The Gaming Den

Kaelik wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote:It shouldn't be, and it shouldn't be legally defensible. Implied consent is bullshit, and why marital rape was legal for so long (and is still hard to prosecute). If you don't KNOW the person you're with wants to fuck, because they have TOLD you so, you shouldn't be fucking them. Period.

No. You are dumb. People have mouths. This means that they are capable of telling you to not have sex with them.

If you think women haven't been fucked by men they didn't want to do that, even though they remained silent, you are an idiot. There are any number of reasons a woman might be flat-out afraid to say no, but that does not mean they are A-ok with guys doing whatever they want.

The onus should not be on a person to vehemently deny consent. The onus should be on the one initiating sex to make sure it's consensual.

This is made even more plain when you look at nonverbal communication; when the woman tries to stop you from tearing her clothes off (as she says occurred) and tries to reach for a condom but you pin her arms (as she said Assange did), it is pretty clear she doesn't want you to continue. If you need to hear a verbal "please stop" before you get the idea, you shouldn't be having sex with anyone but your hand.

If you are out with your girlfriend to celebrate your anniversary, and you both go home, and make out in the same fucking bed, and take off all your clothes, you don't need to ask, because she can actually say no.

How is that situation even comparable? They weren't committed partners in any kind of relationship. She didn't voluntarily undress. WTF?

But let's be clear, you can genuinely have sex with conscious people without asking them a specific question because of implied consent.

Sure you can. I just feel you shouldn't, and if you do and the other person says they were raped, you should not be surprised, because you may in fact have raped them. If you can't take a second to say "want to?" or "should I keep going?", you're an asshole.

Kaelik wrote:Those are two different people. One of them is alleging she woke up to a dick in her. That's the "surprise sex." And if true, and there are no other factors whatsoever (expressed consent the night before, she's lying, he asked her while she was groggy and she said yes, so he thought she consented even though she didn't, ect.) that's an issue.

It's an issue regardless of factors...because if there are factors that in any way cloud clear consent, you shouldn't have sex. It's the same as if a woman says yes but appears to be drunk; should you say "score!" and go for it, even though she might not be truly consenting? No. As PL already said, it doesn't MATTER if she consented the night before, one instance of consent does not equal a free pass forever (or even the rest of the night).
I note you also mentioned "she's lying", which is possible, but also negates the "if true" aspect, so it's a moot point.

But the other one, condom broke girl, is a fucking joke.

You are a shit excuse for a man, and attitudes like this are why there is too much rape in the world.

The condom broke, she didn't tell him to stop, and she admits that she didn't tell him to stop, and then she consents to sex without a condom.

Where is this? I haven't seen it in any of the news reports, that she didn't tell him to stop and agreed to sex without a condom.

So, yeah. Not mindreading is not a crime. Yes, if you want to withdraw consent (Zine) or not grant consent to someone with implied consent (Newb) you really do need to say something.

There is no reason to pretend people who can talk can't talk. If you want to claim rape, you should fucking point to some point where someone said no. No mean no. But you know what, if you don't ever say no, it's not someone else's fault.

Seriously, wtf, you claim to be worried about women being pressured to not say no, how the fuck is that different from being pressured to say yes. If they are unwilling to say no, that's their problem.

It sucks when rape occurs, but no one will ever be convicted of rape if you could have said no, but didn't, and then complain that they should have known you didn't want sex. So if you want to call something rape, first fucking say no.

Actually, another thing to consider about Sweden (from Washington Post):

In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it.

"I am proud to live in a country where rape and assault are considered to be serious crimes," Swedish feminist Johanna Palmström told me. But "even if we have good laws, it still happens too often that people who report rape are questioned and slandered - we see that now with the women who have reported Julian Assange."

Indeed, better laws do not always mean justice for victims. Only 20 percent of the rape cases reported in Sweden in 2008 resulted in a court trial. A 2010 report by Amnesty International notes that acquaintance rape in Sweden is on the rise and that victim-blaming is just as alive there as in the United States: "Young and intoxicated women in particular had problems fulfilling the stereotypical role of the 'innocent victim.' As a result, neither rapes within intimate relationships nor 'date rapes' involving teenage girls generally led to legal action."

