Rape victim is coveted status - George Wills

[Veliko]

You can change your mind, but be obvious and not vague about it. You change you mind but you let the other party have sex with you. Are men mind readers if you keep it to yourself you are not interested and do nothing to stop sex?

Have you ever actually spoken to a woman? What bizarre scenario are you imagining here?

I edited my post above to make more sense, you obviously didn't watch the video I linked to get a better understanding. I only say this as your posting has me think this.

Are you taking the position that if its a women, actions have no consequences? Only men can suffer the consequences of their actions?

No, I'm taking the position that if a man rapes a women then it's the man's fault entirely.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Another Republican said what (WHAT ?!?) about rape?

 

[justoh]

pengoau is a funny name for a toaster.

 

[pengoau]

Have you ever actually spoken to a woman? What bizarre scenario are you imagining here?

The scenario that actually happened? http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36435471&postcount=3

No, I'm taking the position that if a man rapes a women then it's the man's fault entirely.

We are obviously not going to agree. ALL people regardless of gender have to take responsibility for themselves and not assume others will do the right thing. Lest they find out the hard way.

What is personal responsibility in this case? Define the boundaries, make it clear what you want or don't want. Don't assume the other party is not an "ass" and just knows. Guess what the other party's boundaries may be different to yours.

FWIW I have a sister and she is a legal sw and I don't live in the USA. So I guess its a cultural thing and I have an interesting perspective?

If the dude knew what the boundaries are and proceeded anyway, then definitely its his fault 100%.

 

[justoh]

FWIW I have a sister and she is a sw...

Does your sister know that you're pro-rape?

 

[Veliko]

The scenario that actually happened? http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36435471&postcount=3

I see nothing about the case in the OP that suggests the woman was giving out 'mixed signals'.

We are obviously not going to agree. ALL people regardless of gender have to take responsibility for themselves and not assume others will do the right thing. Lest they find out the hard way.

What is personal responsibility in this case? Define the boundaries, make it clear what you want or don't want. Don't assume the other party is not an "ass" and just knows. Guess what the other party's boundaries may be different to yours.

FWIW I have a sister and she is a legal sw and I don't live in the USA. So I guess its a cultural thing and I have an interesting perspective?

Your perspective is akin to how rape was viewed in the 19th century.

 

[pengoau]

Not pro rape.

So your not confused by her "mixed signals" she put out when she said no but later gave no no verbal consent either way, allowed the man to undress her and proceed?

This is what I see as putting out mixed signals. You say no, but then don't say no and then let him have sex with you. Wtf?

 

[Veliko]

No, I'm not confused, but you seem to be; at no point did she say or indicate 'yes'.

 

[justoh]

Not pro rape.

So your not confused by her "mixed signals" she put out when she said no but later said "yes" by no verbal consent either way and allowed the man to have sex with her?

This is what I see as putting out mixed signals. You say no, but then don't say no and then let him have sex with you. Wtf?

You guys are on opposite extremes.

He's influenced by the hypersensitivity referenced in the article, ignoring recognized conceptions in law such as the difference between consent via expression vs consent via attitude or circumstances by which a reasonable person might understand manifested consent in sexual assault or lesser degrees of rape not requiring force or threat of force.

You're influenced by some terrible pathological illness.

 

[pengoau]

Like I said, never assume unless you hear "yes".

You are expected to be a mind reader and just know that she has changed her mind or not in her head?

There was no indication that sex was still unwanted, so he proceeded.

If you don't want sex, don't let someone take off your panties and well enter you. Is this to much to ask? I guess so.

I haven't sexually assaulted anybody/run foul of the law, so I can only go off my personal experience at the end of the day. If you respect women, you wouldn't compromise either yourself or them.

You're influenced by some terrible pathological illness.

Its interesting you say that as I suffer from ptsd as a result of sexual abuse in my childhood. Its definitely influences how I see and approach sex.

 

[nehalem256]

I see nothing about the case in the OP that suggests the woman was giving out 'mixed signals'.

You mean other than jumping into bed with a guy she had been having a sexual relationship with for the past 3 months?

You mean other than letting him undress her without a single complaint?

Your perspective is akin to how rape was viewed in the 19th century.

So what you are saying is that society actually had a higher opinion of women in the 19th century than presently?

 

[Veliko]

You mean other than jumping into bed with a guy she had been having a sexual relationship with for the past 3 months?

You mean other than letting him undress her without a single complaint?

So what you are saying is that society actually had a higher opinion of women in the 19th century than presently?

Look for the derp necessities
The simple derp necessities

 

[pengoau]

You mean other than jumping into bed with a guy she had been having a sexual relationship with for the past 3 months?

