I am all for a system of definitions that make accidental rape logically impossible.
We could have second-degree rape.
Or rapeslaughter.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ResIpsaLoquiturNot a grammar nazi, just alt-write.Registered Userregular
Well, how about we look at the situation you describe.
A guy is not being explicitly threatening. Maybe he is just an imposing guy. He wants to have sex with a girl, but she doesn't really want to. If he knew she didn't want to, he wouldn't push it or react badly.
However, the girl is afraid of the imposing guy, mistakenly. Perhaps his assertive body language bothers her, maybe she's really timid or has had bad experiences in the past, whatever. She's afraid to say no or explicitly refuse.
The guy initiates sex. He's a nice guy so he's not aggressive or pushy; she submits because she is scared. She thinks she's being raped, he thinks he's having sex (and possibly with a cold fish of a woman).
This situation is extremely unlikely. Most guys who are not assholes or idiots can read a girl better than that; they will see that she is uncomfortable and will not push it. There is a major difference between playing hard to get and being too scared to say no.
If the situation did arise, however, neither party is really in the wrong; it is a misunderstanding. It's a very bad scene. The guy suffers from the stigma of being a rapist though he did nothing really wrong; the girl suffers the mental trauma of being raped even though there was no malicious intent behind it.
I wouldn't call that rape, but I would call it a clusterfuck. I would also call it exceedingly rare.
What you describe is a classic Law School hypothetical. I know a call to go read this, that, or the other book is often a poor debate tactic meant to halt conversation on a topic, but in this case, I really don't mean it to be: I strongly suggest everyone find the time to hunt down a First-Year Criminal Law textbook and read the section on Rape. They get into many of the issues we've been discussing and the cases they use as examples are these types of really close calls.
It's shifting the topic a little, but perhaps one of the issues is that we're thinking in terms of what we're used to. Standard grammar for a simple sentence is [actor] [action] [acted upon], right? In the same way, we think [actor] [crime] [victim], or more specifically [rapist] [rape] [victim]. Could it be said, in the hypothetical Evil Multi offers above, that there was a rape but no rapist? If so, does that help us in defining the grey area between rape and not-rape?
ResIpsaLoquitur on
League of Legends: MichaelDominick; Blizzard(NA): MichaelD#11402; Steam ID: MichaelDominick
What we really need to focus on is increasing the report rate. You can't prosecute a crime that hasn't been reported. In the meantime, we need to not broadcast the names of those accused of sex-related crimes until they've been convicted, which is probably difficult.
I don't think it would be difficult. We already do that in juvenile cases.
I just think all investigations and trials done for sex crimes should be kept behind closed doors as much as possible until after they're over. I haven't yet found somebody who can give me any argument why this should not be the case.
The problem is that I imagine in cases where the victim genuinely believed that the accused was the rapist, or even just persistently asserted it vocally, you would wind up with the victim or her friends spreading the guy's name around to get even with him. I mean, if I believed to the core of my being that some had raped my daughter and got off scott-free? You bet your ass I would be spreading his name around. Because fuck that guy.
Wouldn't that be slander? They're accusing somebody of a crime he wasn't convicted of.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What you describe is a classic Law School hypothetical. I know a call to go read this, that, or the other book is often a poor debate tactic meant to halt conversation on a topic, but in this case, I really don't mean it to be: I strongly suggest everyone find the time to hunt down a First-Year Criminal Law textbook and read the section on Rape. They get into many of the issues we've been discussing and the cases they use as examples are these types of really close calls.
I wish they'd covered that in my psych and law classes.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
ResIpsaLoquiturNot a grammar nazi, just alt-write.Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
As a side note, I'm surprised that statutory rape hasn't split off as a side topic, because many of the same issues are involved, at least with regard to what has been coined "accidental" rape.
