: Some strict interpretations of Islamic law calls for the death penalty for any woman found in the company of a man other than a close family member. Sexual activity is assumed to have happened. A woman, Jamila, was found guilty of trying to leave the country with such a man. She was caught and stoned to death on 1996-MAR-28.”
On a more positive note it was good to see Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon launch a Project to research adult sexual assault.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Woman! Not gay Man!
332 posts
Location: Hull...ish
332 posts
Location: Hull...ish
Posted:
on the bible thing I also found in the bible once (as part of my philosophical ethics and religion course) that if a man were to rape a woman then he would have to pay her father 10 gold peices (or something like that) and then marry her..... i couldnt imagine being married to someone who raped me, it'd be horrible,
but the point it makes is that back when the bible was written the woman was the property of her father or her husband and that they could do whatever they wanted with her so arguing using the bible is pretty pointless because the attitude towards women themselfs has changed so much
the problem with the idea of blaming women who are raped is that most of them would agree with you.... raped women often blame themselfs, like someone blamed themselfs for the death of a loved one, esspecially if it isnt in streightforward circumstances. for example a victim of insestuous rape or a girl who was too drunk to say no would blame herself so being told its her own fault would make getting over the incident SOOOO much harder to handel
on the bible thing I also found in the bible once (as part of my philosophical ethics and religion course) that if a man were to rape a woman then he would have to pay her father 10 gold peices (or something like that) and then marry her..... i couldnt imagine being married to someone who raped me, it'd be horrible,
but the point it makes is that back when the bible was written the woman was the property of her father or her husband and that they could do whatever they wanted with her so arguing using the bible is pretty pointless because the attitude towards women themselfs has changed so much
the problem with the idea of blaming women who are raped is that most of them would agree with you.... raped women often blame themselfs, like someone blamed themselfs for the death of a loved one, esspecially if it isnt in streightforward circumstances. for example a victim of insestuous rape or a girl who was too drunk to say no would blame herself so being told its her own fault would make getting over the incident SOOOO much harder to handel
I AM NOT A GAY MAN!
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
what is the point of this thread?
what is the point of this thread?
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
Hi jo_rhymes, have only just come into work and read your two posts.
I guess where the discussion has lead through this thread is how society tends to hold the woman responsible for rape, and how sometimes this can be instituted in Law. This is especially because of the difficulties people have in unwinding how to judge whether consent was given or not, because it is sometimes not so simple as a person saying no or yes.
You have raised an important point, which is that (as in your experience) a woman often blames herself for rape, holds herself responsible and thinks that she could have done something differently.
I have never experienced actual sexual assault. I have been on the receiving end of some aggressive sexual behaviour and have done a miniature version of what you are talking about, felt as though it was my job to stop it happening.
Hi jo_rhymes, have only just come into work and read your two posts.
I guess where the discussion has lead through this thread is how society tends to hold the woman responsible for rape, and how sometimes this can be instituted in Law. This is especially because of the difficulties people have in unwinding how to judge whether consent was given or not, because it is sometimes not so simple as a person saying no or yes.
You have raised an important point, which is that (as in your experience) a woman often blames herself for rape, holds herself responsible and thinks that she could have done something differently.
I have never experienced actual sexual assault. I have been on the receiving end of some aggressive sexual behaviour and have done a miniature version of what you are talking about, felt as though it was my job to stop it happening. It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
Dreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
Posted:
Yeah, I've been told that even tho I said no, since I didn't keep saying no until he stopped, it was my fault. Oh, and, er, this was by a university official! Who was, in fact, an R.A.... and thus, you'd think, the person you might go to about this sort of stuff.... It gets a lot more complicated than that, too, but I digress...
The other thing is when you're in such a situation sometimes its very hard to talk let alone scream! I know there's situations I've tried to yell in where I could only make a tiny squeaky noise, and I've become dead tongue-tied in others. And again, the threat of violence.
And yet, I've seen so many bullshit things happen to guys who did nothing wrong... in some cases didn't even so much as ever kiss the girl in their life
Does anyone actually know what the solution should be? Cos all I know its it is very complicated... I don't like your solution patriarch, I don't think the burden of proof should rest with the guy either. I just don't know what to suggest....
Yeah, I've been told that even tho I said no, since I didn't keep saying no until he stopped, it was my fault. Oh, and, er, this was by a university official! Who was, in fact, an R.A.... and thus, you'd think, the person you might go to about this sort of stuff.... It gets a lot more complicated than that, too, but I digress...
The other thing is when you're in such a situation sometimes its very hard to talk let alone scream! I know there's situations I've tried to yell in where I could only make a tiny squeaky noise, and I've become dead tongue-tied in others. And again, the threat of violence.
And yet, I've seen so many bullshit things happen to guys who did nothing wrong... in some cases didn't even so much as ever kiss the girl in their life
Does anyone actually know what the solution should be? Cos all I know its it is very complicated... I don't like your solution patriarch, I don't think the burden of proof should rest with the guy either. I just don't know what to suggest....
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
It’s not “my solution.” I’m simply correcting mistakes about what ancient laws say
The text is Deuteronomy 22:23-26 .
