Another college athlete accused of rape...
Tue, 2007-07-17 06:23
#1
Sven
Another college athlete accused of rape...
Tue, 2007-07-17 06:23
#2
Sven
[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/ncaa/07/16/bc.fbc.minneso... college football player accused of raping 18 year old.[/url]
Reading [url=http://media.startribune.com/smedia/2007/07/16/16/testingJuly-16-2007.so... criminal complaint[/url] will make you sick.
Tue, 2007-07-17 06:30
#3
Holy Christ.
And will the other three assholes be charged too? According to the statements, they all had sex with her when she was too drunk to consent as well.
Tue, 2007-07-17 07:01
#4
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Holy Christ.And will the other three assholes be charged too?[/b]
I certainly hope so.
Tue, 2007-07-17 08:32
#5
Putting aside my visceral reactions for a moment, two issues come to mind, here.
One is the nature of consent or non consent. I wonder if not enough education is done so that people understand that someone incapable of rendering consent is the same as someone saying "NO."
There was a case of rape involving a former co-worker, and I ended up arguing with a female co-worker by [i]deffending[/i] this legal, and moral concept. So it seems to me there is a real lack of understanding on this issue.
A lack of understanding, granted, that is fueled by self serving and rather viscious self dellusion on the part of rapists.
Second, is the degree of priveledge granted to athletes in the States, and we can reasonably extrapolate here in Canada too. There are athletically talented young men and boys currently being educated that they can do no wrong off the field due to their playing field prowess.
One wonders how many times O.J. Simpson was let off the hook for this and that by law enforcement before it culminated in murder, and how much that informed his thinking.
And, do we attack this system of priveledge specifically, or do we attack it from the top, first? Not that both can't be done-- but where to put the emphasis?
[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Tue, 2007-07-17 08:42
#6
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Tommy. I mean, obviously there's no grey area when it comes to having sex with a non-responsive, unconscious woman the way the guy who was charged did. But the three guys who took turns having sex with the woman while she was so drunk that she was in "a stupor" according to the expert who analyzed what .30 means in physical terms - they could very well have thought that if they got an extremely drunk woman to say yes, or at least acquiesce, then that was just fine.
There has to be a lot more education on this, but not only education. It has to be socially repugnant to do this sort of thing. It has to be socially repugnant, and it needs to be a reputation-ruiner for a guy to fuck a woman who is too drunk to consent.
But it's not socially repugnant. It's considered a "score". It's considered a joke and a time-honoured ritual, to get girls drunk enough to say yes. "No means more beer" isn't just a frat boy joke. It's reality in high school, university, and beyond.
It reminds me of a commercial that I've mentioned on babble before that pisses me off. A drunk girl is leaving a house party, crying, while a guy follows her, begging for forgiveness. And what does the commercial say? It says that "bad things happen when you drink too much," as if it's her fault for drinking.
When are they going to start aiming those types of commercials at boys and men, saying, "Bad things happen when you fuck a drunk woman. What the hell are you, desperate? Can't get laid unless she's practically catatonic? You suck."
Until that attitude replaces the high-fiving "scored!" attitude about raping drunk women, this sort of thing will continue to be commonplace on college campuses and at high school house parties.
Tue, 2007-07-17 08:43
#7
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]One is the nature of consent or non consent. I wonder if not enough education is done so that people understand that someone incapable of rendering consent is the same as someone saying "NO." [/b]
Well then, we have the article linked to by Josey Vogel over [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000398]h... that basically states no does not mean no, that it is a useless phrase, based upon the predications of a male psychologist and that there are times when indeed body language needs to be judged in order to "read" women's true intent.
When we have this type of crap espoused by women, it really gives men a scape goat in their own minds.
Tue, 2007-07-17 08:56
#8
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I mean, obviously there's no grey area when it comes to having sex with a non-responsive, unconscious woman the way the guy who was charged did.[/b]
It may seem obvious but to too many men it is not. The common phrase promoted by colleges is that "No means No". But, that doesn't address this kind of case where the woman [b][i]didn't even have an opportunity to say "No"[/b][/i]).
What should be promoted is "Only Yes means Yes".