If I'm over the age of consent, and I sleep with a girl under the age of consent, it doesn't matter if she looks 30, shows me 5 ID's saying she's 30, does a fingerprint scan with a federal database attesting to the same, and everyone at the bar tells me she comes there all the time and is 30 years old; if she's under the age of consent, no matter what, that's statutory rape.
ResIpsaLoquitur on
League of Legends: MichaelDominick; Blizzard(NA): MichaelD#11402; Steam ID: MichaelDominick
Could it be said, in the hypothetical Evil Multi offers above, that there was a rape but no rapist? If so, does that help us in defining the grey area between rape and not-rape?
It could be said, but I'm not sure it'd make any sense. Now we've created a situation by which rape just happens to someone, with no one to blame. It puts it on equal footing with being shat upon by a bird: unfortunate, but "just one of those things," and I certainly do not think we should be reducing the definition of rape down to that.
I think a good way to go from here would be to just admit that a series of things need to all be true if one is to be said to have been raped. Certainly one of those things should be clearly expressed disagreement on the part of the alleged victim. One of those things needs to be the intent of the alleged rapist, also.
Could it be said, in the hypothetical Evil Multi offers above, that there was a rape but no rapist? If so, does that help us in defining the grey area between rape and not-rape?
It could be said, but I'm not sure it'd make any sense. Now we've created a situation by which rape just happens to someone, with no one to blame. It puts it on equal footing with being shat upon by a bird: unfortunate, but "just one of those things," and I certainly do not think we should be reducing the definition of rape down to that.
I tend to agree, but the consequence is that we have to either define rape from the victim's perspective, from the actor's perspective, or look at both and make a determination via comparative analysis. The first two will certainly result in false convictions or freed rapists, but will be mostly consistent across the board. The third option is more complicated, but does permit more detailed decision-making; it also has the disadvantage that two different but equally reasonable people could come to a different decision based on exactly the same facts.
if she's under the age of consent, no matter what, that's statutory rape.
I think that is blatantly unfair and in definite need of re-thinking. But such makes for poor conversation.
Rapeslaughter, OTOH = :-D
Eli Roth is waiting for this thread to end so he can start producing his next horror flick. I hear the visuals on Rapeslaughter 2: Bride of Rapeslaughter are going to be killer!
ResIpsaLoquitur on
League of Legends: MichaelDominick; Blizzard(NA): MichaelD#11402; Steam ID: MichaelDominick
Wouldn't that be slander? They're accusing somebody of a crime he wasn't convicted of.
It's not slander if you just point out that so-and-so was accused of rape but was let go.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Not to attack your stats they seem quite nasty, but how is that compared to other crimes? 80% prosecute rate seems pretty good, but I have no frame of refence regarding other assaults. Not to compare the severity, but just wonder if thats the average or below average.
In Britain the Conviction rate is 5.5% (That's out of all reports of rate)
As compared to serious wounding which is 9.7% and Burglary is 8.9%
Britian's doing badly at the moment when it comes to serious crime prosecution.
I tend to agree, but the consequence is that we have to either define rape from the victim's perspective, from the actor's perspective, or look at both and make a determination via comparative analysis.
Choice 3: look at both and make a determination via comparative analysis.
Or, like I said earlier (it was an edit, so it is possible it could have been missed) - I think the fatal flaw is to attempt to define rape as one simple thing. I think there are several criterea that should ALL be met before one can say that a "rape" took place.
Eli Roth is waiting for this thread to end so he can start producing his next horror flick. I hear the visuals on Rapeslaughter 2: Bride of Rapeslaughter are going to be killer!
If we compare this crime to other crimes, for example mugging, then only an obvious, explicit show of force (or threats) would be enough to prove a crime, right?
I mean, if someone goes up to someone, smiles and says 'Could you give me your wallet please?', can the victim say they were mugged? Don't they have a responsibility to say 'Uh, no,' rather than complying with an implied threat which may be in their imagination?
I know this is a weird example, but I suppose what I mean is that if you're uncomfortable with another's sexual advances, don't you have a responsibility to make this clear?