Rozi: I do not think it is arbitrary to inquire as to the action or inaction of the woman. How else will we or the man determine whether she has consented? I am not willing to convict a man of rape just because a woman claims she thought “no” secretly.
Birgit: I’ve never heard of any law that requires a man to make a sacrifice and a woman to be chased out of the community, and I can’t find anything that resembles that. Sacrifices are not criminal penalties in the old testament law anyways, so you have probably mixed two separate issues in your memory.
Stone: You obviously just don’t like the book. I don’t care whether anyone likes it, I just want it to be cited correctly so that people can make an informed decision. Also, citing Islamic law hardly proves that Levitical law is “bad,” since the two are different in this area.
Thegreatbj: Actually, it is doubtful whether that passage is talking about rape. Some certainly have interpreted it that way. It hinges on whether a particular word is interpreted as using force (it is different from the language used in the obvious rape case we have been talking about).
Actually, the interpretation in the notes I have, (and the one that I subscribe to) is that she was “taken” without her father’s permission, but that she willingly had sex. In other words, this was a marriage by kidnapping. This was common at the time, and this law proscribed a penalty for it (though not the death penalty).
Also, in Exodus 22:16-17, the father has the option in this situation to not have them marry. However, the man must still pay the fine (a brideprice, since it is unlikely at that time that she would be able to get married if she were not a virgin.)
It’s not “my solution.” I’m simply correcting mistakes about what ancient laws say
The text is Deuteronomy 22:23-26 .
Rozi: I do not think it is arbitrary to inquire as to the action or inaction of the woman. How else will we or the man determine whether she has consented? I am not willing to convict a man of rape just because a woman claims she thought “no” secretly.
Birgit: I’ve never heard of any law that requires a man to make a sacrifice and a woman to be chased out of the community, and I can’t find anything that resembles that. Sacrifices are not criminal penalties in the old testament law anyways, so you have probably mixed two separate issues in your memory.
Stone: You obviously just don’t like the book. I don’t care whether anyone likes it, I just want it to be cited correctly so that people can make an informed decision. Also, citing Islamic law hardly proves that Levitical law is “bad,” since the two are different in this area.
Thegreatbj: Actually, it is doubtful whether that passage is talking about rape. Some certainly have interpreted it that way. It hinges on whether a particular word is interpreted as using force (it is different from the language used in the obvious rape case we have been talking about).
Actually, the interpretation in the notes I have, (and the one that I subscribe to) is that she was “taken” without her father’s permission, but that she willingly had sex. In other words, this was a marriage by kidnapping. This was common at the time, and this law proscribed a penalty for it (though not the death penalty).
Also, in Exodus 22:16-17, the father has the option in this situation to not have them marry. However, the man must still pay the fine (a brideprice, since it is unlikely at that time that she would be able to get married if she were not a virgin.)
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Patriarch917 , I don’t like the book because it’s full of nonsense laws that you think are appropriate today. Where are these informed decisions? FOI, the People of the Book is a term in Islam for peoples who, according to the Qur'an, have received divine scriptures — generally interpreted to refer to the Taurat (the Torah) and Injeel (the New Testament), as well as the Qur'an. The term "People of the Book" (Am HaSefer) is also used in Judaism, where it refers specifically to the Jewish people and the Torah.
More later.
Patriarch917 , I don’t like the book because it’s full of nonsense laws that you think are appropriate today. Where are these informed decisions? FOI, the People of the Book is a term in Islam for peoples who, according to the Qur'an, have received divine scriptures — generally interpreted to refer to the Taurat (the Torah) and Injeel (the New Testament), as well as the Qur'an. The term "People of the Book" (Am HaSefer) is also used in Judaism, where it refers specifically to the Jewish people and the Torah.
More later.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I think you failed. But nevermind. Might be my mixed up memory again...
(in other words, I think you could change your tone, or what it comes across as, a bit, because I perceive it as a bit arrogant, though I assume you don't intend that)
And JoRhymes, I think there's just as many victims of sexual aggression and rape on HoP as anywhere else, and everyone who posts on this thread cares a lot, especially Dani who's started it. For some people, it helps to discuss things like laws, personal experience etc. I don't think anyone wants to ridicule rape here, if that's the idea you got.
Written by: Patriarch917
I will try not to sound like my law professors.
I think you failed. But nevermind. Might be my mixed up memory again...
(in other words, I think you could change your tone, or what it comes across as, a bit, because I perceive it as a bit arrogant, though I assume you don't intend that)
And JoRhymes, I think there's just as many victims of sexual aggression and rape on HoP as anywhere else, and everyone who posts on this thread cares a lot, especially Dani who's started it. For some people, it helps to discuss things like laws, personal experience etc. I don't think anyone wants to ridicule rape here, if that's the idea you got.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
I find it so upsetting that so many people have experience of violent sexual assualt. I don't think there is a solution to be honest. I like to believe in karma! The guy who assaulted me has since become a fireman and is out there saving lives (instead of messing them up!). I've forgiven him for what happened, he apologised to me 3 years after it happened.