You mean other than letting him undress her without a single complaint?



So what you are saying is that society actually had a higher opinion of women in the 19th century than presently?

Women aren't responsible for themselves or their actions. Women can't think for themselves.

Women don't make poor choices, if they do its all mans fault; see above. /sarcasm

Doing the right thing only applies to men, not women.

Otherwise....

It is no until you hear them saying yes, regardless of what they let you do.

 

[shira]

Sounds like you're using the term "wrong" in place of "right." He used the word "rape."

So, if there are two states, and they both define having sex with a person without their consent as a 2nd- or 3rd-degreee felony, but one state calls it "2nd-degree rape" or "3rd-degree rape" while the other state calls it "sexual assault" (or some other name), then this is a big victory for the rape-apologist crowd?

Got it.

 

[justoh]

So, if there are two states, and they both define having sex with a person without their consent as a 2nd- or 3rd-degreee felony, but one state calls it "2nd-degree rape" or "3rd-degree rape" while the other state calls it "sexual assault" (or some other name), then this is a big victory for the rape-apologist crowd?

Got it.

Pa is pa

 

[shira]

Pa is pa

Your post is far too witty for me. Please make your point in language that those of us of merely average intellect can understand.

 

[justoh]

Your post is far too witty for me. Please make your point in language that those of us of merely average intellect can understand.

Just re-read the posts. And believe in yourself

 

[shira]

Just re-read the posts. And believe in yourself

You're still too witty and intelligent. Please translate.

 

[justoh]

You continue to insist that "rape" means being physically overpowered, or being threatened with death or severe bodily harm to force compliance, and then to be sexually penetrated against the person's will.

So you mean pretty much the definition of rape defined by the Pennsylvania legislature?

You're misinformed. Educate yourself.

...

 

[momeNt]

Let's not forget that Pennsylvania reveres it's famed child rapist Jerry Sandusky and famed child rape facilitator and who knows, maybe a rapist and molester in his own right, Joe Paterno.

So we should take this rape law with a grain of salt, and not vindicate the man's actions in the Swarthmore incident too hastily.

 

[justoh]

Let's not forget that Pennsylvania reveres it's famed child rapist Jerry Sandusky and famed child rape facilitator and who knows, maybe a rapist and molester in his own right, Joe Paterno.

So we should take this rape law with a grain of salt, and not vindicate the man's actions in the Swarthmore incident too hastily.

Let's also not judge people too hastily. Let's also not use verbs instead of possessive pronouns where appropriate.

 

[pengoau]

A child can't give consent, they can be manipulated to say yes. So just saying yes isn't enough. They need also be old enough to know etc.

Non stat rape I guess to put it simply is where one party has sex with another without their consent.

I'm curious to know if I got this wrong and hear from others, what their definition of rape is.

 

[Knowing]

Equality in the year 2014

The difficulty of defining incapacitation and consent was underscored last week when Dean Wasilolek took the stand. Rachel B. Hitch, a Raleigh attorney representing McLeod, asked Wasiolek what would happen if two students got drunk to the point of incapacity, and then had sex.
"They have raped each other and are subject to explusion?" Hitch asked.
"Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex," said Wasiolek.

Source

All men are potential rapists, all women are potential rape victims. All men are exclusively responsible for determining whether consent was given and remains in effect (has not been later revoked), and women lose all agency when a penis is in their proximity. (proximity is appropriately vague, definitively it depends on what would give the greatest benefit to the woman in question)

Authors note: it is not a requirement that the penis is real

 

[justoh]

Equality in the year 2014


Source

All men are potential rapists, all women are potential rape victims. All men are exclusively responsible for determining whether consent was given and remains in effect (has not been later revoked), and women lose all agency when a penis is in their proximity. (proximity is appropriately vague, definitively it depends on what would give the greatest benefit to the woman in question)

Authors note: it is not a requirement that the penis is real

That's why you have posters in the men's bathroom of university campuses warning them that "if she's been drinking she can't consent." Wonder what percentage of first-time sexual encounters in college are technically rapes, considering the prevalence of drinking as a social lubricant on first (and subsequent, for that matter) dates.

 

[shira]

...

To which YOU replied that Nehalem was right, and to which I replied that - no - he (and YOU) are incorrect.

Or is it your opinion that if the woman had used the phrase "sexually assaulted," which is also well defined by the PA legislature - which, for whatever reason, preferred that terminology to "2nd-degree rape", then all of the sturm und drang about "I let him have sex with me" and saying "no" only once would evaporate and everyone would be agreeing that a sex crime had likely been committed?

Little minds can't get beyond terminology; deeper minds discuss ideas.