Tue, 2007-07-17 09:02
#9
I don't think it's crap. [url=http://web.mac.com/jvogels/iWeb/joseyvogels.com/my%20messy%20bedroom/368...'s the article.[/url]
It's saying that "No means no" is a good slogan, but not an effective strategy for helping women fend off rape or for helping men understand the boundaries, because most conversations before sex don't consist of, "Would you like to have sex with me?" "Why, yes, that would be good, thanks."
Often there is no "yes" OR "no" because conversations often don't go like that between people who want to have sex. So, reading body language IS necessary.
And they're right about moods changing, too. Sometimes you're not sure if you feel like it at first, but you get into it as you go along. Or, sometimes you're not sure if you feel like it at first, and as things progress, you become even more sure that you're not into it.
The latter situation is where women have to feel free to stop things and say, no, I really don't want to do this. And this is where men have to not only read verbal cues but physical ones too. If a woman is pulling away when it's getting too intense, that doesn't mean gather her closer and be an octopus until she either fights you off, starts crying or just gives in.
In social situations, most people aren't blunt. They're polite. If they need to refuse you something you're asking for (or worse yet, for something you're hinting for but haven't said outright), then they're going to try and do it nicely and not come right out and say, "No, stop it. I don't want it." As she says, people will often make up an excuse which really means "no" in order to spare your feelings.
And a lot of guys take advantage of that and pretend that they don't get the signal that the woman is saying no, but trying not to trash their ego while she's doing it.
And that isn't covered by "No means no". Because a guy who learns "no means no" doesn't get that, "I have a headache" means no, and "I'd love to, but..." means no.
I think that entry of Vogel's is extremely useful in helping to understand why there is such a communication gap when it comes to consent.
[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2007-07-17 09:04
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]What should be promoted is "Only Yes means Yes".[/b]
But that's not true. I've had sex that I've wanted to have lots of times without saying "yes". I showed it in other ways that I wanted it. I gave non-verbal cues that I wanted it. Those cues were read, and sex ensued.
Tue, 2007-07-17 09:15
#11
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I don't think it's crap. [url=http://web.mac.com/jvogels/iWeb/joseyvogels.com/my%20messy%20bedroom/368...'s the article.[/url]It's saying that "No means no" is a good slogan, [/b]
Well, we will have to agree to disagree then, as I read it quite the opposite. That no means no, is useless as an expression because there is too many physical nuances that it does not cover, when no might mean yes.
Tue, 2007-07-17 09:18
#12
I don't see anywhere in the article where she says or even implies that sometimes no means yes.
Tue, 2007-07-17 09:53
#13
I read the Vogel stuff yesterday but didn't comment.
"No means No" campaigns arose as an education platform in response to specific cases that were thought to be indicative of more common occurances.
If the psychologist had said this was an education attempt who's time had come and gone, then maybe I'd have seen his point-- and maybe that is what he meant.
And it should not be lost on us that many psychologists think communication is a very complex thing. It's self evident in thier prose.
But it isn't true. It's an idea that should have been burried with Derrida. With a stake through it's heart.
The only people who really want to believe that communication is terribly complex are people that want the envelope pushed wide enough to fit their lies.
Tue, 2007-07-17 10:04
#14
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]But that's not true. I've had sex that I've wanted to have lots of times without saying "yes". I showed it in other ways that I wanted it. I gave non-verbal cues that I wanted it. Those cues were read, and sex ensued.[/b]
Well, you are right on that, of course. A person will not necessarily verbalize a "Yes" even when they want to have sex. But, non-verbal cues, like you said, may still say "Yes". So, I guess what I meant was there must be [b][i]something affirmative[/b][/i] (either verbal or non-verbal) to indicate a person positively wants to have sex. So, it's not good enough to simply say there must be an absence of a negative (i.e., no verbal or non-verbal "No") before sex is okay. And that's the deficiency with the "No means No" phrase. Here, these twisted men may have thought that because there was no "No", then it's okay. But, a mere absence of a negative (such as, in this case, where the woman was not capable of responding [b][i]one way or the other[/b][/i]) is not sufficient.