And, no, I'm not 'blaming the victim'. I'm just saying that if people don't feel any responsibility to do this, then we get all the absurd situations being posited in this thread.
If we compare this crime to other crimes, for example mugging, then only an obvious, explicit show of force (or threats) would be enough to prove a crime, right?
I mean, if someone goes up to someone, smiles and says 'Could you give me your wallet please?', can the victim say they were mugged? Don't they have a responsibility to say 'Uh, no,' rather than complying with an implied threat which may be in their imagination?
I know this is a weird example, but I suppose what I mean is that if you're uncomfortable with another's sexual advances, don't you have a responsibility to make this clear?
And, no, I'm not 'blaming the victim'. I'm just saying that if people don't feel any responsibility to do this, then we get all the absurd situations being posited in this thread.
Get back to me when you have an entire class of people who have been culturally conditioned to be submissive to muggers.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If we compare this crime to other crimes, for example mugging, then only an obvious, explicit show of force (or threats) would be enough to prove a crime, right?
I mean, if someone goes up to someone, smiles and says 'Could you give me your wallet please?', can the victim say they were mugged? Don't they have a responsibility to say 'Uh, no,' rather than complying with an implied threat which may be in their imagination?
I know this is a weird example, but I suppose what I mean is that if you're uncomfortable with another's sexual advances, don't you have a responsibility to make this clear?
And, no, I'm not 'blaming the victim'. I'm just saying that if people don't feel any responsibility to do this, then we get all the absurd situations being posited in this thread.
Get back to me when you have an entire class of people who have been culturally conditioned to be submissive to muggers.
If this submission is an issue, surely going along with it won't help?
Compassion for those conditioned to be submissive is of course a good thing, but if we only allocate rights without responsibilities to people with these kind of problems, are we really helping?
If this submission is an issue, surely going along with it won't help?
Compassion for those conditioned to be submissive is of course a good thing, but if we only allocate rights without responsibilities to people with these kind of problems, are we really helping?
You're right, but the way to go about it isn't to say, "If you submit to a rapist, then screw you, the law isn't going to help you. " The way to go about it is to try to enact cultural change - make sure that at-risk women have access to, and the freedom to take advantage of, better mental health resources, assertiveness training, battered women's shelters, self-defense courses, and just education in general.
But most of all, try to get men to understand what healthy communication is actually like. All of the really extreme examples being thrown around in this thread don't happen when men communicate with their partners. The person in power - ie, the potential rapist, usually them man - has responsibilities too and one of those responsibilities to make sure that the person under us (figuratively and literally) is okay with what's going on.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What we really need to focus on is increasing the report rate. You can't prosecute a crime that hasn't been reported. In the meantime, we need to not broadcast the names of those accused of sex-related crimes until they've been convicted, which is probably difficult.
I don't think it would be difficult. We already do that in juvenile cases.
I just think all investigations and trials done for sex crimes should be kept behind closed doors as much as possible until after they're over. I haven't yet found somebody who can give me any argument why this should not be the case.
The obvious argument is that people really, really hate accused rapists.
If there is no force used, no expressed threat, and no resistance how can it be possibly considered rape?
Because there exist women who have been abused, emotionally and physically, and indoctrinated from multiple sources (including often parents and old partners) and they're not good for anything except to be beaten and used. They believe that if they speak up for themselves they'll be injured or even killed. These beliefs are not necessarily rational, but women who carry them are frighteningly common - talk to somebody who works in a battered women's shelter or a rape crisis line sometime. Then there are men whose MO is to seek out women like these and take advantage of them, furthering this cycle. Maybe some of these men actually beat their partners, but many of them don't. Many of them just use emotional abuse, using words to reopen wounds that other men opened with their fists.
If a such a man finds such a woman and tells her, "You'll do what I say because without me you'd starve to death on the street. When you're in my bedroom you're my whore. You're nothing without me," that's a threat. He might not be saying, "I'll hurt you if you don't have sex with me," but he doesn't have to. The message is there.
