The student who cried "Rape!" so she could get an extension on homework

gaij - I've explained to you in chat before that social and cultural attitudes to women, sex and rape need to change. You obviously didn't listen so why the fuck should I hold your hand and spell it out for you now?

Cyberwulf wrote:

gaij - I've explained to you in chat before that social and cultural attitudes to women, sex and rape need to change. You obviously didn't listen so why the fuck should I hold your hand and spell it out for you now?

Cy--enlighten me, then? I admit I'm a bit confused here. What needs to change?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Oh thank god, there are intellient people here.

What fucking proof do you people want to named alledged rapist? A fucking video of the crime happening?

See, this is where your argument goes completely off the rails.

Here, where the Fifth Amendment right to Due Process of Law and the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" are the supreme law of the land, I don't believe that a person charged with a major felony should be identified unless:

1) They are a fugitive from the law, with a warrant out for their arrest or
2) An indictment or similar charging document has been issued by a Grand Jury or other similar body

At that point, they may avail themselves of the entire machinery of the criminal justice system. But prior to that, trying them in "court of public opinion" actually thwarts the principles of the system.

How can evidence be gathered without risk of contamination? How can witnesses be expected to avoid changing their testimony to fit the overall narrative being crafted in the media? How can an impartial jury be seated, when the media has sensationalized the crime to the point that everyone has formed an opinion?

Walking the fine line between justice and privacy is difficult. I will not dispute that point.

Why even disclose the name after the indictment, but before a conviction?

We seem do to well enough referring to every fifth victim as "Jane/John Doe," why not do the same for the accused. The name of the guy doesn't really matter, I wouldn't think it would hinder the prosecution from bringing evidence or making a case.

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Aggie wrote:

The mere act of investigating a crime doesn't mean that the accuser is being disbelieved;

No-one said that.

Quote :

and should not automatically get the benefit of the doubt simply for being women.

Instead they should be automatically suspected of lying. There's no way a rape victim would pick up on that from police officers and decide not to co-operate in case the cops decide to charge her for filing a false police report or anything.

No one said that either. Again, the mere fact that a crime is being investigated does not mean that the accuser is being disbelieved. If crimes cannot be proved beyond 'he said/she said', the law will have to err on the side of caution. I wouldn't particularly want to live in an environment where just being accused of a crime was enough evidence to convict you of it.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Women are equally as capable of lying about serious crimes as men are

Except that when men lie about rape, we're supposed to take them at face value because the lie is usually "I didn't do it".

Here's a radical thought: what if the man didn't actually do it? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

BUTBUTBUT penis make you evil, ergo they always did it!!! An if yous a man you should die because of being accused of rape.

..... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Bamshalam wrote:

Penguin wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Penguin: nice try. I know you're not being serious, my love, but your posts are reinforcing the notion that it should be women who have the responsibility of policing their bodies rather the responsibility of rapists not to rape.

Interesting take on it. I know who made those images (not personally, as in I know of him), Oleg Volk, and what he's trying to get at is that women shouldn't be denied the ability to defend themselves if it comes down to it. I wonder if anyone's told him that the images can come across that way.

While I can easily see and deeply agree with Zozo's point, I also see how the message of "fuck up those who are out to fuck you up" can be kind of empowering.

I've been mulling this one over today. I think the difference in perception probably stems from a different attitude about the concept of self-defense.

Yes, it would be great if rapists understood their responsibility not to rape, but they don't. That's what makes them rapists. If they had any respect whatsoever for the human being they're violating, they wouldn't do it.

I've seen plenty of vehemence on this forum about the attitudes and rationalizations society has when it comes to rape: The "she was asking for it" variety, "she's a whore/slut" variety, and so on. However, when addressing the attitudes mentioned above, I don't recall any regarding the oft-given advice -often from government officials- that if under a sexual assault, just "let it happen," "you'll only get hurt more if you struggle," or other similar lines about just giving up and hoping you survive.

Yes, all of that about society needs to change, but that doesn't just happen because it's the right thing and we really, really want it to happen.

Defending oneself is a fundamental right, a right that enables one to secure their other rights. A robber doesn't respect your right to keep your own property, a rapist doesn't respect your right to keep your own body, and a murderer doesn't respect your right to keep your own life. If you have the ability to exercise your right to self-defense, you have the ability to make their lack of respect for your life irrelevant because now they have to worry about their life, something with which they are infinitely more concerned. Brute force, whether it's in the form of a gun, a less-lethal device, or a well-placed kick, is always more effective than insisting that this shouldn't be happening because what the perp is doing is wrong.

