# Why is rape considered what it currently is morally (right/wrong)?



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

Wasn't sure whether to put this in Debate or here, so I flipped a coin.

CONTEXT

* *




Coming up, we've got a discussion at my college about feminism and they decided to call forth all the well known, out-spoken feminists (such as me) and anti-feminists here, as well as a couple of volunteers. Spicing things up!

Anyway, I'm a bit hesitant, because with all my patriarchy statistics and whatnot, I don't think I'll have a very strong argument if someone decides to ask "Why is rape wrong? Or at least, why is it as wrong as it is?" I'll have _some_ arguments. They won't be open-and-shut, though. So, I need your help! I might come up with a killer argument before you. Oooh, a competition!




*Why is rape as wrong as it is?*

My problem here is that often, rape is considered bad because of the effects it has. The trauma, people not believing in your trauma or thinking that you're being whiny or blaming you or the STDs as a result...

The issue is that the same thing can affect everyone differently, so when we say "rape is bad," are we really just saying that "the average moral value of rape is bad," and if so, is that a mean, median, or mode? I mean, I live with my friend who raped her ex-boyfriend once (I swear that this is true and I'm not just switching gender roles for rhetorical reasons, this is a hundred percent true story and nothing was changed for rhetorical reasons), and it essentially played out as him saying "eh, nah" half-heartedly, but not physically resisting when she got on him (already naked) and started humping his penis with her vagina (also known as sex). Now, there's a chance that he was secretly traumatized, but he never exhibited it in any manner. Their relationship lasted for a few more months and they still have sex to this day and keep friendly relations, and you could say "Well, not all trauma is visible."

So, do we just assume that rape is always traumatic, then? Isn't that circular logic?

"Rape is bad because it's traumatic. It's traumatic because rape is always traumatic because rape is bad."

wtf

_____


Next up, there are people who have committed suicide from heartbreak. Heartbreak can have very long-lasting effects. I'm going somewhere with this, and I feel like readers might already be predicting what I'm going to say and are already reacting in disgust, making this really difficult. Just bear with me anyway, regardless of how good you are at predicting things.

Personal anecdote, because why not?

* *




About three years ago, my sexuality hadn't really bloomed yet. I felt no sexual attraction to anyone or anything. Completely asexual. I was 15, so clearly, I was a bit late. My best friend said that if my sexuality ever bloomed and I was interested, she'd take my virginity. A year later, that's what happened, but she had a boyfriend. I didn't bring up her promise, but I did say that my limbic system finally decided to wake the fuck up, and she brought up the promise. "Oh my god, really? This means that if you're interested in me, I get to take your virginity!" I admitted I was interested and she was all "AWESOME! I'ma go break up with mah boyfriend now!"

And then she didn't and then there was a lot of backing out and coming back in (no pun intended), where she was like "I dunno how I'm feeling about this anymore, it's really weird, I'm out" and then "Nah, let's do it. I'ma break up with this guy." Obviously, looking back, I realize that everyone (but the boyfriend) involved in this was really stupid and morally atrocious, including me, so I'd rather not have anyone point that out to me. The idea that I, with the knowledge that this would hurt him, passively allowed this thing that could damage their relationship exist was a horrible thing to do, and I thought I was immune to the stupidity of those under the influence of lust, which served to only make me more vulnerable.

Eventually, their relationship did end for crazy reasons and she was like "Alright, let's do this."

We planned and planned for about 2 months to start off this friends with benefits deal, and then she backed out and admitted that she was honestly just leading me on for a really long time because it really helped her ego, and she also kept it going when we were talking about living together so that she could use it to convince me and she could split the payment, so now I live with her.

She did a bunch of stuff for her ego and my money all through the power of immunity bias, the cognitive bias that makes you more vulnerable to something by thinking you're immune to it. As someone who was asexual when everyone else wasn't, I was like, "I can totally think rationally in the face of sex. I'm cool. I'm totally rad. This can't hurt me ow what the hell my heart ow something is stabbing me ow i don't like this" I sometimes cry myself to sleep and write really bad poetry.

Violets are blue
I am in a lot of pain
Surprise, it's haiku

(She's also my only (and best, as a consequence, I suppose) friend haha humans are so fucked up)




So, you really don't need to read all that if you can already understand the point I'm about to make. If it's weird to you, I guess you can read the anecdote, but it's not really anything major. Here's my point: heartbreak can have long-lasting effects, like rape, that are very intense and traumatic, but while people condemn rapists, people who cause heartbreak are merely exercising their rights, right? The ability to say no.

And then, with the people who commit suicide because they couldn't get the one they love (or lusted for), you could argue that they're just being pathetic and weak, that they're emotionally unstable, but if that's the case, you could equally argue that rape victims are such as well. They're just being whiny, the Devil's Advocate would say.

Essentially, when sex is expected from person A and person B says not, whether person B says yes or no and whether person A complies with the will of person B or not, someone will likely get hurt. Why are certain types of pain valid and others not?

I think we can all agree that if person A wants sex from person B and person B says "no," we'd all go, myself included, that person B has that right no matter what. Even if person B tells person A "Do this, and this, and this, and you'll get laid from me," and builds it up for years, decades, even centuries, person B still gets to go, in the end, "loljk no sexy time for you" without a fear of consequence, because that is a person's right. What is that right built on? It can't simply be "because rape can hurt someone" because that implies that actions should maximize the net gain, accounting for the loss of gain from pain, which implies, as a consequence, that rape can be okay if it avoids the pain of heartbreak and that heartbreak is greater than the pain of rape.