What you're basically saying is that this isn't that bad of a social problem. What's more frequent, according to the line of reasoning in the thread so far, are rape accusations being laid on these poor autistic guys who, apparently, have strong enough social skills to get a woman alone with them in the bedroom, but not enough social skills to figure out that the woman doesn't actually want to have sex with them. Manipulative, abusive men who prey on women with crippled psyches somehow aren't as common, or as much of a social concern, as men who somehow fail to ask "Hey, is everything okay? Are you okay with this?" before sticking a dick in another human being's orifice.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If this submission is an issue, surely going along with it won't help?
Compassion for those conditioned to be submissive is of course a good thing, but if we only allocate rights without responsibilities to people with these kind of problems, are we really helping?
You're right, but the way to go about it isn't to say, "If you submit to a rapist, then screw you, the law isn't going to help you. " The way to go about it is to try to enact cultural change - make sure that at-risk women have access to, and the freedom to take advantage of, better mental health resources, assertiveness training, battered women's shelters, self-defense courses, and just education in general.
But most of all, try to get men to understand what healthy communication is actually like. All of the really extreme examples being thrown around in this thread don't happen when men communicate with their partners. The person in power - ie, the potential rapist, usually them man - has responsibilities too and one of those responsibilities to make sure that the person under us (figuratively and literally) is okay with what's going on.
I agree with what you say, but I think that saying victims of a crime connected to consent have a responsibilty to make the lack of consent clear is a necessary part of this.
I agree with all the positive aid you propose, but if the institutionalised individual has no responsibilities, then they will not change. There's a point where compassion become counter-productive. It's something I'm guilty of, and my wife is always kicking my arse about helping her too much,
If there is no force used, no expressed threat, and no resistance how can it be possibly considered rape?
Because there exist women who have been abused, emotionally and physically, and indoctrinated from multiple sources (including often parents and old partners) and they're not good for anything except to be beaten and used. They believe that if they speak up for themselves they'll be injured or even killed. These beliefs are not necessarily rational, but women who carry them are frighteningly common - talk to somebody who works in a battered women's shelter or a rape crisis line sometime. Then there are men whose MO is to seek out women like these and take advantage of them, furthering this cycle. Maybe some of these men actually beat their partners, but many of them don't. Many of them just use emotional abuse, using words to reopen wounds that other men opened with their fists.
If a such a man finds such a woman and tells her, "You'll do what I say because without me you'd starve to death on the street. When you're in my bedroom you're my whore. You're nothing without me," that's a threat. He might not be saying, "I'll hurt you if you don't have sex with me," but he doesn't have to. The message is there.
What you're basically saying is that this isn't that bad of a social problem. What's worse, according to the line of reasoning in the thread so far, are these poor autistic guys who, apparently, have strong enough social skills to get a woman alone with them in the bedroom, but not enough social skills to figure out that the woman doesn't actually want to have sex with them. Manipulative, abusive men who prey on women with crippled psyches somehow aren't as common, or as dangerous, as men who somehow fail to ask "Hey, is everything okay? Are you okay with this?" before sticking a dick in another human being's orifice.
Don't strawman - that's not what most of us are saying.
If there is no force used, no expressed threat, and no resistance how can it be possibly considered rape?
Because there exist women who have been abused, emotionally and physically, and indoctrinated from multiple sources (including often parents and old partners) and they're not good for anything except to be beaten and used. They believe that if they speak up for themselves they'll be injured or even killed. These beliefs are not necessarily rational, but women who carry them are frighteningly common - talk to somebody who works in a battered women's shelter or a rape crisis line sometime. Then there are men whose MO is to seek out women like these and take advantage of them, furthering this cycle. Maybe some of these men actually beat their partners, but many of them don't. Many of them just use emotional abuse, using words to reopen wounds that other men opened with their fists.