Because it is wrong, they just don't care. They have to be given an immediate reason to care or suffer the consequences.

Penguin, I quite agree with you there. This is why, even with my utopian dream of a world without rape, I have taken self-defence classes. Thank fuck I've never actually needed them.

The thing is, that's not the only thing that needs to change. Education is necessary. Too many things are seen as "not rape-rape", even though they are rape. I'm less likely to be raped by a stranger leaping out of a bush than I am by some friend of a friend who has got me drunk and because I flirted with him, that means I consented to sex.

We have a long way to go. And self defence is an interim measure, not a solution.

Penguin, it's not good enough to say 'oh well rapists just rape and we can't help it' because there's WAAAY too many of them for that to fly. Rape happens under WAAAY too many different circumstances for that to fly. You need to teach teenage boys in particular that it is not appropriate to cajole or pester a girl for sex; that you don't have sex with drunk people; that you don't fill a girl with drink so that she'll be more receptive to your advances; that just because a girl makes out with you on your bed doesn't mean she's obliged to have sex with you. Because they aren't being taught that. And while a gun might work against the stranger in the bushes, who the hell is going to pull a gun on a friend, or a friend's brother, or anyone else they thought they could trust?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Why even disclose the name after the indictment, but before a conviction?

Because to secure an indictment, you have at least managed to prove that you have probable cause that the person named in the indictment (or charging document, if the matter is taken before a judge rather than a grand jury) is the culprit. It's a higher standard than "mere suspicion" or allegation, but not as high a standard as conviction.

Spotts1701 wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Oh thank god, there are intellient people here.

What fucking proof do you people want to named alledged rapist? A fucking video of the crime happening?

See, this is where your argument goes completely off the rails.

Here, where the Fifth Amendment right to Due Process of Law and the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" are the supreme law of the land, I don't believe that a person charged with a major felony should be identified unless:

1) They are a fugitive from the law, with a warrant out for their arrest or
2) An indictment or similar charging document has been issued by a Grand Jury or other similar body

At that point, they may avail themselves of the entire machinery of the criminal justice system. But prior to that, trying them in "court of public opinion" actually thwarts the principles of the system.

How can evidence be gathered without risk of contamination? How can witnesses be expected to avoid changing their testimony to fit the overall narrative being crafted in the media? How can an impartial jury be seated, when the media has sensationalized the crime to the point that everyone has formed an opinion?

Walking the fine line between justice and privacy is difficult. I will not dispute that point.

The issue is that keeping both parties anonymous completely defeats the any point of covering the crime in the first place. I'm with you on the fine line between privacy and justice, but I don't think it's particularly unjust to say that someone is a suspect in a crime if they're legally suspected of said crime.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Penguin, it's not good enough to say 'oh well
rapists just rape and we can't help it' because there's WAAAY too many
of them for that to fly. Rape happens under WAAAY too many different
circumstances for that to fly. You need to teach teenage boys in
particular that it is not appropriate to cajole or pester a girl for
sex; that you don't have sex with drunk people; that you don't fill a
girl with drink so that she'll be more receptive to your advances; that
just because a girl makes out with you on your bed doesn't mean she's
obliged to have sex with you. Because they aren't being taught that.
And while a gun might work against the stranger in the bushes, who the
hell is going to pull a gun on a friend, or a friend's brother, or
anyone else they thought they could trust?

OH MY GOD THANK YOU. A simple unit on what "no" means during sex ed would help a huge amount.

Cyberwulf wrote:

that you don't have sex with drunk people

Or maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, you take some responsibility for yourself and don't get hammered and consent to sex with everyone nearby.

Seriously, you are legally responsible for every other bad decision you make when you're drunk. If you aren't unconscious, you can consent.

On top of that, if both parties are wasted, did they rape each other simultaneously?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Seriously, you are legally responsible for every other bad decision you make when you're drunk. If you aren't unconscious, you can consent.

No, you can't.

If you are intoxicated, you are considered legally incompetent and thus unable to give consent to anything.

Yes it is true that if you are drunk and commit a criminal act, the fact that you are drunk is no defense to the underlying crime (it may reduce the severity of said crime - like premeditated murder to "depraved indifference" murder).

But if you are a victim of a crime, the fact that you were drunk does not permit the defense to argue that your condition somehow absolves the criminal of the act.