___

My strongest argument at this point is that rape should be taught as bad simply because by saying that "sometimes, rape can be good," even if it's true, people who don't know what that means will rape when it will lead to far more atrocity than good. It also doesn't sit well with me, but that's not a rational argument, that's just an appeal to emotion no better than "It's just WRONG."

I'm sure there were other things I wanted to address, but I have class in thirty minutes, so I wanted to type this out and finish it asap. I'll put forth other arguments and concerns as needed. If something here doesn't make sense, point it out and I'll either clarify or go "Oh yeah. I'll use that argument." Um. Okay, thanks!


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

Generally speaking rape can physically as well as mentally harm someone. There are many outcomes, the vast majority of which are bad. Pregnancy, STD's, physical trauma, mental trauma, all of these are negative. As you explained, it is possible that there might be some positive points to rape as well, but I think most people would agree that the vast majority of cases would tend to be negative.

Just because rape is labeled as "bad" doesn't mean that makes any other behavior good or bad. Certainly heartbreak should be avoided if possible, but I'm not going to judge someone for leaving a bad relationship, especially if they are being abused sexually, mentally, or physically. 

I do think that certain relationships such as marriage carry with them an expectation of sex and partners should do their best to satisfy each other, but even then imposing your will physically on another person to get what you want is generally considered out of bounds and isn't likely to make for a healthy relationship.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

We are responsible for our own actions, feelings and beliefs, and imposing our own satisfaction at the expense of other people's dignity, happiness and well being is wrong.

It was wrong for your friend to have led you on for so long, but you would be wrong if you her too (not saying that you would of course, but just arguing about the case scenario). Each has to be responsible of their own actions.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

There are so many reasons that quite frankly it alarms me that you couldn't seem to find even one. 

First of all, there are NO positive effects of rape. Like tf is this nonsense? 

Now that I've got that out of the way… One reason Rape is considered very wrong is because you are doing something against someone's will. Heartbreak while traumatic, can't be punished because the other person in this relationship has rights to do what they wish with their lives/bodies as well. Forcing someone to stay with you, forcing someone to have sex with you. This is WRONG. Very wrong. Our society is built on the idea of "freedom" and equal rights. Free will.

Now like someone above me mentioned, there are a plethora of other reasons why rape is bad. Mental trauma, physical trauma, STD's, unwanted pregnancies, just to name a few. Feelings of shame and worthlessness. Problems with future relationships. The list goes on.

Women in this world are made to believe that a significant amount of their worth is in their virtue. There have been many cases during wars that mass rapes have occurred during battles/invasions. The women were often raped and the men were killed. Why were the women left alive? Why weren't all of them killed as well? Because the mindset was such that rape meant ruin for a women. They were now considered worthless anyway. 

Men are thought to be impervious to rape. Men can't be raped, they're men. And if they are that makes them less, pathetic. Like you would view a person who's lost their limbs in a tragic accident. Sympathetic because they're not able to function properly in society anymore. This is the mindset that society holds for males. Men that I know in real life and even on the internet seem to be much more afraid of being falsely accused of rape than they are being raped themselves. Even though, statistics wise, they're much more likely to be raped than falsely accused of it.


----------



## Andromeda31 (Jul 21, 2014)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> *I live with my friend who raped her ex-boyfriend once* (I swear that this is true and I'm not just switching gender roles for rhetorical reasons, this is a hundred percent true story and nothing was changed for rhetorical reasons), and *it essentially played out as him saying "eh, nah" half-heartedly, but not physically resisting when she got on him (already naked) and started humping his penis with her vagina* (also known as sex). Now, there's a chance that he was secretly traumatized, but he never exhibited it in any manner. Their relationship lasted for a few more months and they still have sex to this day and keep friendly relations, and you could say "Well, not all trauma is visible."


Why would you use this as an example? Are you trying to trivialize rape? 

Sorry but I find it offensive when people classify everything that may slightly cross the line as rape. 

There's a wide spectrum of experiences that someone can go through and the more serious instances can leave a person traumatized for life.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

Why don't you find out.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Andromeda31 said:


> Why would you use this as an example? Are you trying to trivialize rape?
> 
> Sorry but I find it offensive when people classify everything that may slightly cross the line as rape.
> 
> There's a wide spectrum of experiences that someone can go through and the more serious instances can leave a person traumatized for life.


You're being offended at the wrong things. That is considered rape. Simple. Crossing the line no matter how slightly is wrong. The line is there for a reason.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Rape is obviously detrimental, both to the individual and the society.

If rape were suddenly made legal, I doubt it would be safe for women to walk the streets, or be alone with a man. Don't get me wrong, I sincerely believe most men understand that rape is wrong and wouldn't do it, even if it were decrimninalized - they know it's an absolutely vile thing to do to someone. HOWEVER, I also happen to sincerely believe there are men out there to whom the prospect of getting caught is the only thing stopping them, as terrifying and sobering as that thought is.

With things such as rape, it's a matter of practicality we place sanctions against it. Men (and women) have a compulsive drive to procreate and, without a negative counterbalance to that urge, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from forcing themselves on countless individuals and ruining countless lives in the process. It is in the best interests of society that rape is punished and highly condemned, to prevent it from freely occuring.

Furthermore, I am a living, human being who understands that actions have consequences. I understand the mental and physical anguish sexual abuse causes to individuals. I do not wish that upon myself, I do not wish that upon my loved ones, and I do not wish that upon my worst enemy. I would prefer to live in a society which actively discourages things which cause harm - including rape - than one which ignores (or even encourages) it. Indeed, it is actually in my best interests to live in a society which actively tries to prevent things which harm me. 