If a such a man finds such a woman and tells her, "You'll do what I say because without me you'd starve to death on the street. When you're in my bedroom you're my whore. You're nothing without me," that's a threat. He might not be saying, "I'll hurt you if you don't have sex with me," but he doesn't have to. The message is there.
What you're basically saying is that this isn't that bad of a social problem. What's worse, according to the line of reasoning in the thread so far, are these poor autistic guys who, apparently, have strong enough social skills to get a woman alone with them in the bedroom, but not enough social skills to figure out that the woman doesn't actually want to have sex with them. Manipulative, abusive men who prey on women with crippled psyches somehow aren't as common, or as dangerous, as men who somehow fail to ask "Hey, is everything okay? Are you okay with this?" before sticking a dick in another human being's orifice.
Don't strawman - that's not what most of us are saying.
I'm not strawmanning. The example of somebody managing to engage in a sex act with an unwilling partner and yet being completely unaware that their partner was unwilling was brought up earlier in the thread.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The mugging thing was a good point. I was mugged once, and in hindsight, I was rather submissive to what was only implied violence and not any actual violence or threats.
Of course, I was also treated horribly by the cops, told that I was an idiot for being where I was, and accused of being in a drug deal and not actually being mugged. The analogy goes deeper...
If there is no force used, no expressed threat, and no resistance how can it be possibly considered rape?
Because there exist women who have been abused, emotionally and physically, and indoctrinated from multiple sources (including often parents and old partners) and they're not good for anything except to be beaten and used. They believe that if they speak up for themselves they'll be injured or even killed. These beliefs are not necessarily rational, but women who carry them are frighteningly common - talk to somebody who works in a battered women's shelter or a rape crisis line sometime. Then there are men whose MO is to seek out women like these and take advantage of them, furthering this cycle. Maybe some of these men actually beat their partners, but many of them don't. Many of them just use emotional abuse, using words to reopen wounds that other men opened with their fists.
If a such a man finds such a woman and tells her, "You'll do what I say because without me you'd starve to death on the street. When you're in my bedroom you're my whore. You're nothing without me," that's a threat. He might not be saying, "I'll hurt you if you don't have sex with me," but he doesn't have to. The message is there.
What you're basically saying is that this isn't that bad of a social problem. What's more frequent, according to the line of reasoning in the thread so far, are rape accusations being laid on these poor autistic guys who, apparently, have strong enough social skills to get a woman alone with them in the bedroom, but not enough social skills to figure out that the woman doesn't actually want to have sex with them. Manipulative, abusive men who prey on women with crippled psyches somehow aren't as common, or as much of a social concern, as men who somehow fail to ask "Hey, is everything okay? Are you okay with this?" before sticking a dick in another human being's orifice.
The situation you describe is bad, terrible even. Only its not rape.
An emotionally abusive relationship isn't the same thing as a relationship that involves rape. abuse and rape are different. Implied threats are just as bad however, but i still get the feeling you are broadening rape into a microcosm of everything thats wrong with gender relations.
An emotionally abusive relationship isn't the same thing as a relationship that involves rape. abuse and rape are different. Implied threats are just as bad however, but i still get the feeling you are broadening rape into a microcosm of everything thats wrong with gender relations.
A woman who fears for her well-being and is intimidated into sex is still raped, even if the man did not outright say, "Have sex with me or I will hurt you."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
An emotionally abusive relationship isn't the same thing as a relationship that involves rape. abuse and rape are different. Implied threats are just as bad however, but i still get the feeling you are broadening rape into a microcosm of everything thats wrong with gender relations.
A woman who fears for her well-being and is intimidated into sex is still raped, even if the man did not outright say, "Have sex with me or I will hurt you."
I agree, but if the guy is belittling her/demeaning her is he automatically threatening her?
An emotionally abusive relationship isn't the same thing as a relationship that involves rape. abuse and rape are different. Implied threats are just as bad however, but i still get the feeling you are broadening rape into a microcosm of everything thats wrong with gender relations.