Bamshalam wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Penguin, it's not good enough to say 'oh well
rapists just rape and we can't help it' because there's WAAAY too many
of them for that to fly. Rape happens under WAAAY too many different
circumstances for that to fly. You need to teach teenage boys in
particular that it is not appropriate to cajole or pester a girl for
sex; that you don't have sex with drunk people; that you don't fill a
girl with drink so that she'll be more receptive to your advances; that
just because a girl makes out with you on your bed doesn't mean she's
obliged to have sex with you. Because they aren't being taught that.
And while a gun might work against the stranger in the bushes, who the
hell is going to pull a gun on a friend, or a friend's brother, or
anyone else they thought they could trust?

OH MY GOD THANK YOU. A simple unit on what "no" means during sex ed would help a huge amount.

If people can make it to adulthood without having learned what "no" means, I doubt they'd learn from a few minutes given to the topic in sex ed (a class where people are usually uncomfortable and defensive to begin with). I really doubt it's a problem with rapists being ignorant of what "no" means. They know, they just don't care.

Quote :

And while a gun might work against the stranger in the bushes, who the hell is going to pull a gun on a friend, or a friend's brother, or anyone else they thought they could trust?

You might be surprised how quickly that can change in a survival situation.

Penguin wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

A simple unit on what "no" means during sex ed would help a huge amount.

If people can make it to adulthood without having learned what "no" means, I doubt they'd learn from a few minutes given to the topic in sex ed (a class where people are usually uncomfortable and defensive to begin with). I really doubt it's a problem with rapists being ignorant of what "no" means. They know, they just don't care.

You're not the first guy I've seen with this attitude, and it's gotta stop, fellas, because you're all being very naive. Yes, some rapists are out to hurt and terrify and degrade. But others have picked up the idea that "no" is an obstacle to be overcome - through pestering or plying a woman with various substances - because women "play hard to get". Some have picked up the idea that it's okay to verbally abuse a woman (by calling her frigid and a cocktease) if she gives them a boner and then backs off before the main event. Some have picked up the ideas that if a woman dresses like that or is in that place or goes to the guy's room with him that she must want sex. They didn't lick these ideas off the ground, they learned them somewhere. We have to teach them better.

It's not so much teaching guys what "no" means, it's teaching them to respect girls' boundaries. It's teaching them that instead of listening out for "no", they should be listening out for "yes". And that "yes" has to be freely given; it can't be coerced or hassled out of a woman.

Quote :

Quote :

And while a gun might work against the stranger in the bushes, who the hell is going to pull a gun on a friend, or a friend's brother, or anyone else they thought they could trust?

You might be surprised how quickly that can change in a survival situation.

Come on, Penguin. Who brings a gun to a friend's party? Or a family reunion? Or any place where you know you've got a ride back and/or it won't be dark? Who keeps their gun on them when they're at home with their boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse/roommate?

There's no point teaching your daughter how to aim and fire a gun and thinking she'll never be raped, because as long as other people don't teach their sons to respect women's boundaries, she won't be safe. That's not to say there's no value in it - you can still teach her if you feel it's a necessary life skill - but arming women won't stop rape. Teaching men better will have a much greater impact on the number of rapes committed every year.

Bamshalam wrote:

Quote :

Quote :

And while a gun might work against the stranger in the bushes, who the hell is going to pull a gun on a friend, or a friend's brother, or anyone else they thought they could trust?

You might be surprised how quickly that can change in a survival situation.

Come on, Penguin. Who brings a gun to a friend's party? Or a family reunion? Or any place where you know you've got a ride back and/or it won't be dark? Who keeps their gun on them when they're at home with their boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse/roommate?

There's no point teaching your daughter how to aim and fire a gun and thinking she'll never be raped, because as long as other people don't teach their sons to respect women's boundaries, she won't be safe. That's not to say there's no value in it - you can still teach her if you feel it's a necessary life skill - but arming women won't stop rape. Teaching men better will have a much greater impact on the number of rapes committed every year.

What about both? Teaching men to respect women's boundaries because if they don't they'll meet her dear friend, Mr. Gun/ Mr. Taser/ Mr. Pepper Spray? I've noticed that pain is a very good incentive not to do things.

That would help only in cases where someone is happy to bring pepper spray or a taser to a party or other social event but feels a gun is too much, and if that person is willing to tase or spray a friend of a friend or an old flame but not to shoot them.

Fear of ostracisation is also a very good incentive not to do things, and very few women would like to deal with the fallout that would come from spraying an acquaintance. The fallout from saying 'no' would be considerably less, but if the man ignores that and leaves the spray as the only option, what can she do?

Cyberwulf wrote:

There's no point teaching your daughter how to aim and fire a gun and thinking she'll never be raped, because as long as other people don't teach their sons to respect women's boundaries, she won't be safe. That's not to say there's no value in it - you can still teach her if you feel it's a necessary life skill - but arming women won't stop rape. Teaching men better will have a much greater impact on the number of rapes committed every year.

