Most rape cases are just bad sex, says feminist Germaine Greer

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

even though the woman slept, "violence" was still be used, in a legal way. even "deceit" can be viewed as "violence" in a legal way.

but in daily language it wasn't violence, but to the law it was. that's why I come back to my initial post: rape is not what a feminist says rape is, but what the law says.

Again, what jurisdiction are we talking about here? Because according to Norwegian Law it would not be considered this way. Don't get me wrong, I believe you, I am just curios

[DieselDaisy]

Why are blokes talking about this stuff? It is best to keep out, be disinterested, feign ignorance, switch the subject to sport. Same with the abortion debate. Just don't bother. Leave it to females to fight over. 

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Just going to comment on this. Involuntary arousal is quite common. Looking back, it seems like I spent large parts of my puberty years trying to suppress erections in socially awkward situations, with various degrees of success. Mind over matter

I know this, but I don't think this happens to women the same way it happens to men.  Women don't go around wanting to fuck any man that crosses their path. I guess this is one of the differences between men and women and some men believe that just because a girl likes them or sends some signals of attraction, this means that they are already asking for sex.

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It is also not unheard of in rape. Of course it depends upon how that rape happens, and for most (though not everybody) violence will act as a suppressor of arousal. That's why it wouldn't be completely implausible in the above described scenario where sleep, intoxication and reality gets blurred and she might dream having sex with someone she actually was attracted to).

Yeah, I can see how it could happen in some cases, I still think it is a rare situation or maybe it could happen in those situations where there's an ongoing abuse of a person, like incest, which oftenly occurs for years and even decades before someone dares to speak.

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

[I also believe, but now I am in speculation-land -- so take it more as a hypothesis than based on actual clinical studies -- that failure to resolve issues arising from traumatic events like rape, especially during sexually formative periods (for instance when underage and not being sexually experienced), might create some abnormal neural connections between sexual arousal and gender, pain, humiliation, etc, that could affect sexual preferences later in life if not psychologically resolved. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong in any of this as long as it is between consenting adults -- and such things I am sure also develops without any such traumatic events -- I am just speculating upon the mechanisms behind developments and the prevalence of some sexual preferences.]

If I'm understanding you the right way, I have to say that I have thought of this too. Only based on observation of how some very public cases turned out for the victim.

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why are blokes talking about this stuff? It is best to keep out, be disinterested, feign ignorance, switch the subject to sport. Same with the abortion debate. Just don't bother. Leave it to females to fight over. 

But you don't like any sports, do you? And no, you have to break a sweat from something else than the blistering sun, so cricket don't count 

I know you were just kidding but honestly speaking, I think this has been an interesting discussion and it has made me think about some things and I've learnt a lot. It's also been one of the harder discussions since it is a deep topic that is likely to be personal to more than one of the readers here and I don't want to come off as insensitive. I think we, as a society, should talk more about these things; something that affects this many people shouldn't be a taboo. because I don't think we can get to grips with it without talking about it. We need to dispel the many myths about rape that are out there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_myth). In many ways it goes beyond just non-consensual sex and interlocks with overall women rights, equality, and patriarchy. Just consider that in some African countries it can't be rape if it is between married couples. 

[DieselDaisy]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But you don't like any sports, do you? And no, you have to break a sweat from something else than the blistering sun, so cricket don't count 

I was meant to ''go te cricket'' this morning but the forecast looks poor, which is why I'm talking with you in a thread about rape instead!

I'll depart now and leave you to it.

[Gracii Guns]

This thread has demonstrated that men are willing to engage in intelligent, sensitive discourse over for what has too long been seen as a 'womens' issue'. Rather than getting defensive, and declaring that they aren't rapists, therefore it's not their problem. Also victim blaming has been avoided too.  It's really refreshing to read, and I'm grateful. 

[DieselDaisy]

12 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I still can't believe you're not the old man in that photo but in fact; a Geordie. *shudders*

I don't know who you are anymore.

Are you saying Edward Elgar didn't like a good ''rape convo'' in his wainscotted study?

 

[action]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, what jurisdiction are we talking about here? Because according to Norwegian Law it would not be considered this way. Don't get me wrong, I believe you, I am just curios

belgian law, but I really can't envision a democratic country where screwing a sleeping woman, without her knowing, would be a legal thing.

[Gracii Guns]

5 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I still don't fully grasp what victim blaming is. Going up to them and saying something like they're a slut who asked for it and it's all their fault? Is that really a thing people do? That's fucking ghastly.