A woman who fears for her well-being and is intimidated into sex is still raped, even if the man did not outright say, "Have sex with me or I will hurt you."
I agree, but if the guy is belittling her/demeaning her is he automatically threatening her?
In some cases, yes.
Not necessarily in every case.
It's not cut-and-dried. Attempts to make it cut-and-dried will harm more than they will help.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
We could have second-degree rape.
Or rapeslaughter.
What you describe is a classic Law School hypothetical. I know a call to go read this, that, or the other book is often a poor debate tactic meant to halt conversation on a topic, but in this case, I really don't mean it to be: I strongly suggest everyone find the time to hunt down a First-Year Criminal Law textbook and read the section on Rape. They get into many of the issues we've been discussing and the cases they use as examples are these types of really close calls.
It's shifting the topic a little, but perhaps one of the issues is that we're thinking in terms of what we're used to. Standard grammar for a simple sentence is [actor] [action] [acted upon], right? In the same way, we think [actor] [crime] [victim], or more specifically [rapist] [rape] [victim]. Could it be said, in the hypothetical Evil Multi offers above, that there was a rape but no rapist? If so, does that help us in defining the grey area between rape and not-rape?
Wouldn't that be slander? They're accusing somebody of a crime he wasn't convicted of.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I wish they'd covered that in my psych and law classes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If I'm over the age of consent, and I sleep with a girl under the age of consent, it doesn't matter if she looks 30, shows me 5 ID's saying she's 30, does a fingerprint scan with a federal database attesting to the same, and everyone at the bar tells me she comes there all the time and is 30 years old; if she's under the age of consent, no matter what, that's statutory rape.
It could be said, but I'm not sure it'd make any sense. Now we've created a situation by which rape just happens to someone, with no one to blame. It puts it on equal footing with being shat upon by a bird: unfortunate, but "just one of those things," and I certainly do not think we should be reducing the definition of rape down to that.
I think a good way to go from here would be to just admit that a series of things need to all be true if one is to be said to have been raped. Certainly one of those things should be clearly expressed disagreement on the part of the alleged victim. One of those things needs to be the intent of the alleged rapist, also.
I think that is blatantly unfair and in definite need of re-thinking. But such makes for poor conversation.
Rapeslaughter, OTOH... that's just gold.
I tend to agree, but the consequence is that we have to either define rape from the victim's perspective, from the actor's perspective, or look at both and make a determination via comparative analysis. The first two will certainly result in false convictions or freed rapists, but will be mostly consistent across the board. The third option is more complicated, but does permit more detailed decision-making; it also has the disadvantage that two different but equally reasonable people could come to a different decision based on exactly the same facts.
Eli Roth is waiting for this thread to end so he can start producing his next horror flick. I hear the visuals on Rapeslaughter 2: Bride of Rapeslaughter are going to be killer!
It's not slander if you just point out that so-and-so was accused of rape but was let go.
In Britain the Conviction rate is 5.5% (That's out of all reports of rate)
As compared to serious wounding which is 9.7% and Burglary is 8.9%
Britian's doing badly at the moment when it comes to serious crime prosecution.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Choice 3: look at both and make a determination via comparative analysis.
Or, like I said earlier (it was an edit, so it is possible it could have been missed) - I think the fatal flaw is to attempt to define rape as one simple thing. I think there are several criterea that should ALL be met before one can say that a "rape" took place.
Rape for your eyeballs!
I mean, if someone goes up to someone, smiles and says 'Could you give me your wallet please?', can the victim say they were mugged? Don't they have a responsibility to say 'Uh, no,' rather than complying with an implied threat which may be in their imagination?
I know this is a weird example, but I suppose what I mean is that if you're uncomfortable with another's sexual advances, don't you have a responsibility to make this clear?