I think both sides have to be undertaken until societal attitudes change significantly. I think there should be some solid "no" education conducted in sex ed classes, but as it is, sex ed classes in just about every school out here are abstinence-only, there's no real "sex" education going on beyond "don't do it." To teach boys/young men about boundaries and "no" and changing attitudes in that respect is going to require that the educational standards admit that sex is, if not a current reality for these students, then a very near one. Guys need to hear--from an earlier age, say, junior high--that they have to respect the no as it is and not fall back on pressure techniques and the like, and girls need to hear that the "stranger danger" crap they've been getting fed since kindergarten is bullshit.

While this shift is taking place, I'm all for self-defense classes for women, because honestly, the above is going to take a LOT of time to happen. I liked the ones I used to help teach that emphasized protecting yourself period. Not just strangers, but anyone that's setting off your radar, anyone who's not taking a hint, anyone who isn't taking no for a damn answer, regardless of relationship to you. I know the ones the dojo teaches for the local all-girls high school spends a fair amount of time on dealing with relationships. I know I've felt more threatened by guys I knew than guys I didn't, and I can tell you, on at least one occasion, it's been nice to have that training waiting in the wings when "go to hell" isn't getting across.

I'd love for society to actually shift its thinking in this area, but it's going to take time and consistent effort in applying realistic education at far earlier ages than we already do. We can't wait until high school for this stuff. And until things change considerably, then yeah, I'm all for protecting myself.

My sex ed class- or maybe it was my teacher only- definitely went over the "No" thing for everyone quite a few times. No means no, respect that and back off when you hear it. On the other side of the fence, No means no, so don't utter no when you mean to utter yes.

I can't comment on effectiveness, but it happened and I certainly saw it as a positive thing.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Seriously, you are legally responsible for every other bad decision you make when you're drunk. If you aren't unconscious, you can consent.

No, you can't.

If you are intoxicated, you are considered legally incompetent and thus unable to give consent to anything.

Yes it is true that if you are drunk and commit a criminal act, the fact that you are drunk is no defense to the underlying crime (it may reduce the severity of said crime - like premeditated murder to "depraved indifference" murder).

But if you are a victim of a crime, the fact that you were drunk does not permit the defense to argue that your condition somehow absolves the criminal of the act.

So you have no responsibility for what you voluntarily put into your body and what stupid shit it ends in you doing? Awesome.

That still doesn't answer what happens when two drunk people have sex. Is that double rape?

Also note that I'm not saying the victim being drunk excuses actual rape. I'm saying that there's no rational justification for why it's automatically rape if one party is inebriated.

Verandering wrote:

On the other side of the fence, No means no, so don't utter no when you mean to utter yes.

Except when there's a safeword in place. Then don't utter purple fuzzy elephant when you mean to utter no. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

We need to teach what 'no' means because there are still too many places where no means no unless s/he's your S/O. Or where no means keep pushing the person because "S/he doesn't look like they really mean no." Or where no means get them drunk enough the person can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. And there are definitely too many people who think that because someone agreed to one thing, be it a kiss or oral sex, that it means they've agreed to the whole shebang, regardless of subsequent no's.

Verandering, what country were you in, then? I can't imagine anywhere in the states covering that. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

edit: banana is a much better safe-word. You can say it around a gag. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Unless you're the kind of person who uses really bad euphemisms.

rae wrote:

Verandering, what country were you in, then? I can't imagine anywhere in the states covering that. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

We got that at my school. But then my school was pretty awesome.

Blooferlady wrote:

rae wrote:

Verandering, what country were you in, then? I can't imagine anywhere in the states covering that. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

We got that at my school. But then my school was pretty awesome.

Yup, but nobody actually took it seriously. Which was kind of a shame.

Also, it's a pretty liberal area, so y'know. Way different once you go under the mason-dixon.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Seriously, you are legally responsible for every other bad decision you make when you're drunk. If you aren't unconscious, you can consent.

No, you can't.

If you are intoxicated, you are considered legally incompetent and thus unable to give consent to anything.

Yes it is true that if you are drunk and commit a criminal act, the fact that you are drunk is no defense to the underlying crime (it may reduce the severity of said crime - like premeditated murder to "depraved indifference" murder).

But if you are a victim of a crime, the fact that you were drunk does not permit the defense to argue that your condition somehow absolves the criminal of the act.

So you have no responsibility for what you voluntarily put into your body and what stupid shit it ends in you doing? Awesome.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's like I'm explaining quantum mechanics to a goldfish.