Precisely because of all the cases of rape wherein the women are villified, there's already a move to make a new Swedish law wherein the burden of proof rests with the guy.

If the man cannot prove he got consent prior to the act, he's going to be guilty of rape.

So unless you've signed a contract or videotaped her saying "Yes", don't sleep with Swedish women. They're really fucking serious about this issue.

Yeah, guilty until proven innocent, unless you have airtight evidence in a 100% he said/she said case makes sense.

Seriously, I have no idea how it's even possible to prove that. Apparently, all the woman has to do is say "I signed that form/said yes in that videotape because I was being influenced" and unless he has beyond a reasonable doubt proof that this is not the case, it would still be rape.

That law will never get passed, because people are at least mildly sane in sweden.

If it did get passed, I would just counter with "Nope, she raped me. Oh what, she doesn't have proof that she didn't, fuck, guess you have to arrest us both, because you have a fucked up system."

I doubt that would work, Kaelik. Men rape women, men rape men, and a few women rape women, but women never rape men, and the law probably reflects that.

Www.meninpain.com
Ok its an porn site and its not about rape.
But at least it shows there are people with fantasies about females hurting males...

So I would say, the above Statement is a little to absolute for me.

In Soviet Russia, woman rapes man.

Seriously, women do rape men. It's a minority of rape cases, and the conviction rate is even lower than it is for men raping women, but it does happen. To actually get a conviction, it usually requires something really amazing - like the burglar above who spent 3 days tied to a chair after being beaten with a shotgun. And you'll note that even then, peoples' first reaction is to wonder whether it was consensual on his part.

But yes, men end up getting put in sexual situations against their will by women all the time. It's less than the other way around, but it's not as one-sided as society pretends.

-Username17

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I doubt that would work, Kaelik. Men rape women, men rape men, and a few women rape women, but women never rape men, and the law probably reflects that.

I don't know whether you are sack of crap, or you mean "women never get convicted of raping men."

Because guess what, men get raped. It happens. No one ever reports it, because the stigma is worse than for women, and no one believes them if they do, but just because most go unreported, and few ever see a conviction, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

You sexist sack of crap.

Yeah. Let's all ignore the fact that the women are the victims of sexual assault the vast majority of time just because Carthaz made an absolutist gaff.

So for the sake of that burglar who got raped in Russia we should aim to ignore calls by women to make it easier to prosecute rapists.

It's much more fun to engage in stupid hyperboles than to take a pretty grim issue seriously after all.

Zinegata who, show me who, said we should ignore raped females.
To much hyperbole (does that word mean what I think it means? Whatever...)

Korwin wrote:Zinegata who, show me who, said we should ignore raped females.
To much hyperbole (does that word mean what I think it means? Whatever...)

If you thought the statement was directed at you or Frank, then you're being an idiot.

Read what Carthaz was actually replying to instead, and ignore his absolutist gaff. And check out who's throwing out big words like "sexist sack of crap".

Figure out the context before getting all butthurt will ya?

Zine, you don't even make sense in context. I pointed out that guilty until proven innocent is a shitty legal system, and Carthaz tried to claim that a sweet ass defense against any accusation in such a system (counter accusation) wouldn't work because it's only possible for one gender to commit the crime in question.

That's some fucked up shit, and it was the only content in his post. "Innocent until proven guilty > Guilty until proven innocent" is not something crazy that we can just assume is me being a dumbass. "Only one gender can commit that crime" is.

That's exactly like me saying that guilty until proven innocent is a bag idea for embezzlement charges by pointing out that I could just accuse my partner of embezzling if he catches me, and then Carthaz countered with "But your partner is black, and only white people can embezzle."

It's that fucking stupid. It has all the same parallels of disadvantaged group vs not, of white people more often embezzling than black people for various reasons relating to their capability to do so.

Whining that pointing out that women can rape = ignoring raped females is exactly the kind of bullshit that Korwin is objecting to.

I don't know, Zine. His post seemed pretty concise to me. No hyperbole. He didn't say what you say he said.