Unfortunately, for these and many, many other men, the existence or non-existence of verbal and non-verbal messages are irrelevant nuances. They believe they are [b][i]entitled[/b][/i] to do with women’s bodies what they wish and will gladly rape an unconscious woman.
Tue, 2007-07-17 10:09
#15
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]I read the Vogel stuff yesterday but didn't comment.The only people who really want to believe that communication is terribly complex are people that want the envelope pushed wide enough to fit their lies.[/b]
Exactly Tommy, the whole article was trying to state that no does not mean no because of this this and that.
Tue, 2007-07-17 10:42
#16
Um, no it didn't. The article didn't say that no doesn't mean no. You keep saying that - show me where it says that or even implies it.
The whole article is about the fact that the communication around sex is often non-verbal, you don't generally get an explicit, verbal "yes" or "no" when communicating about sex, and that often a refusal is stated in terms other than "no" such as apologies, excuses, etc., in order to soften the blow.
I have no idea where you figure this means she's saying that when someone says "no" it doesn't always mean "no".
Tue, 2007-07-17 10:58
#17
remind
Michelle, having re-read the article again for the fourth or fifth time, it still says the same thing to me. No does does not mean no because it it is too simplistic and communicating about sex is a too complex to encompass such a "rude" thing as no means no.
example:
quote:
“Saying ‘no’ without an explanation violates cultural norms,” says Humphreys, “and is seen as rude, arrogant, and even hostile, but that’s what most campaigns until now have told women to do -- just say no and repeat.”
It again supports a man's take - Terry Humphreys-on what a woman should be saying, or not saying in regards to sex.
Then she says this:
quote:
And, yes, this means, sometimes do stuff we maybe didn’t really want to. Though one could argue that we do a lot of stuff in life we don’t really want to for a variety of different reasons, so why is sex any different?
excuse me????? get back to me when rape and violence against women is not epidemic and then maybe I will accept trivialization about doing things against our will everyday.
Then she concludes with:
quote:
Which is why it’s so important to go beyond the simplicity of NO Means NO and come up with strategies that address the complexity of what’s really going on out there especially given today’s “jaded, cynical youth population who’s seen it all.”
pffttttt, I have seen it all too and what is really going on out there is, men are still taking what they want and it seems some women are justifying it as saying no is rude and sex is complex!
Tue, 2007-07-17 11:13
#18
I think what they're saying isn't that women SHOULDN'T be blunt about saying "no" - they're saying that women AREN'T blunt about saying no, because it's seen as rude in our society to meet a request with a blunt "no" instead of an explanation or apology or whatever.
It seems to me to be recognition of the fact that, no matter how often you say "no means no" that's not going to change the reality that most women don't just bluntly say "no". They say other things or make other gestures that MEAN "no".
So, obviously the "no means no" slogan doesn't work as a strategy to stop women from getting raped. A strategy that addresses what women actually SAY when they mean "no", and addresses what men should do when they encounter a woman saying something that means no, but isn't an explicit, verbal "no", is more realistic than just saying "no means no".
I saw a really great little card being handed out by a campus student group that addresses this very issue. It had a ton of variations on "no means no". It went something like,
"No" means no. "I've got a headache" means no. "I have to get up early" means no. "I'd love to, but..." means no. "I'm flattered, but..." means no. Pulling away means no. Wait means no. Stop means no. "I'm not sure" means no. "Let me think about it" means no.
etc.
Tue, 2007-07-17 11:43
#19
remind
Okay, I get what you are saying, though I am not convinced it is so because of the portions I quoted. Will reread again with what you got from it in my mind. But am off to an appointment now so will be later.
Interesting about the little cards, I read one recently that said, "don't waste your time, I got my cock block up" [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-07-17 11:58
#20
I might deride Derrida and psychology and philosophy from time to time, but that ilk has tought me that communication is easy, but only after basic foundations have been agreed upon.
Rape, sex and making love.
Personally, I am not much into having sex with other people.
I have sex with myself.
I make love with other people. And if you are making love, then communication is easy and natural and simple.