And, no, I'm not 'blaming the victim'. I'm just saying that if people don't feel any responsibility to do this, then we get all the absurd situations being posited in this thread.
Get back to me when you have an entire class of people who have been culturally conditioned to be submissive to muggers.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
we are conditioned to be submissive to muggers.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Compassion for those conditioned to be submissive is of course a good thing, but if we only allocate rights without responsibilities to people with these kind of problems, are we really helping?
https://medium.com/@alascii
ba dum psh
You're right, but the way to go about it isn't to say, "If you submit to a rapist, then screw you, the law isn't going to help you. " The way to go about it is to try to enact cultural change - make sure that at-risk women have access to, and the freedom to take advantage of, better mental health resources, assertiveness training, battered women's shelters, self-defense courses, and just education in general.
But most of all, try to get men to understand what healthy communication is actually like. All of the really extreme examples being thrown around in this thread don't happen when men communicate with their partners. The person in power - ie, the potential rapist, usually them man - has responsibilities too and one of those responsibilities to make sure that the person under us (figuratively and literally) is okay with what's going on.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, either you're premature, or she's a real sound sleeper.
The obvious argument is that people really, really hate accused rapists.
Because there exist women who have been abused, emotionally and physically, and indoctrinated from multiple sources (including often parents and old partners) and they're not good for anything except to be beaten and used. They believe that if they speak up for themselves they'll be injured or even killed. These beliefs are not necessarily rational, but women who carry them are frighteningly common - talk to somebody who works in a battered women's shelter or a rape crisis line sometime. Then there are men whose MO is to seek out women like these and take advantage of them, furthering this cycle. Maybe some of these men actually beat their partners, but many of them don't. Many of them just use emotional abuse, using words to reopen wounds that other men opened with their fists.
If a such a man finds such a woman and tells her, "You'll do what I say because without me you'd starve to death on the street. When you're in my bedroom you're my whore. You're nothing without me," that's a threat. He might not be saying, "I'll hurt you if you don't have sex with me," but he doesn't have to. The message is there.
What you're basically saying is that this isn't that bad of a social problem. What's more frequent, according to the line of reasoning in the thread so far, are rape accusations being laid on these poor autistic guys who, apparently, have strong enough social skills to get a woman alone with them in the bedroom, but not enough social skills to figure out that the woman doesn't actually want to have sex with them. Manipulative, abusive men who prey on women with crippled psyches somehow aren't as common, or as much of a social concern, as men who somehow fail to ask "Hey, is everything okay? Are you okay with this?" before sticking a dick in another human being's orifice.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I agree with what you say, but I think that saying victims of a crime connected to consent have a responsibilty to make the lack of consent clear is a necessary part of this.
I agree with all the positive aid you propose, but if the institutionalised individual has no responsibilities, then they will not change. There's a point where compassion become counter-productive. It's something I'm guilty of, and my wife is always kicking my arse about helping her too much,
Don't strawman - that's not what most of us are saying.
I'm not strawmanning. The example of somebody managing to engage in a sex act with an unwilling partner and yet being completely unaware that their partner was unwilling was brought up earlier in the thread.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Of course, I was also treated horribly by the cops, told that I was an idiot for being where I was, and accused of being in a drug deal and not actually being mugged. The analogy goes deeper...
The situation you describe is bad, terrible even. Only its not rape.
An emotionally abusive relationship isn't the same thing as a relationship that involves rape. abuse and rape are different. Implied threats are just as bad however, but i still get the feeling you are broadening rape into a microcosm of everything thats wrong with gender relations.
https://medium.com/@alascii
A woman who fears for her well-being and is intimidated into sex is still raped, even if the man did not outright say, "Have sex with me or I will hurt you."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I agree, but if the guy is belittling her/demeaning her is he automatically threatening her?
https://medium.com/@alascii
In some cases, yes.
Not necessarily in every case.
It's not cut-and-dried. Attempts to make it cut-and-dried will harm more than they will help.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.