Rape is not only bad in terms of practicality within a given society, it's also bad from a personal wellbeing perspective. It's wrong because it quite clearly hurts others; the fact that some people are not as bothered by it is irrelevent. It is still a clear transgression against someone's bodily autonomy, and one which has great potential to effectively ruin them. 

In which twisted moral system should that be recognized as an acceptable way to treat a fellow human being? 

...actually, don't answer that last question.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

In many contexts I would believe it to be arguably wrong to do things against one's consent.
This will vary but for the most part, people quite easily do this on different scales with out even the flicker of thought of why what they did was wrong.
You force something against their will you're in most contexts doing some harm.
In the case of a lack of mutual want, there's a conflict and as such one's want of something doesn't trump another's lack of want and the right to make that decision.
I imagine respect for consent tends to revolve around our love of autonomy and in regards to sex, our bodily autonomy. I think it's a pretty good rule that we respect autonomy to such a strong degree even to the point of letting people be detrimental to themselves in some circumstances.


----------



## Andromeda31 (Jul 21, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> You're being offended at the wrong things. That is considered rape. Simple. Crossing the line no matter how slightly is wrong. The line is there for a reason.


I'm offended because she's comparing apples to oranges. 

Not all rapes are equal. If you consider the example of a guy in bed with his gf giving a weak no then not giving any resistance the same as someone being physically restrained against their will then your sense of morality is off. 

Imo this type of attitude makes it worse for the victim because in many cases they aren't taken seriously.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Andromeda31 said:


> I'm offended because she's comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Not all rapes are equal. If you consider the example of a guy in bed with his gf giving a weak no then not giving any resistance the same as someone being physically restrained against their will then your sense of morality is off.
> 
> Imo this type of attitude makes it worse for the victim because in many cases they aren't taken seriously.


Not all rapes are created equal but they're still all considered rape. 

I'm afraid that its _your_ type of attitude (not mine) that makes it worse for victims, because those that aren't on the extreme side of sexual assault don't get taken seriously. They should be. All taken. Very seriously.


----------



## Andromeda31 (Jul 21, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Not all rapes are created equal but they're still all considered rape.
> 
> I'm afraid that its _your_ type of attitude (not mine) that makes it worse for victims, because those that aren't on the extreme side of sexual assault don't get taken seriously. They should be. All taken. Very seriously.


Don't pretend that you know anything about my attitude towards rape other than what you've interpreted through your own filter. 

Anyway I'm done here because there's no way to have any meaningful conversation on here without getting too personal.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Andromeda31 said:


> Don't pretend that you know anything about my attitude towards rape other than what you've interpreted through your own filter.
> 
> Anyway I'm done here because there's no way to have any meaningful conversation on here without getting too personal.


All I know about your attitude towards rape are the words you yourself expressed. I'm not looking into any hidden meanings here. 

Thats perfectly fine.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Rape is wrong because it's wrong to violate someone's bodily autonomy and treat them like an object.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> Isn't that circular logic?
> 
> "Rape is bad because it's traumatic. It's traumatic because rape is always traumatic because rape is bad."


My advice is to unpack complex sentences and paragraphs into distinct premises according to each proposition being made.

1. Rape is bad because it's traumatic.
2. Rape is traumatic because it's bad.
3. Rape is categorically traumatic.

Sometimes doing this helps one slow down enough to look at the argument's individual pieces and how they relate to each other. I also recommend looking at how key words are used in each proposition. _Bad_ is a vague word. Is the use you assigned it in the first premise absolutely identical to the use it has in the second premise, or have you unintentionally committed equivocation?


----------



## Andromeda31 (Jul 21, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> All I know about your attitude towards rape are the words you yourself expressed. I'm not looking into any hidden meanings here.
> 
> Thats perfectly fine.


It's a very touchy subject for me so I'm glad you understand. These types of talks go much more smoothly in person.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Aw lord here go hell come.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Can it be rape if it was enjoyed and positive? The criteria is consent or no consent, but then there's implied consent. So if someone enjoys it then it is implied consent and not rape. Like when a wife and husband has sex, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it even thought chances are no one explicitly says "let's have sex, I agree".


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Can it be rape if it was enjoyed and positive? The criteria is consent or no consent, but then there's implied consent. So if someone enjoys it then it is implied consent and not rape. Like when a wife and husband has sex, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it even thought chances are no one explicitly says "let's have sex, I agree".


Consent doesn't have to be verbal.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Its bad in the same way that assault is with the added disgusting attribute of being sexual in nature which is a very sensitive thing for most people since society and individuals themselves tend to judge themselves and each other based on that. It physically harms people and diminishes people self-worth, it violates the most personal aspect of someone's privacy and shows a lack of respect or acknowledgement of the inherent humanity of the victim.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Consent doesn't have to be verbal.


Yes I know, that is a component to my question.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Yes I know, that is a component to my question.


But if there is implied consent then its not considered rape. So whats left of your question?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> But if there is implied consent then its not considered rape. So whats left of your question?


No further questions.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Wanting help about arguments for a discussion might be misinterpreted by many
Sure rape is not good, it hurts in one way or another (and at many at the same time)
Rape is *overrated* in the sense that most people will condemn it but will forget about many other kinds of abuse when the other person already said NO.
I get your story about a woman raping a guy, yes it happens, problem is when the woman is raped she suffers greater risks: women get pregnant, men don't, as for anything else it's the same except for the specific emotional differences (if people want to see them)

The problem with a woman raping a guy is... it's not easy for a guy under stress to keep an erection so that leaves a lot of things to wonder. Rape as penetrating a guy... that's something different. I worked at a newspaper, large media company and the news reporters published an study about rape, well they decided to leave the female rape OUT of the stats and only posted about male rape. 