I think that's the best consequence i could have hoped for. My love and light goes out to everyone who has been a victim of rape or any kind of abuse
I find it so upsetting that so many people have experience of violent sexual assualt. I don't think there is a solution to be honest. I like to believe in karma! The guy who assaulted me has since become a fireman and is out there saving lives (instead of messing them up!). I've forgiven him for what happened, he apologised to me 3 years after it happened.
I think that's the best consequence i could have hoped for.
My love and light goes out to everyone who has been a victim of rape or any kind of abuse Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Dreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
Posted:
Sorry Patriarch! I thought you said in one post you were agreeing, shows how much attention my jet-lagged self was paying!
I like the law-professor like attention, but I agree with Rozi that its that. Personally I don't see it as arrogant, but I'll admit its close to my own arguing style so thats perhaps why... keep up the good work. What notes are you using? If its in fact old testament (which I think) And you havn't already got a copy of Rashi's commentary sitting around I could cross-check whats said on that specific instance as well, if you'll tell me the passage...
Sounds like you may have already tho!
Cheers,
-K
Sorry Patriarch! I thought you said in one post you were agreeing, shows how much attention my jet-lagged self was paying!
I like the law-professor like attention, but I agree with Rozi that its that. Personally I don't see it as arrogant, but I'll admit its close to my own arguing style so thats perhaps why... keep up the good work. What notes are you using? If its in fact old testament (which I think) And you havn't already got a copy of Rashi's commentary sitting around I could cross-check whats said on that specific instance as well, if you'll tell me the passage...
Sounds like you may have already tho!
Cheers,
-K
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Karma... well... the guy that bullied me into a person I'll never want to be again is probably dead by now if he went on with his drugs and relying on other people for food etc... or still in the mental hospital he last called me from. I don't know enough about karma to say if that's a good or a bad thing, but as long as he's out of my sight I think I'm happy
Karma... well... the guy that bullied me into a person I'll never want to be again is probably dead by now if he went on with his drugs and relying on other people for food etc... or still in the mental hospital he last called me from. I don't know enough about karma to say if that's a good or a bad thing, but as long as he's out of my sight I think I'm happy
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I do not have Rashi's commentary, but I am curious as to different interpretations of the laws (although that may be off topic, I have tried to restrict myself to correcting misaprehensions about what the Torah says.) The text references are in my last post.
I have long since resolved not to be concerned about sounding arrogant. Any time you confidently state something, even if it is merely a fact, someone is likely to think you sound a bit arrogant. This is even more true with an opinion.
My career is going to be built upon confidently telling people facts and oppinions that are exactly opposite what the lawyers for the opposition will say.
My opinion on the issue, for those who really care, is that the idea that many people think women are somehow "responsible" for being raped is a myth espoused by the so called "radical" feminists after the popularity of classic and reform feminism declined. Radical feminism used such hyperbole to call into question the entire social structure, since classical feminism had (for the most part) succeeded in achieving "formal" equality.
I do not take the idea seriously, and I don't think it was ever meant to be taken seriously. It is similar to other statements such as "all heterosexual sex is rape," "any woman who is not a lesbian is a sell-out," and other outlandish claims designed more to provoke thought than to be taken at face value.
In reality, I believe most people think that rape is the fault of the rapist, not the victim. While I do not know about other ancient legal systems, I do know that the Torah says (regarding a girl who is raped) that "you shall do nothing to the girl. No sin worthy of death is in the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter." (Dt. 22:26)
Any man who rapes a girl and tries to blame her will find no support in Old Testament law, or from me. I suspect (and hope) that most would agree with us.
I do not have Rashi's commentary, but I am curious as to different interpretations of the laws (although that may be off topic, I have tried to restrict myself to correcting misaprehensions about what the Torah says.) The text references are in my last post.
I have long since resolved not to be concerned about sounding arrogant. Any time you confidently state something, even if it is merely a fact, someone is likely to think you sound a bit arrogant. This is even more true with an opinion.
My career is going to be built upon confidently telling people facts and oppinions that are exactly opposite what the lawyers for the opposition will say.
My opinion on the issue, for those who really care, is that the idea that many people think women are somehow "responsible" for being raped is a myth espoused by the so called "radical" feminists after the popularity of classic and reform feminism declined. Radical feminism used such hyperbole to call into question the entire social structure, since classical feminism had (for the most part) succeeded in achieving "formal" equality.
I do not take the idea seriously, and I don't think it was ever meant to be taken seriously. It is similar to other statements such as "all heterosexual sex is rape," "any woman who is not a lesbian is a sell-out," and other outlandish claims designed more to provoke thought than to be taken at face value.
In reality, I believe most people think that rape is the fault of the rapist, not the victim. While I do not know about other ancient legal systems, I do know that the Torah says (regarding a girl who is raped) that "you shall do nothing to the girl. No sin worthy of death is in the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter." (Dt. 22:26)
Any man who rapes a girl and tries to blame her will find no support in Old Testament law, or from me. I suspect (and hope) that most would agree with us.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [women partially blamed raped] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > women partially blamed if they are raped??? [125 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com