The problem is with sex. Having sex with another person is when one is being selfish, and not caring about thier pleasure. And we have to lie some to get what we want. Either to the other person or ourselves. While an act of selfishness isn't rape, we can see at a certain point where the mindset follows. Or, at least I can.
Not that I am Don Juan or Cassanova or anything, I think the problem is that young men are tought to have sex with other people instead of making love, and understanding what making love entails. That it is a manly thing to do, while having sex with someone else is at best rude and childish, and at worst as we see here, rape.
In the above case that touched off this debate, I bet that kid sat in a jail cell, wrapped up so deep in his own lies to himself that he could well be believing that he's innocent.
While some young women are saying that the victim should have known better than to go where she went and did what she did in the first place.
We try hard not to equate sex with rape. We should be working hard not to equate making love with sex, too.
Tue, 2007-07-17 13:57
#21
after the fiasco of the Duke case, in which innocent boys were accused of rape, etc, by an overzealous prosecutor who wanted to court the black vote, I think it's appropriate not to judge these situations too quickly.
It's incumbent upon feminists, especially, imo, to vigorously guard against false accusations. Every false accusation hurts real victims.
Tue, 2007-07-17 14:16
#22
Catchfire
Um, the incident took place in April, there was video footage of the assault [i]on his own cell phone[/i] and the DNA evidence also supports the arrest. Plus, the woman had a blood alcohol level of .30 when the other three assholes raped her. So please don't get alarmed if I "judge this situation too quickly."
Also: false allegations of rape should cause no more damage than false allegations of other crimes, yet for some reason, there is extra weight ascribed to rape allegations, hence contributing to female victims who are afraid to speak out when they have been attacked. What's more, the vast majority of rape allegations are true, statistically speaking. So no, I won't be too worried about speaking out so soon.
And, without opening up a can of worms all over again, the Duke boys were certainly not "innocent."
Tue, 2007-07-17 14:48
#23
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by nutboy:
[b]after the fiasco of the Duke case, in which innocent boys were accused of rape, etc, by an overzealous prosecutor who wanted to court the black vote[/b]
Assumu much? Nice the way your post manages to malign feminists and black people in two smarmy sentences. How do you know the motivation of Nifong? Perhaps he believed the woman who said she was assaulted? Perhaps she was assaulted but insufficient evidence is available to substantiate her claim? The fact that the accused cannot be tried does not mean that a crime did not take place. It sickens me the way you portray someone who may be trying to respond to the legitimate concerns of the African American community as 'courting the black vote' as this shows such little respect for the African American electorate.
Tue, 2007-07-17 14:49
#24
remind
Michelle, having re-read it yet again there is is some measure of what you put forth as the articlesaying, but I still perceive that either the article was written poorly or the message it gives is inaccuate.
For example:
quote:
As offensive as these are, Humphreys believes they are in direct response to the equally unreasonable message of the NO Means NO campaign.
“Consent is more of a process than a one-time event,” says Humphreys.
First, she is building her premise based upon the dictates of what a male psychologist put forths regarding what women should orshould not say and do. Something to which I personally will give no credibility.
Secondly, above she quotes Humphreys message that no means no is unreasonable. Why? Because it is against societies norms.
Excuse me, but what we are trying to combat is societies norms of patriarchial dominence which are the exploitation of women and others. Sexually or otherwise.
Consent is not a process, if one makes it a process it then is coercive in nature and it is not willingness to have an encounter.
This fact is bolstered by the above quote that I made of hers:
quote:
And, yes, this means, sometimes do stuff we maybe didn’t really want to. Though one could argue that we do a lot of stuff in life we don’t really want to for a variety of different reasons, so why is sex any different?
For me, all the article does is give men an excuse to jusify their coercion and tell women they shouldn't feel sexually exploited if they weren't into it and do it anyway.
I get the full sense that women are being blammed for
a)not messaging things correctly
b) taking non-consensual sex too personally
The article sucks on many levels.
Tommy words things very well in this regards.
Wed, 2007-07-18 14:40
#25
Sven
Given [url=http://www.startribune.com/gophers/story/1310759.html]this action[/url], I like the new University of Minnesota football coach already.