Anyway that's more of the same, here is where you got my full attention:



TheOminousMuffin said:


> Here's my point: *heartbreak can have long-lasting effects, like rape, that are very intense and traumatic*


I guess it takes hearing and understanding your friends for many years to finally understand the devastating effects of playing with your heart might cause. Sure rape, physical abuse and such are terrible but that's mostly physical, you have to have someone near to be afraid, tell that to the people who have been deeply hurt by someone "who loves them"... they avoid any intimacy, emotional closeness and they close their hearts. Rape might not cause people to wonder if ABCDE person loves them or not, emotionally... heartbreaks can cause people to wonder if they would ever be loved or if someone really cares, some really close every door. But hey at the end, both are just evil moves.

*Truth is, the word rape causes a lot of ripples and interferences*... ANY sign that might be considered as you not agreeing on rape being absolute hell will awake the anger of many, even if you just leave space for confusing your own words.


*Let's go back to considering the heartbreak, would you?* you shared a short story let me share mine. I was talking with one exGF who now has a little boy, single mother. She was such a player but yes we loved each other, it's complicated. Anyway we were talking about a recent problem I had with my recent exGF and I decided to open up and share how I WARNED my ex about her actions. First I talked about the abuse, the lack of respect and how things escalated, she didn't say a word. When I talked about me being angry and raising my voice due to the stupid games that woman was playing... then she had something to say.



She warned me about violence
Said talking might be a form of violence depending on the words
She said I was being dumb for letting things happen
Said no man has any right to talk like that to a woman, any woman
sure she is a lawyer/attorney...
Warned me about how easy it is for women to twist things and send guys to jail

I immediately regret talking to her about her because she didn't understand or talked about what lead to the heated discussions.* Then I saw her little boy jumping around us at the table, an idea crossed my mind so I talked...

*You now have a son, you want the best for him and you will raise him to be a gentleman, a nice guy, a man, you will make sacrifices for him. He will be someone you can love, admire and respect, someone that should and must be good to people and all living things and sure, he will be that good man.

Then when another woman with no reason at all comes and treats him like shit... you will think "_what a total bitch_" and you will feel flames inside of you because there is at least one time when your boy your little boy doesn't deserve being played or lied to, you will hear him and see him hurt... then you talk to him about not raising his voice to another woman that you know played with him.​
She kept her eyes blank and then said "I'm sorry".
She was my GF so she knows I can be stupid, temperamental or whatever but I don't play or just go hurting people so she had it wrong lecturing me about respecting another human being. Yes she played with me and now faces having a little boy... and the risk of getting him to know a woman just like her...

Sorry if that sounds off topic, it's not... around your point of heartbreak.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I think rape is bad because it is fundamentally exploitative.

It's all about the cost benefit of pain/pleasure being equal between people. 

It's also destructive to the bonds of society...intimate relationships and family.

If you look at your story about your friend, it also seems bad because her behavior is exploitative. She extracted services from you that you may not have given if you knew the nature of her feelings. I don't actually think it's the lack of sex that hurt you as much as feeling that your friend was taking advantage of you (exploiting you). 

That's the same type of feeling that goes along with rape, especially rape from a loved one or someone trusted (which is why, as was said before, it's silly to assume that the morality or severity of rape depends on how violent it was...it's not just about the physical violence of the act). Certainly that's a HUGE factor...like some women have had serious bodily injury or death...but other types of rape can also be psychologically devastating. And IDK--I think it's easier to just say rape is bad than try to create some spectrum of "not as bad" to "the most horrible rapes ever." 

I think it's much more about how we value each other as humans...are we participating in relationships that appear to model a predator/prey dynamic--or are we acknowledging that suffering and pain is an inherent part of living, but that we can make life better for all of us by trying to work together, value each other, and build each other up? 

One is the bane of society and characterized by destruction (like with the looting, pillaging, and raping done from warring parties) and one is the glue and building blocks of society...the sexual, platonic, and familial bonds of trust that we form with each other, that makes up our society as a whole.

IMO, it's a good idea to talk about sex but I don't really view it as a material transaction. I mean, if I were to and I were to go to a prostitute and be like, "here's fifty bucks...I want you to have sex with me," and the prostitute was like "um...no." Then I would ask her for my money back. If she didn't give it back I would be like, "fuck...that was kind of dumb because now I can't go to the police...since prostitution is illegal here anyway...and now I have to walk away without my fifty bucks, when I thought we had an agreement."
So it sucks for me...and I suppose it would be "bad." Though personally, I wouldn't see it quite as bad as being raped. And I think what would be most destructive about his is that I trusted on that explicit agreement, and that it was violated. IDK. But certainly, no one should assume that anyone is obligated to have sex with them. 

I guess the agreement violated with rape is that the target is an autonomous human being with their own feelings, thoughts, aspirations etc. Who is of equal value to others, and who deserves to choose whether or not they have sex with someone. So I would rather lose fifty bucks, than that "right"...not to mention the physical and social affects of rape that hurt.

And that gets more into the issue with the "purpose" for activities. The purpose of friendships and stuff. The purpose of human relationships...and treating them as if they are supposed to be mutually beneficial and not predatory (exploitative), which I think is the core of this question of morality.

But I'm not really speaking from my personal feelings--it sounds like you're trying to get into the philosophical discussion about morality and why things are "wrong," which just gets into ethics, and I've only taken one ethics class. IDK why that would be an important part of a class on feminism...sounds like it belongs more in the philosophy department...and I'm pretty much approaching it like that.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Because a want isn't an entitlement. 
Wanting somebody, physically or emotionally, doesn't mean that you're entitled to have them. The same morals apply for possessions. 
Rape is morally wrong because it's taking something which you're not entitled to take and additionally causing harm in the process.