Keilik, even if 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 rapes are committed by women against men, my point still stands. There's no chance that any woman is going to be successfully charged with raping a man when the man has been charged with raping that woman.

Even if it did happen, chances are pretty good that it would be just another sexist society making a victimized woman out to be the guilty party again.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Keilik, even if 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 rapes are committed by women against men, my point still stands. There's no chance that any woman is going to be successfully charged with raping a man when the man has been charged with raping that woman.

Even if it did happen, chances are pretty good that it would be just another sexist society making a victimized woman out to be the guilty party again.

See there you go again.

More than 1 in a trillion rapes are committed by women. Women rape men much more than you think, and much more than you are willing to admit for political reasons. If your politics require you to deny reality, your politics are stupid, and so are you.

As I said, "I don't know whether you are sack of crap, or you mean "women never get convicted of raping men.""

I fully agree that women don't get convicted of raping men, right now. But if they are guilty until proven innocent, then they are guilty, because it is impossible to prove innocence of the crime of rape. So unless you write sexism right into the laws, you will get a whole bunch of convictions.

Chances are, as Frank showed, if a women gets convicted of rape, she raped the man several billion times worse than anything that Assange has even been accused of.

Every single damn guy who didn't want to have sex without a condom, because he didn't want to have kids, but the woman started engaging in sex and then refused to have sex with a condom because she wanted to get pregnant, or sabotaged a condom, or claimed to be on birth control when she isn't?

So that's rape when a man does it to a woman, even if she never says no, but suddenly it's not rape when a woman does it to a man? Why exactly? Oh right, because for political reasons you want to make rape a political tool to be wielded against the patriarchy, instead of just classifying it as a crime, and punishing perpetrators to protect victims.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Keilik, even if 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 rapes are committed by women against men

Thats like saying that spousal abuse only happens with men hitting women and that women never beat men. Never mind that actually 40% of domestic abuse involves violence towards the man.

No idea where they got the statistics, but this site says that 2-3% of reported rapes are by women, although that probably includes statutory rape and female on female rape. However there are examples of it happening around the world. Raped men will be a whole lot less likely to report since even more than women they will be accused of asking for it or wanting it.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:There's no chance that any woman is going to be successfully charged with raping a man when the man has been charged with raping that woman.

Even if it did happen, chances are pretty good that it would be just another sexist society making a victimized woman out to be the guilty party again.

Sooo... you're saying that the best defence for a female rapist is to immediately go to the police and charge the victim with rape? And because it would be sexist for the actual rapist to be charged theres no way the rapist could be brought to justice?

---

To be honest I'm not even sure why I'm getting into this discussion since even if he raped babies and kittens it doesn't change wikileaks or that Manning is being tortured right now.

Parthenon wrote:To be honest I'm not even sure why I'm getting into this discussion since even if he raped babies and kittens it doesn't change wikileaks or that Manning is being tortured right now.

Indeed...as long as people ask the wrong questions, the people at the top don't have to care about the answers.

Manning is the one that is getting fucked the hardest out of this. AFAIK, wikileaks STILL hasn't paid the money they raised on his behalf to his defence fund.

RobbyPants wrote:I don't know, Zine. His post seemed pretty concise to me. No hyperbole. He didn't say what you say he said.

I see. Calling Carthaz a "sexist sack of crap" is totally fine just because he made a pretty trivial absolutist gaff.

And Kaelik never got all butthurt about other people calling him sexist before over something as dumbfuck trivial. No sir, that never happened!

But no. Kaelik never makes hyperboles. No sir!

-----

Moreover, context, as you again miss it completely:

The context is that I was discussing possible ways to help women actually convict guys who rape them. Kaelik's response to the solution was actually "Guilty before proven innocent is a bad standard"

Which actually isn't an bad answer.

But when the discussion turns entirely on "Rape is woman on man too!" (which was an example) just because Carthaz made an absolutist gaff, then I am well within my rights to call this bullshit out as muddling what's a pretty serious issue.

Fuck it. PR is right. Just give every woman with a gun. And in the interim let's rename this thread "Women rape men too!"

Zinegata, you have used the words "absolutist gaff" several times now to describe what Carthaz said.

