"Rape not the rapists' fault - It's the world's fault"

[harvey19]

I'm beginning to wonder if there are any parallels to be drawn between those who seek to downplay sexual violence against women and those who deny the holocaust. Interesting.

What is interesting is how anyone can link the two.

No one on this thread is downplaying sexual or any other type of violence against women.

What is being disputed is the accuracy of the statistics quoted and how they were achieved.

 

As someone posted earlier maybe a new thread should be started to question the accuracy of statistics and how they are gathered and verified.

Rape is a very emotional subject and so is probably not the best subject to base the debate on.

[Rupert_Baehr]

You need to realise that rape is an offence when consent is not given.

No one would defend rape.

What you are trying to do is extend the boundaries of the offence.

Let's look at a different scenario. If a woman has sexual relations with her husband with the sole intention of obtaining something from him ie gifts is she a prostitute ? I do not think so but it is the type of reasoning you are using.

 

Yes, in the event that intercourse (which includes penetration) takes place without consent, that does constitute rape.

 

It is not, however, the only grounds for rape.

 

Should two consenting adults (one of which must be male) engage in sexual activity which includes penetration [ by a penis] and should one [who is not genetically attached to the penis [let's ignore incest;)] say 'No' then should the one who is (physically) attached to the penis continue then such continuation constitutes rape.

 

Cut out the BS and you might get: "If a guy and his girlfriend, both of whom are willing, commence intercourse [no problem so far] and it goes well [still no problem] and the guy gets one stroke short of the 'vinegar stroke' [ and you all know what I mean] and at that penultimate stroke she says: "NO!" then their (up to that point) consensual sex becomes rape."

 

That's the law. There is no defence.

 

No I'm not, I'm exploring your interpretation of consent in the same way a judge or jury would, not extending it. What you seem to be doing is classifying consent as "yes" If she says yes then it's consent..right?

 

Why (and you still haven't told me what you think a judge does for a living) would a judge 'explore the evidence'?

 

I thought that the jury listened to the evidence, evaluated it and made a decision as to the guilt (or otherwise) of the accused. I thought that the judge advised the jury on the law (and - in the event that the jury decided that the accused was guilty, passed sentence.)

 

I was not aware that the Judges in the High court in England and Wales evaluated (or 'explored') the evidence and told the jury what to do.

 

When did things change?

 

What you are saying is that it the reason for giving consent that causes the offence.

So in your reasoning is the cause and not the act the greater offence ?

 

Consent - if it is not obtained under duress or by misrepresentation (For example: If A was screwing B's wife and said wife thought she was being screwed by her husband and gave consent then that consent would be void) then said consent is valid. - But it can be withdrawn at any time.

 

Right up to the 'Vinegar stroke'.

 

There have been cases where the plaintiff has attempted to withdraw consent subsequently. - In the case I cited ein another post - a day later.

 

That shouldn't work.

 

We live in an imperfect world.

[MrSmith]

Yes, in the event that intercourse (which includes penetration) takes place without consent, that does constitute rape.

 

It is not, however, the only grounds for rape.

 

Should two consenting adults (one of which must be male) engage in sexual activity which includes penetration [ by a penis] and should one [who is not genetically attached to the penis [let's ignore incest;)] say 'No' then should the one who is (physically) attached to the penis continue then such continuation constitutes rape.

 

Cut out the BS and you might get: "If a guy and his girlfriend, both of whom are willing, commence intercourse [no problem so far] and it goes well [still no problem] and the guy gets one stroke short of the 'vinegar stroke' [ and you all know what I mean] and at that penultimate stroke she says: "NO!" then their (up to that point) consensual sex becomes rape."

 

That's the law. There is no defence.

 

 

 

Why (and you still haven't told me what you think a judge does for a living) would a judge 'explore the evidence'?

 

I thought that the jury listened to the evidence, evaluated it and made a decision as to the guilt (or otherwise) of the accused. I thought that the judge advised the jury on the law (and - in the event that the jury decided that the accused was guilty, passed sentence.)

 

I was not aware that the Judges in the High court in England and Wales evaluated (or 'explored') the evidence and told the jury what to do.

 

When did things change?

 

 

 

Consent - if it is not obtained under duress or by misrepresentation (For example: If A was screwing B's wife and said wife thought she was being screwed by her husband and gave consent then that consent would be void) then said consent is valid. - But it can be withdrawn at any time.

 

Right up to the 'Vinegar stroke'.

 

There have been cases where the plaintiff has attempted to withdraw consent subsequently. - In the case I cited ein another post - a day later.

 

That shouldn't work.

 

We live in an imperfect world.

 

Maybe everyone should sign a contract before sex.

 

Sexual Consent Form

[Suffragette1]

was it anonymous? I didn't see that stated?

 

Of course it's anonymous, do you think that women would have responded if it weren't anonymous and confidential? I can't decide whether you're incredibly dim or like to play Devil's advocate.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Maybe everyone should sign a contract before sex.

 

Sexual Consent Form

 

:hihi:

 

Since this isn't Friday afternoon and I haven't been invited to the SU bar to debate it ... is it appropriate to discuss the matter here?

 

(Will you be bringing beer?)

 

The form is a waste of time. It would be valid from the time it was signed right up until she (or he!) changed hisser mind. - Consent can be withdrawn at any time during intercourse (any time before ejaculation. - Right up to the 'vinegar stroke'. - or arguably, the one before.

 

BUT although females may not be convicted of rape they CAN be charged with 'committing a serious sexual assault'.