----------



## INFPsyche (Nov 13, 2014)

It's illegal and bad because it's a violation of something that isn't yours.. maybe comparable to breaking and entering a home or business.. it is not YOURS.. you don't belong there.. and you must RESPECT it..

And omg.. don't get me started.. I've had my heart raped and I've felt it completely unfair that i couldn't do anything about it and spent many sleepless nights thinking i wish there was a legal way of getting someone in trouble for it.. because it DOES hurt and it's usually done a hell of a lot sneakier than rape is and usually is most definitely done on purpose.. 


Somebody needs to get a few laws changed.. (or ADDED to be more exact..).. ..


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Rape is wrong because it interferes with the central human tenant of human dignity and rights,
If you're willing to condone rape on the premise that 'Those who are strong survive',
And 'That is how it always was',
Then you should tolerate pedophilia,
Necrophilia and other such behaviors,
Solely because they all involve non-consenting parties,
Who are not able to truly have an equal say in what is happening to them.

Rape is stealing ones right to freedom and choice of what you do with your body,
As murder is stealing ones right to life,
It's innately wrong as by saying it is right,
Or not 'wrong',
You essentially break down the tenants of human structure and respect that civilization was built on.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

I find it interesting most people here are claiming rape is wrong because of the consequences it creates such as mental trauma after the act. No doubt these are terrible effects but I don't see this as a reason of why its wrong. I mean what if someone created a miracle drug to erase one's memory of a rape and all the effects it causes to someone mentally as if it never happened? Is rape still wrong? I would argue obviously yes. It's the _initiation of force_ that separates rape from love making/consensual sex , murder from killing in self defense, voluntary trade from theft , etc.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

I find it interesting, that despite this... So many women have a rape fetish.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> *Why is rape as wrong as it is?*


Ok I read most of that but just gonna quote the above.

In some cultures, rape is so common place (South Africa for one) compared to others, people don't gather around that person and tell them their a victim for life and you have PTSD guaranteed (though that's certainly possible).

Or, on the other side of the coin you flipped, there's more support, as it is more commonplace. Not as much shame and irrational guilt and isolation as can happen in the States.

The military, is another cultural example of incidents being more common. I've got plenty of gal pals with stories. None raped, but some damn close calls and they brush it off like nothing. Though they do know more than one girl that wasn't as lucky, but even then, the attitude was tough it out. Less of a big deal was made, and I'm curious if that was actually a psychologically good thing. No idea though.

And shit, in the middle ages, for example, rape and sex were practically the same thing. Or still today, selling your 14 year old daughter off with a bag of dowry cash ta boot. Normal there (India probably sticks out most in my mind), abhorrent here (let's say the West).

Now rape in the Congo, let's not even go there actually.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

Geez I just read the rest of this thread and I'm mostly getting. "Rape is bad, mmmkay?" Not really sure that was ever up for debate. More they "why."


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Bugs said:


> I find it interesting most people here are claiming rape is wrong because of the consequences it creates such as mental trauma after the act. No doubt these are terrible effects but I don't see this as a reason of why its wrong. I mean what if someone created a miracle drug to erase one's memory of a rape and all the effects it causes to someone mentally as if it never happened? Is rape still wrong? I would argue obviously yes. *It's the initiation of force* that separates rape from love making/consensual sex , murder from killing in self defense, voluntary trade from theft , etc.


What of coercion? No physical force is used. Statistically, many female victims yielded to just the threat of violence. Or a threat to someone they cared about. I would conclude those victims were raped.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

I think it's rooted in far deeper concepts than "freewill".

Doing something against someone's will, is found is many non-illegal everyday encounters.

If a husband and a wife are both sleeping, and the husband wakes up and puts his penis into her vagina while she's sleeping, then she wakes up but she's fine with it, would it be rape or would it have been rape during her sleep?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Because a want isn't an entitlement.
> Wanting somebody, physically or emotionally, doesn't mean that you're entitled to have them.


Then why are we allowed to buy domestic animals?

Because they're not humans?


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

> Why is rape considered what it currently is morally (right/wrong)?


I guess it all comes down to leaving old stuff behind and being obvious that when you don't want something, it's not good to force you. *Besides the genitals are placed on a way that you need positive cooperation or forceful-domination/intimidation*. We evolved to stand up and avoid being like animals who can "easily" be sexually dominated while standing on their 4 legs with their genitals exposed and protected only by their tail.

It's not easy to make a woman relax her legs and spread them, 
tickles help but that's outside the context.



Eska said:


> I think it's rooted in far deeper concepts than "freewill".
> 
> Doing something against someone's will, is found is many non-illegal everyday encounters.
> 
> * If a husband and a wife are both sleeping, and the husband wakes up and puts his penis into her vagina while she's sleeping, then she wakes up but she's fine with it, would it be rape or would it have been rape during her sleep?*


Is funny that you mention this, my exGF makes repetitive references about this and made clear (still makes clear) she wants me to have sex with her while she is sleeping, she express curiosity (lots of it) about being sedated and me finding her lying on the bed and what would I do, what kind of sex would I have with her on those conditions. 

She closes her eyes and smiles when she talks about this, like daydreaming.