Carthaz never said that it was a gaff, the closest he made was a correction from "literally impossible" to "one in a trillion" which is just as fucking bullshit.

It is not an "absolutist gaff" it is symptomatic of the larger problem that he is so politically committed to taking down the patriarchy that he thinks having sex without specifically asking first is rape if a man does it, but that women can't and don't rape men except when they tie them to a chair for 3 days.

Carthaz even came out and said that women convicted of rape would only be convicted because of the evil patriarchy attacking them.

You don't get to declare what he says a mistake, he can say it was a mistake, but since he hasn't yet done that, and has specifically reiterated his sexism since then, you are wasting everyone's time.

Yeah... Carthaz is apparently some nutjob committed to taking down the patriarchy... because he's pointing out that woman on man rape is pretty rare and that the real major problem in society nowadays is man on woman rape.

But noo... you choose to home in on throwaway statements and go RAR instead.

Really Kaelik. As someone who was repeatedly unjustly called sexist over something as dumbuck trivial, you should know better than to pretend you have mindreading skills.

Rape is really a uniquely male crime. Looking at the US alone, women aren't raped in nearly the numbers men are, by a huge amount. "Prison rape" isn't just a joke, and it is responsible for men being raped at approximately twice the rate women are in the states.

Women are really the least qualified people to talk about rape - unless you want to say that men don't count as much or people in prison deserve to be raped and abused. Of course both genders suffer from rape, but women are nowhere near being the people who suffer the most from it.

Vnonymous wrote:Rape is really a uniquely male crime. Looking at the US alone, women aren't raped in nearly the numbers men are, by a huge amount. "Prison rape" isn't just a joke, and it is responsible for men being raped at approximately twice the rate women are in the states.

Women are really the least qualified people to talk about rape - unless you want to say that men don't count as much or people in prison deserve to be raped and abused. Of course both genders suffer from rape, but women are nowhere near being the people who suffer the most from it.

What the fuck are you talking about? Only about 10% of ALL rapes (including prison rapes) in the US are of men (nearly always by men). Women are raped in overwhelmingly larger numbers than men. This is not even contested by any serious study I've ever seen (unless you have one you want to share?).

I don't say men don't count, and I don't believe men in prison deserve rape...but until 1 in every 6 men in the country is likely to be raped, you need to shut the fuck up about how women aren't qualified to talk about rape. That is some serious misogynistic shit.

EDIT: here:

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

PoliteNewb wrote:

Vnonymous wrote:Rape is really a uniquely male crime. Looking at the US alone, women aren't raped in nearly the numbers men are, by a huge amount. "Prison rape" isn't just a joke, and it is responsible for men being raped at approximately twice the rate women are in the states.

Women are really the least qualified people to talk about rape - unless you want to say that men don't count as much or people in prison deserve to be raped and abused. Of course both genders suffer from rape, but women are nowhere near being the people who suffer the most from it.

What the fuck are you talking about? Only about 10% of ALL rapes (including prison rapes) in the US are of men (nearly always by men). Women are raped in overwhelmingly larger numbers than men. This is not even contested by any serious study I've ever seen (unless you have one you want to share?).

I don't say men don't count, and I don't believe men in prison deserve rape...but until 1 in every 6 men in the country is likely to be raped, you need to shut the fuck up about how women aren't qualified to talk about rape. That is some serious misogynistic shit.

EDIT: here:

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

Your statistics indicate that fewer men are raped then women, but they do not indicate that women are victims of rape more often than men.

CatharzGodfoot wrote: Your statistics indicate that fewer men are raped then women, but they do not indicate that women are victims of rape more often than men.

I'm not a mathematician or a statistician, I freely admit that. But I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I linked to the main page; did you try clicking once, on the link for "victim statistics"? It has some stuff like:

RAINN website wrote: 9 out of every 10 rape victims was female in 2003. (and incidentally, that ratio is standard in every study I've seen)

17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.
2.78 million men in the USA have been victims of sexual assault or rape.

So: if a vast majority of rape victims are female, several times as many females as males are raped every year, and a much higher percentage of females than males are likely to be raped...how could men possibly be raped more often?