It's usually more nuanced than that. A classic example is if a rape victim was wearing revealing clothing at the time of the rape. Therefore she could take partial responsibility for the crimes made against her. It's of course, nonsense and women should be able to wear whatever they like. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Gracii Guns

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I still don't fully grasp what victim blaming is. Going up to them and saying something like they're a slut who asked for it and it's all their fault? Is that really a thing people do? That's fucking ghastly.

Read my link about "rape myths" from above. Victim-blaming is a real thing. You know, small innuendos where parts of the blame is attempted to be shifted onto the victim due to how she dressed, or behaved, and so on. This is especially common in some cultures, typically patriarchal cultures where women rights are already poorly developed.

1 minute ago, action said:

belgian law, but I really can't envision a democratic country where screwing a sleeping woman, without her knowing, would be a legal thing.

Of course not. But I was talking about how "violence" is legally defined, not what constitutes "rape".

[action]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why are blokes talking about this stuff? It is best to keep out, be disinterested, feign ignorance, switch the subject to sport. Same with the abortion debate. Just don't bother. Leave it to females to fight over. 

some people act the white knight it to get laid, others because they are still a virgin. as for myself, I guess I'm just autistic

[killuridols]

As far as I'm concerned, rape can happen to anyone. Women and girls are the main target and victims of male rapists. There are also female abusers and rapists, in a smaller scale, but there are.

[soon]

Oh yes victim blaming is very real. In a 2014 rape trial In Canada the Judge continually referred to the victim as "the accused." He repeatedly asked her why she didnt "just keep her knees together?" He advised her that "sometimes sex and pain go together."

It was a teenage Indigenous homeless women that he said this to. A sq@u in both the judges and the rapists twisted mind.

The Judge resigned over it last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/10/canada-judge-resigns-keep-your-knees-together-comment-rape-trial

[action]

having sex with a sleeping woman isn't a violent act, but it still constitutes violence under rape law.

violence is defined as "no consent". it has nothing to do with violence in daily usage

the law "assumes" violence, as soon as there is no consent. it's a legal assumption of violence. When "no consent" is proven, automatically violence is proven too without much further debate

Edited June 2, 2018 by action

[Graeme]

Have we more or less spent two pages arguing over the definition of the word "violence"?

(For the record, I'm absolutely on the side that says rape is a violent act regardless of whether it leaves physical injury or the victim resists, you violate someone's body and their personal space by entering that without consent for your own gratification and moreover psychological violence is absolutely a thing with rape probably being one of the most psychologically scarring things you can do to someone).

[killuridols]

8 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

If you walk down a dangerous street at night alone and naked or whatever - that's rather unwise. Is that the same as saying they're partially responsible? 

Yes, I think it is. Because if a man did the same, I doubt he would get raped.

 

[action]

article 375 of the belgian penalty codex defines rape as:

http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=1867060801&table_name=wet

free translation: "Rape is every act of sexual penetration of any kind, and with any means, committed to a person who does not consent"

as you'll see, there is no violence required. "lack of consent" is necessary, but enough.

I think the focus should shift from "was any violence used" to "did the victim consent or not"

[action]

8 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Have we more or less spent two pages arguing over the definition of the word "violence"?

(For the record, I'm absolutely on the side that says rape is a violent act regardless of whether it leaves physical injury or the victim resists, you violate someone's body and their personal space by entering that without consent for your own gratification and moreover psychological violence is absolutely a thing with rape probably being one of the most psychologically scarring things you can do to someone).

I can't speak for anyone else, but I was merely clarifying the legal definition of "violence" which, it has shown, isn't always understood by everyone. I haven't argued over the "common" use of the term, which is common sense and doesn't need debating anyway.

[soon]

Also in encounters where active consent is preferred, it can be incredibly sexy!

Edited June 2, 2018 by soon

[killuridols]

4 minutes ago, action said:

I think the focus should shift from "was any violence used" to "did the victim consent or not"

How is it treated in the case of minors?

Here I think they treat any sexual contact with a child below 16, as rape, whether it was consented or not.

[action]

11 minutes ago, killuridols said:

How is it treated in the case of minors?

Here I think they treat any sexual contact with a child below 16, as rape, whether it was consented or not.

exactly. see one of my previous posts

in the case of minors, even the issue of consent is irrelevant (unlike with adults). with or without consent, sex with minors is always a crime. but consent still plays a role in penalty measurement. if it was with consent, the punishment is less than if the sex was without consent. when on top of that, physical harm was done, then the punishment is even more severe

Edited June 2, 2018 by action

[killuridols]

3 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I agree it's less likely(probably a lot less) that he'd be raped. That's not what I'm asking.