To me that sounds confusing... but I decided NOT to show rejection to something so personal she decides to share with me. My positive interpretation sounds like her wanting me to unleash my sex drive without worries (not that I feel like that, is what I feel she projects). On the other side... I easily think that would be like having sex with a dead body, no, no no no doesn't sound as something I would even might want to consider in my mind. No I don't like it.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

changos said:


> Is funny that you mention this, my exGF makes repetitive references about this and made clear (still makes clear) she wants me to have sex with her while she is sleeping, she express curiosity (lots of it) about being sedated and me finding her lying on the bed and what would I do, what kind of sex would I have with her on those conditions.
> 
> She closes her eyes and smiles when she talks about this, like daydreaming.
> 
> To me that sounds confusing... but I decided NOT to show rejection to something so personal she decides to share with me. My positive interpretation sounds like her wanting me to unleash my sex drive without worries (not that I feel like that, is what I feel she projects). On the other side... I easily think that would be like having sex with a dead body, no, no no no doesn't sound as something I would even might want to consider in my mind. No I don't like it.


The word "daydreaming" reminded me of this article, regarding what you're saying (I'm not implying it's rape, it's just related to the subject);

*Women's Rape Fantasies: How Common? What Do They Mean? | Psychology Today*


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> Then why are we allowed to buy domestic animals?
> 
> Because they're not humans?


What's that got to do with anything?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> What's that got to do with anything?


It had to do with your statement.

My question was not sarcastic.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Eska said:


> The word "daydreaming" reminded me of this article, regarding what you're saying (I'm not implying it's rape, it's just related to the subject);
> 
> *Women's Rape Fantasies: How Common? What Do They Mean? | Psychology Today*


Thanks, interesting read


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> You're being offended at the wrong things. That is considered rape. Simple. Crossing the line no matter how slightly is wrong. The line is there for a reason.


Agreed. Whether the victim is a man or a woman, regardless of whether s/he is traumatized by it, rape is still rape. How the victim reacts to it is not what makes it rape. The lack of consent is. 

I personally know a man who was raped by a woman. He had intended to save his virginity for marriage but never got the chance. He had made his intentions clear to his girlfriend, but because he had an erection and was engaging in erotic cuddling, and because of the stereotype about men always wanting sex, she mistakenly thought his actions indicated an implied yes. It was a violation of clearly stated boundaries, and it was rape. Of course, he never made a big deal of it, because he knew it was a misunderstanding. It still affected him, because he still lost his virginity on someone else's terms, without giving consent. He still wishes it hadn't happened that way. There are some people who would say that calling that type of non-consensual sex "rape" somehow trivializes other rapes, but one bad thing happening doesn't make other bad things less important. Both are real rape, and it is okay to admit that some rape is more personally damaging than other rape, or that some rapists have worse intentions than others, even though all rape is wrong.

Considering all rape relevant does not in any way diminish the more violent forms of rape or trivialize the experiences of those who are more severely traumatized by it. 



Andromeda31 said:


> I'm offended because she's comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Not all rapes are equal. If you consider the example of a guy in bed with his gf giving a weak no then not giving any resistance the same as someone being physically restrained against their will then your sense of morality is off.
> 
> Imo this type of attitude makes it worse for the victim because in many cases they aren't taken seriously.


Perhaps it is true that not all rape is equal, but all rape is still wrong and should be taken seriously, including rape where the victim does not physically fight back, resist, or give a repeated expression of his/her lack of consent. Saying "no" should be enough. In fact, failing to say "yes" should be. If it isn't obvious that someone clearly wants sex, it is always safer to ask, or to not have sex with that person. Anything else is irresponsible and potentially harmful.

As someone who has experienced rape, and who has experienced not being taken seriously, I really fail to see how calling every degree of rape significant would make things harder for people like me. If anything, the more seriously _all _rape is taken, the more likely victims will be to hold rapists responsible, since the surrounding culture would be one where we would be less likely to be accused of just overreacting to something we are expected not to feel so upset about. 



MisterD said:


> I find it interesting, that despite this... So many women have a rape fetish.


Often, fetishes are closely related to phobias and can be ways of processing our most intense fears that we are unable to deal with in other ways. I may not have a rape fetish, but I can relate to sexualizing something I am deeply afraid of, that I would not be okay with if it were actually happening in real life without my control or consent. I know other people whose phobias and fetishes are connected, where in some circumstances the same trigger that would ordinarily cause a panic attack can cause sexual arousal instead. It is a way of having control over what terrifies us. When some people make the assumption that rape fetishes signal a secret desire to be raped, they fail to understand the complexity of how fetishes work. 

On Fetishes and Clean Pencil Tips | Psychology Today



Bugs said:


> One would hope this is a lesson learned for the drunk party. So long as the person didn't force themselves upon the drunk person by basically forcing a 'no way out' scenario then no , it's not rape. The person's 'honest mistake' doesn't equal the partner committed rape. I find it kind of insulting to actual rape victims to equate a horrible situation like actual rape with a situation where someone got too drunk and regretfully slept with a player.


Do you really think that raping someone to teach him/her a lesson about being drunk is valid? It is insulting to plenty of "actual rape victims" to say that what happened to them didn't count because they shouldn't have gotten drunk. That is victim blaming.



Bugs said:


> I'm saying that getting drunk and having regret for sleeping with a player who didn't force you into the situation or didn't even force you to drink isn't the same as being an actual rape victim.


If a person is too drunk to make rational decisions, and therefore too drunk to give meaningful consent, then yes, having sex with that person is rape. On the very rare occasions when my husband drinks, even if he is begging for sex, I will not take advantage of his lowered inhibitions, because I am not a rapist. It is much easier to just wait until he is sober and get all of the consensual sex I want, knowing that he is fully aware and will still be okay with it in the morning. Why would you want to have sex with someone who wasn't completely in control of his/her choices, unless the whole point were to exploit that person because of his/her decreased resistance?