 

In the event that the male was underneath and he withdrew his consent just before the 'vinegar stroke', could the female be charged with committing a 'serious sexual assault'?

 

Who knows?

 

Time moves on. The world is changing. Perhaps males should learn to be more submissive.

 

"I was on top of him, he said 'No' but I carried on anyway" may not send her down for 15 years, - but it won't send you down, either.

 

If, of course, you happen to get on well (as most couples do) the argument is irrelevant.

 

Why would you want to send her down?

 

It's not Lent, either.

[Suffragette1]

I thought we were discussing your claim that 8,000,000 women have been raped, which I seriously doubt.

 

My claim now?! I was quoting research I didn't pluck a figure out of the air.

 

From the Fawcett Society website:

 

Myths and facts

It’s amazing what some people still believe about rape; find out the real facts here.

 

Myth: Rape does not happen very often.

Fact: At least 47,000 women are raped every year in the UK. This is as many women as live in Maidstone, Basingstoke or Bath.

 

 

Myth: If I got raped, there would be a rape crisis centre to support me.

Fact: Three out of every four local authority areas have no services for victims of rape, and up to half of the remaining rape crisis centres face closure because of severe funding problems. This means that the vast majority of women who are raped do not have a rape crisis centre in their area.

 

 

Myth: Rape is impossible to prove, because it’s a case of one person’s word against another’s.

Fact: There is supporting evidence in 86.7% of charged cases of rape. This could include forensic evidence, previous convictions or witnesses to events surrounding the rape. More could be done to gather effective evidence in rape cases.

 

 

 

 

Myth: Men rape women because it’s impossible for them to control their sexual urges.

Fact: Men are as capable of controlling their sexual impulses as women. Fundamentally, rape is not an expression of desire or sexual attraction, but of power and violence.

 

 

Myth: Most rapes are committed by strangers.

Fact: The majority of rapists are known to the victim. In 66% of recorded cases, the suspect was known by the victim.

 

 

Myth: If a woman is drunk, wears revealing clothing or flirts with a man, she is partly to blame for being raped.

Fact: Someone’s dress or behaviour, or the fact that they are incapacitated through drinking alcohol, does not make it ok to assault them. Rapists look for victims they perceive as vulnerable, not women who dress in a particular way.

 

 

Myth: Women often send out mixed signals. Rape is just a misunderstanding.

Fact: By definition, in cases of rape the perpetrator could not have reasonably believed that the victim consented to sex. These are instances of sexual violence, not innocent misunderstandings.

 

 

Myth: Most women who accuse men of rape are lying.

Fact: The rate of false allegations for rape is no higher than for other crimes. Only 3% of rape accusations are ‘probably or possibly false’ according to police categorisation - no more than for any other crime.

 

If you all want to argue abut what constitutes rape and question statistics, I am leaving you to it. For some reason you're in denial about the scale of the problem. Let's just hope that it never happens to you or one of your nearest and dearest, eh?

[llamatron]

Of course it's anonymous, do you think that women would have responded if it weren't anonymous and confidential? I can't decide whether you're incredibly dim or like to play Devil's advocate.

 

You seem to know nothing about statistics, theres no need to get offensive! To an extent I am playing devils advocate but only because I don't know the truth of the matter so assuming all these virtuous things about the statistic is not valid.

 

You are assuming things that are not necessarily true by the look of it-who says it was anonymous? If you can't answer then you don't know it was!

 

Take rape out of it for a moment. If these stats were about football you would not be arguing about this...well you might be I guess but it would be silly!

 

Be honest now: If this statistic with the same background info was used by a rapists lawyer to help him get off in some way, you would be arguing that it was meaningless wouldn't you!

[Rupert_Baehr]

Nothing wrong with your 'Myths and facts'- apart that they're a bit one-sided.

 

Rape is an heinous crime - as I'm sure you will agree.

 

Why do you ignore the facts concerning male rape?

 

Are females the only rape victims?

[harvey19]

My claim now?! I was quoting research I didn't pluck a figure out of the air.

 

From the Fawcett Society website:

 

 

 

If you all want to argue abut what constitutes rape and question statistics, I am leaving you to it. For some reason you're in denial about the scale of the problem. Let's just hope that it never happens to you or one of your nearest and dearest, eh?

 

But this just takes the discussion back to how were the stats gathered and verified.

[skinz]

What you are saying is that it the reason for giving consent that causes the offence.

So in your reasoning is the cause and not the act the greater offence ?

 

No..I'm saying that consent from the perps point of view is irrelevant..he doesn't require consent, he doesn't even consider it..but as his defense it may be very important. If the victim said "yes" if only as a means to reduce the effects and acknowledges the "yes"under oath, the judge would have to acquit on grounds of consent. Gladly this is not how the judicial system works and why we have a jury system...in other words "yes" can mean "no" and quite rightly seen for what it is. In the case of a woman who is in a relationship yes means yes and most likely based on her relationship and a chattel mindset that prevails to this day (heavily disguised mind you)rather than the actual perceived crime. Marriage or relationships should have no bearing on a woman making an allegation other than they are familiar with one another...otherwise we'll end up assessing on grounds of how much cleavage is shown or the type clothing worn as a distraction.

 

If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape and is found to do so then the law should be applied in exactly the same way as if the man was found guilty...I have no issue with that and equally zero tolerance. But..and this isn't an excuse..these false allegations are very rare in comparison to the conviction rate of rapists, sexual violence and paedophiles. If that rate of conviction mirror imaged the rate of false allegations our prisons would be almost empty of sexual deviants.

 

Work calls.