Obviously I'm not going to say "Hate to say I told ya so!" if the person has been attacked/raped. But what I'm asking is whether or not it's classified as victim blaming if you're warning/trying to protect the person beforehand "Don't go to that street in the middle of the night dressed like that. That's fucking idiotic. You're asking for trouble."

Well, that's one of the things feminism fights for... that women should be allowed to go anywhere they wanted, alone, naked, half-naked or covered from head to toe, and not having to pay a price for their freedom of circulation ... 

That is an utopia right now, in some places, so women have to find different ways to move around if they want to go face the world by themselves. Usually it becomes difficult and it's wiser to move in group, with the company of a male or directly not going anywhere, much less to potential dangerous places.

A couple of years ago, I went out at night and came back home around 2am. I took the bus because it has a stop about 2 blocks away from my house. I thought it wasn't a risky situation to walk only 2 blocks. So I did it, but when I was close to my address, I saw 3 guys, standing up in a doorstep, drinking beer and laughing. I immediately knew I was in trouble and hey, I wasn't wearing anything provocative. Actually, it was winter, so I was all covered. What I did was cross the opposite sidewalk so I didn't have to pass by them. But it only took them to see I was a woman walking alone, for them to target me and when I was coming close, they screamed things at me. At that moment, I felt threatened and I started walking faster, preparing myself for an attack any time soon. Fortunately, they didn't follow me or anything and I got home safe.

My neighborhood is not located in an ugly part of the city, the blocks I had to walk have several street lights and I was not dressed in a revealing way, yet I got cat called just for being female walking alone the streets at night. Very unfair.

[EvanG]

2 hours ago, killuridols said:

I know this, but I don't think this happens to women the same way it happens to men.  Women don't go around wanting to fuck any man that crosses their path.

Neither do all guys. Speaking for myself, I'm very picky. Like the legendary Henry Rollins once said... ''If they're not in shape, hey, go be fat on someone else's time''

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why are blokes talking about this stuff? It is best to keep out, be disinterested, feign ignorance, switch the subject to sport. Same with the abortion debate. Just don't bother. Leave it to females to fight over. 

A lot of guys outside of England are metrosexual nowadays.

[SoulMonster]

'Victim blaming' is interesting. I think that if I were to do something silly and end up raped as a result, then I would likely blame myself for that. I expect more of myself. I consider myself resourceful and with enough wits to not get in that kind of "trouble". Not that it would absolve the perpetrator for his or her actions, but just that I would blame myself, too. And I wouldn't really feel it was unfair if people around me asked why the fuck I could so stupid. But the Law can never engage in such considerations, in my opinion. People around me know me, they know I should have known better. A judge don't know me. A judge don't know whether I am resourceful or not, and the Law is for everybody's protection, especially those who need some extra protection. The Law can't assume that the victim should have known better. So from a legal perspective, all blame must land on the rapist. That's the only way we can protect all of us. Unfortunately, not all judges or jurys agree with me on this, and there are numerous examples where rape sentences are softened because the victim "should have known better", "shouldn't have egged the rapist on", "shouldn't have wore so skimpy outfits", "shouldn't have gone to that afterparty", "shouldn't have kissed the rapists", "shouldn't have been where she were", and so on, unfortunately.

And because of this, and because of absence of other evidence (like absence of physical injuries which we discussed previously) and much else, many victims naturally won't bother to report rapes. The system is geared against them, to some extent. It becomes word against word and they fear the Law will also put some blame on them.

It's hard to ascertain non-consent, though. Lots of grey zones. Like, could the perpetrator really realize that it was non-consensual? In many cases I suppose it wasn't that easy for him. Which is why a country like Sweden has taken it a step further by defining any sex without explicit consent as rape. So basically, if both parties haven't explicitly stated, either vocally or physically (or in writing, I assume :D) they want to fuck prior to it, then it is legally defined as rape. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by SoulMonster

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, EvanG said:

Neither do all guys. Speaking for myself, I'm very picky. Like the legendary Henry Rollins once said... ''If they're not in shape, hey, go be fat on someone else's time''

i said that because @SoulMonster was talking about getting erections in socially akward situations. I know that is a common thing to happen to teenage boys. That sort of arousal doesn't happen to women, just like that, out of the blue. Maybe it happened to some, I just don't think it is very common.