Bugs said:


> How do you accidentally drink too much? The only one forcing drugs into your body is you. It's not like oops , if I drink too much and end up having sex then I'm a rape victim. Imagine if that was every alcoholic's mentality? Plus if you're in a bar where players are likely to show up you made the decision to go there in the first place.
> 
> If you think you are a rape victim because you drink too much and end up sleeping with random people then go out with friends at least. Have some group there that can A) drive you home with at least one DD , and B) take care of you if you drink too much. You probably shouldn't even be drinking in the first place if you have a drinking problem.
> 
> ...


This reeks of so much victim blaming that I don't even know how to respond to something so offensive. It isn't the victim's responsibility to prevent the rapist's crime against him/her, and it isn't his/her friends' responsibility to keep him/her safe. It is the responsibility of the sober person to get consent before having sex, and to make sure the person s/he is having sex with isn't too drunk to give meaningful consent. If there is any concern that someone might be too drunk to consent, or that s/he is likely to change his/her mind once s/he sobers up, then you shouldn't be having sex with him/her, because it is very clearly rape.

An accident is not the same as someone intentionally taking advantage, so the point about drunk driving doesn't really apply here. 




Bugs said:


> Let's put it this way. Rape is still rape if non consensual sex results , doesn't matter if the person is drunk or not. I'm not making an argument about that. But I think a person that gets themselves blitzed beyond reason puts themselves in a situation where bad shit like rape is more likely to happen is relevant if not directly responsible.


This is still victim blaming. A person should be able to get drunk without having to fear being violated for it, and without having to worry about being blamed for someone else's crimes against him/her if somebody does decide to hurt him/her while s/he is drunk. 



Shahada said:


> Whatever problems a person might or might not have with alcohol have nothing to do with who is responsible for rape, it is always the rapist completely and totally and utterly. Also you set an unfair standard here because it is widely known that rape occurs most often among friends and acquaintances, people the victim knows, so you're essentially saying if you don't want to be raped you just shouldn't drink period.


Exactly.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I just realized that I forgot to respond to the OP. 

Rape is wrong because it is the ultimate form of objectification, reducing someone's perceived value to just his/her sexual utility. 
Rape is wrong because it is like theft, where something owned by one person is used and damaged by another without permission.
Rape is wrong because it is a form of assault, where a body is violated in a harmful manner and bodily autonomy is disrespected.
Rape is wrong because it is often used to intimidate, control, demoralize, or oppress.

In short, rape uses a person as a thing, takes without permission, inflicts physical and/or psychological harm, denies a person's right to make decisions about his/her own body, and reinforces inequalities in the system by keeping certain groups constantly afraid of those who already have more power. 

There are other reasons, of course, but these are probably the easiest to use in a debate.


----------



## ficsci (May 4, 2011)

Long-term consequence or not, how do you justify people doing shit to others against their will? I mean, it's kind of like getting mugged. The people mugging you might beat you to death, take your cards and empty your account, or they might just threaten you, take the worthless stuff you happen to be carrying, then leave you alone. Sure you may not be traumatized, but would anyone not mind getting mugged even if the consequence is small? Why are we even questioning whether rape is right or wrong? Would you not mind people forcing to have sex with you against your will?

I mean of course you can sometimes excuse stealing because of starvation, raping because mental issues, abortion because the child is going to suffer if born into this world. But you'd still rather have those things not happen than happen, and excuses are only for cases where people think that doing those things is their last resort.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Doesn't "consent fraud" _necessarily __imply_ "rape"? Since you essentially did not allow that person their right to freely choose because you LIED to them about what was on offer. You deceived them into something that had you been honest and open about from the beginning, they MIGHT have said "no" but you don't know now, because you never gave them that option.
> 
> ^
> third-person you


I agree with that but my point is that this other person would either have to show that I committed fraud or I would have to confess. Ideally I would confess if it was true. But I think in reality most people wouldn't to save their butts. 
But to answer your question no. They may or may not have said "no" if rightfully given the choice. But you should be punished for deception which leads to an invalid consent.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

@ficsci raises a valid point. If a drunk person attempted to trade their house for a pack of smokes, would you take them seriously? If they attempted to gift you all of their credit cards because of clouded judgment would you take them? Would you make a business contract or a lease with a barely-able-to-stand-drunk person? The same standards should be applied to sex, even more so if their sexual offers appear to be exaggerated and unnatural.


----------



## Vincent Trujillo (Nov 14, 2014)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> Wasn't sure whether to put this in Debate or here, so I flipped a coin.
> 
> CONTEXT
> 
> ...


Rape is wrong just as much as assaulting another is wrong. Adverse reactions to previous actions, are always what humans have used to determine whether a given action was either right or wrong, but right or wrong is solely subjective. Sure it would be nice to have empirical standards for such, but the human mind does not work that way. Try as we might, which we do. With laws and religion, and I am sure more.

The only way that I would explain it to someone, is by asking if they were hypothetically raped--would they fancy it?

If so, then no issue to them. Chances are most people would have a problem with it, and if they do, deal with it.

People not sympathizing with you (a rape victim) is not a legitimate issue; I mention this because that seems to be two thirds of your argument. What is, is just plain and simple, how does the supposed "victim" handle it?


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

> Do you really think that raping someone to teach him/her a lesson about being drunk is valid? It is insulting to plenty of "actual rape victims" to say that what happened to them didn't count because they shouldn't have gotten drunk. That is victim blaming.