Thu, 2007-07-19 07:32
#26
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Michelle, having re-read it yet again there is is some measure of what you put forth as the articlesaying, but I still perceive that either the article was written poorly or the message it gives is inaccuate..[/b]
Some times psychologists and sociologists are very poor at relaying what they say and their agendas do get misconstrued by lay people.
It comes down to how we communicate, and in this instance the psychologists and sociologist are conveying when it comes to communication and sexuality, and non-verbal communication the process is complicated, dynamic, and the process is no confined to one discussion an not isolated from other interactions between any two people
I posted a communication model in another thread. I don't want to cross post so I will just link to the thread
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001220]V... against women[/url]
Michelle mentioned the postcard that had terms like "I have a headache"... and the card says this means no.
But in the communication model, the sender (female) could mean no but the receiver (male) may have an agenda, and may think "this means no today but not tomorrow, so I will ask again tomorrow"
The receiver perceives this as open ended if he has an agenda. Maybe the sender after the last time she said "I have a headache", consented to sex the next day, and now she has changed her mind and no longer wants sex with the individual ever again, but repeated the phrase "I have a headache" to spare the receiver's feelings.
Thu, 2007-07-19 07:44
#27
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I don't think it's crap. [url=http://web.mac.com/jvogels/iWeb/joseyvogels.com/my%20messy%20bedroom/368...'s the article.[/url]The latter situation is where women have to feel free to stop things and say, no, I really don't want to do this. And this is where men have to not only read verbal cues but physical ones too. If a woman is pulling away when it's getting too intense, that doesn't mean gather her closer and be an octopus until she either fights you off, starts crying or just gives in.
[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ][/b]
men and women in general are different in reading non-verbal cues.... I am going to try and find the link to a study, but basically there was a study that tested the ability of men and women to determine the perceived facial expressions, and non-verbal language of people. Women came out ahead.
I don;t think this is the one I was thinking about but I found this:
[url=http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory20.htm]nonverbal communication[/url]
on the other hand there is this interesting article about how
[url=http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan05/expressions.html]people notice when women counter gender stereotypes, .[/url]says Hess. The findings also may indicate that the stereotypes don't reflect reality. Differences between men and women's facial appearances may contribute to perceptions of gender stereotypes, she adds
[ 19 July 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
Wed, 2007-07-25 03:41
#28
mawka said:
Assumu much? Nice the way your post manages to malign feminists and black people in two smarmy sentences. How do you know the motivation of Nifong? Perhaps he believed the woman who said she was assaulted? Perhaps she was assaulted but insufficient evidence is available to substantiate her claim? The fact that the accused cannot be tried does not mean that a crime did not take place. It sickens me the way you portray someone who may be trying to respond to the legitimate concerns of the African American community as 'courting the black vote' as this shows such little respect for the African American electorate.
I don't know how saying "courting the black vote" maligns blacks. Perhaps you are a bit oversensitive?
and your continuing to try to claim that the innocent Duke players may have been rapists indeed is indefensible. The authorities positively declared them to be INNOCENT.
read up on the case if you doubt me.
it's feminists like you, who try to defend obviously bogus rape charges, who do women a dis-service.
[ 25 July 2007: Message edited by: nutboy ]
Wed, 2007-07-25 07:42
#29
remind
Okay nutboy has been told to stay out of the feminist forum already, he has not done so, and that is where he seems to only post. This makes the statement that he is feminist baiting.
Wed, 2007-07-25 07:44
#30
Wow, alright, that's enough Nutboy. Our warnings have obviously fallen on deaf ears, and that kind of talk will not be tolerated in the feminism forum, or on babble.
Wed, 2007-07-25 08:14
#31
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I think I get the previous complaints of certain posters of the attitudes of many male posters to rape discussions. Now that I've seen many of these discussions, it seems like new ones are just rehashes, and repeat the same mistakes.
Wed, 2007-07-25 10:16
#32
Exactly Apples, and unfortunately guys like nutboy believe that because a judge says Not Guilty that means that no crime has been committed. He claims to have read the case. I highly highly doubt he has read the actual case. He may have read about the case, but it is not likely he has read the case itself.
I have personally seen rapists walk away with Not Guilty charges who are and were clearly guilty. Get a great defense lawyer, open the woman's past sexual history, turn it into a money case, don't bring forth the defendants priors, argue successfully technicalities.... you get the picture. It is a miracle women come forward at all.
I know I would never ever do it again in a million years.
Wed, 2007-07-25 10:21
#33
quote:
open the woman's past sexual history
This should not be allowed. Right now it can be if the defense can convince a judge that its revelant. Personally though I see that its possible in some case that it can be revelant (history of fake claims etc) it should be up to the defense to prove it to 2 judges not deciding the case to remove bias. Make it one judge and you could get the judges in this case, for example, in which case Im sure ANYTHING from he rpast would be allowed.
I also believe it should work the other way. The defendants past history should be available if the prosecutor can convince 2 different judges its revelant.
Wed, 2007-07-25 10:28
#34
If histories of past committed rapes aren't "relevant" then neither are histories of past "false claims". Especially since a claim cannot be "proven false".
Wed, 2007-07-25 10:34
#35
'convicted' rapes in someone's history should always be allowed.
Wed, 2007-07-25 11:02
#36
But you see, I don't agree with that.
I think it should be the other way. The past shouldn't be admissable. It's quite possible for someone who has done heinous things in the past to be falsely accused of doing another heinous thing.
It's also possible for someone with a checkered sexual past, or even a history of lying, to be telling the truth THIS time.
Wed, 2007-07-25 11:20
#37
Very true. I do agree with you there. But how do you balance the two? Lets say you have a guy who has a pattern of meeting women at the Keg, getting them drunk, raping them and has been convicted of such. Then is now on trial for raping a women who he met at the keg, got drunk, slept with and says it was consensual now and she says rape? Or the flip a woman with a pattern of sleeping with guys at parties and then crying rape the next day, with evidence to the contrary and now accusing a guy of rape at a party with evidence to the contrary? Both are a pattern a jury should be allowed to see.
Now if the guy has a criminal record of assault (as in beating up someone) or burgulary that should not be admissable in this case and neither should any sexual history of the woman (like shes into bdsm, dresses 'sexy'm has had 100 confirmed lovers or any other stupid crap)
Wed, 2007-07-25 11:22
#38
That's a tough one for me Michelle, I completely understand your point and I do agree with it to a point, but I would say there needs to be some caveat that it can be introduced if the person has shown no attempts to reform themselves from their previous behaviours.
As per the victim's past, I completely agree, there should be no discussion allowed.
Wed, 2007-07-25 11:22
#39
I should add, or anything that does not point to a pattern. Using my fictional example; a guy who has been convicted of a rape that has no similarity to the one he's on trial for should not be admitted. Or a woman who accused someone of rape previously (regardless of the conviction of the accused) that bears no resemblance to the present case should not have that brought up.
Thats why I would like to see 2 unrelated judges hear the evidence first.
Wed, 2007-07-25 11:31
#40
What if I had made no attempt to reform myself from killing people? Say I killed 3 people in the distant past. And just last week, I killed someone else. And I'm planning to kill someone a week from now. But today, I get arrested for killing someone I didn't kill.
Is it relevant that I've killed a bunch of other people and that I haven't reformed? Is that somehow evidence of my guilt in this case?
The answer is, no.
Same with a rape victim. Say I consented to sex with 15 different guys in the past couple of months. Say I consented to sex with one guy in particular 15 different times in the past. Say I'm planning to consent to him 15 times in the future. But let's also say he rapes me tonight.
The fact that I'm promiscuous (hate that word) and said yes to him many times before is not evidence that I consented this time.
It isn't relevant. What's relevant is THIS case, not past cases.
Wed, 2007-07-25 11:41
#41
gaaaah...I hate these kinds of arguements because I know that you're right.. but lets take a previous offender who wasn't reformed, is out on parole in a neighbourhood where a couple of victims go missing. One of those victims is found with this offender. Can we not use the previous crimes against him to prove his guilt?
Wed, 2007-07-25 12:20
#42
Michelle is three quarters right. Generally, the fact that Ms. A has consented to sex with 2, 88, or 9,000 people is not evidence that Ms. A consented to have sex with Mr. X.
Similarly, the fact that an accused, say Mr. X, committed rape previously is not evidence that he committed rape in his sexual encounter with Ms. A.
The reasoning is identical in the two cases, and one cannot coherently argue that his previous sexual behaviour is relevant, while hers isn't, or vice versa.
There are, however, some situations in which previous behaviour MAY be relevant. The Judge has discretion to let such evidence in, under strict conditions.
For example, if Mr. X had previously committed a rape, and there was something unusual about it, say, he used duct tape to tie the hands of his victim around a bedpost, his previous conduct could be used against him if the new victim was also saying he did that. It is considered a kind of "signature" attributable to Mr. X which would be hard for Ms. A to invent.
Similarly, HER previous behaviour MIGHT become admissible. Say Ms. A claims to have been raped by an ex-boyfriend in the back of a pick-up truck. It MIGHT be relevant that she had led other men to the back of pick up trucks, because she thought it was exciting to do it there.
It is important to understand that her previous behaviour could be admissible, but that this does not disprove her allegation. It is simply a fact, which the jury may, or may not, take into account in deciding whether there was consent.
Incidentally, if the defence were "I was elsewhere at the time" then her previous conduct could never be admissible. Only the defence of consent allows for a possible examination of her past behaviour with respect to him, or to other aspects of the case.
Wed, 2007-07-25 12:28
#43
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]
The reasoning is identical in the two cases, and one cannot coherently argue that his previous sexual behaviour is relevant, while hers isn't, or vice versa.
[/b]
No. Your post seems terribly wrong. I'm hoping I read it wrong, or maybe you forgot an adjective.
1) If a woman consented to sex, previously, with 50 or so people, it doesn't mean she would consent to sex with everyone. It's very possible she could have had a very wild and exciting sex life, but that the particular person involved at the other end of the rape case is one she rejected. Most women I know with very active sex lioves turn down most, nearly all, of the advances they receive.
2) I have not read much about it, but all the evidence I've read is that sexual pathology is very difficult to treat and has a very high rate of recidivism. By that I mean paedophilia, sexual assault, et cetera.
So, I don't think it's fair to argue equal relevancy between a history of consensual sex, and a history of agressive sexual pathology.
[ 25 July 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Thu, 2007-08-09 11:14
#44
I think the real problem here, as the name of the thread indicates, is colleges. Shut them down and we have no more college rapes.
Thu, 2007-08-09 11:34
#45
Maysie
No, BenParsons, the real problem here is that you need to stay out of the feminism forum.
Thu, 2007-08-09 12:17
#46
quote:
Originally posted by BenParsons:
[b]I think the real problem here, as the name of the thread indicates, is colleges. Shut them down and we have no more college rapes.[/b]
Don't forget to ban hospitals and we'll never die!
Thu, 2007-08-09 12:25
#47
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]No, BenParsons, the real problem here is that you need to stay out of the feminism forum.[/b]
Thanks BCG, I noticed prior he was clearly trolling here and in another thread. But coulkd not be boithered with calling him on it, as one never gets listened to anyway. Must make him feel empowered or some damn thing.
Thu, 2007-08-09 16:09
#48
Ben's gone.
Edited to say: actually, I change my mind. Ben doesn't seem to be doing too badly in some other forums, looking at his other posts. So, as bigcitygal says, Ben can just stay out of this thread from now on until he gets the hang of how the feminism forum works.
[ 09 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Thu, 2007-08-09 16:26
#49
remind
That's too bad Michelle, you should not second guess yourself, I read his one other post that was not bad of the ones he posted, and would not have recinded based upon not so trolling of a post.
And ya closed Jane's abortion thread, just as I was saying to FM that I realized long before what was up, but I wanted to see how far he/she would push it.
Thu, 2007-08-09 16:29
#50
Sorry remind, but I like to be sure. There will be lots of time for banning if it's warranted.
Thu, 2007-08-09 17:15
#51
remind
Sure of what Michelle? It seems that you are giving tacit approval then for someone to come in and shit in the feminist forum 2-3 times, and post a nothing post elsewhere, just to get away with shitting in the feminist forum without censorship.