That's not the argument I was making so replying to this is silly to me. I was making the case that regret sex ( that was consenual) is not the same as being raped. Doesn't matter if they were drunk or not when they consented to it. 



> If a person is too drunk to make rational decisions, and therefore too drunk to give meaningful consent, then yes, having sex with that person is rape. On the very rare occasions when my husband drinks, even if he is begging for sex, I will not take advantage of his lowered inhibitions, because I am not a rapist. It is much easier to just wait until he is sober and get all of the consensual sex I want, knowing that he is fully aware and will still be okay with it in the morning. Why would you want to have sex with someone who wasn't completely in control of his/her choices, unless the whole point were to exploit that person because of his/her decreased resistance?


A drunk person can still make decisions even if it isn't a decision they would make sober. If a drunk (or not drunk ) person had consenual sex with someone else and they regreted it later that is not rape and I can't see a case for that. If they regret being drunk which caused them to make a decision about sex they regreted then that is the lesson learned ( one would hope). Calling a person who had consensual sex but later regretted it the same as a rape victim who had non consensual sex is insulting a real rape victim in my opinion. If you had sex with your husband while he was drunk and he wanted it that doesn't make you a rapist , sorry , I don't follow your reasoning. On top of that you know your husband well and what his preferences are. You can't expect another person you meet , especially at a bar , to know all your preferences. As far as that other person knows you're out drinking having a good time especially if you are giving off signals that you want sex. If we say a drunk person who had consensual sex but regretted later is a 'victim' then we might as well call drunk drivers victims as well. 



> This reeks of so much victim blaming that I don't even know how to respond to something so offensive. It isn't the victim's responsibility to prevent the rapist's crime against him/her, and it isn't his/her friends' responsibility to keep him/her safe. It is the responsibility of the sober person to get consent before having sex, and to make sure the person s/he is having sex with isn't too drunk to give meaningful consent. If there is any concern that someone might be too drunk to consent, or that s/he is likely to change his/her mind once s/he sobers up, then you shouldn't be having sex with him/her, because it is very clearly rape.
> You seem eager to frame me as some 'victim blamer' probably to fit some world view you have. You didn't read my arguments. My argument clearly stated that the sex was consensual , inebriated or not. My whole problem was the position that some people take that consensual sex even while inebriated is the same as rape. If you are the kind of person that voluntarily hooks up with people when you get drunk but then regret it later then it is your responsibility to take precautions beforehand while you are sober. Having a friends there could help. Actually it has nothing to do with rape but that's my whole point.
> This is still victim blaming. A person should be able to get drunk without having to fear being violated for it, and without having to worry about being blamed for someone else's crimes against him/her if somebody does decide to hurt him/her while s/he is drunk.


Not blaming the victim when I don't see one. Only time I see a victim is if force was initiated against someone against their will. Getting drunk (or not) and consenting to having sex with someone you regret later is NOT rape nor was there a victim created. Here was was talking about someone who frequently gets inebriated and looses self control all the time as a result. Voluntarily putting yourself in a situation where you lose more and more self control just ups your risk for something bad to happen. That doesn't excuse the crime but it increases the risk of it happening. It's like some neighborhoods are more dangerous than others. I should be able to go into any neighborhood and not worry about violence against me but that's not how the world currently is. If I constantly set myself up to go in a dangerous situation then I can't really be shocked when something terrible happens. It doesn't excuse the fact I was victimized but it is legitimate to ask could have I done something better to lower my risk? Getting drunk to the point of uncontrollable behavior would most definitely increase the risk of someone taking control over me in a vulnerable state especially if I go to places where that's most likely to happen. 

I get it what I'm saying is not PC since we should picture all victims as helpless. Some are , to be sure , but some make predictable strings of bad decisions ( when they do have control) to land themselves in situations where the risk of something terrible happening is increased.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Bugs said:


> Not blaming the victim when I don't see one. Only time I see a victim is if force was initiated against someone against their will. Getting drunk (or not) and consenting to having sex with someone you regret later is NOT rape nor was there a victim created.


lol It's not that black or white.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

I have a question.

If a man and a woman decide to get drunk, or take a drug together (let's use Ecstasy as an example) and they are BOTH equally incapacitated and end up having sex, and both regret it when they wake up together the next day, who raped whom?


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Snakecharmer said:


> I have a question.
> 
> If a man and a woman decide to get drunk, or take a drug together (let's use Ecstasy as an example) and they are BOTH equally incapacitated and end up having sex, and both regret it when they wake up together the next day, who raped whom?


BOOM /endthread. Wow great point


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

I'm sure dozens of people before me have said the same, but it takes away the consent an individual usually has over what happens to their body. It is psychologically damaging and harmful because it strips away a person's control over their own body, and the violator is almost always forcing their own psychological and mental instabilities onto the person they are raping. 

However there are levels of consent a person is able to give, and where it's usually black and white when a person is of sound mind or sober, it's often more complex when the person is intoxicated or under the influence of a substance. I don't like outright stamping the word rape on someone who, is sober, and has sex with someone who isn't, but it's definitely a breach of consent that shouldn't be played with.

But rape in it's rawest definition is the clear forcing of sexual advances, and usually with excessive violence along with other forms of abuse (emotional/mental).


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Snakecharmer said:


> I have a question.
> 
> If a man and a woman decide to get drunk, or take a drug together (let's use Ecstasy as an example) and they are BOTH equally incapacitated and end up having sex, and both regret it when they wake up together the next day, who raped whom?


Both raped each other at the same time. This means it's everyone's fault and they should both be arrested for many years until they rehabilate themselves, possibly getting raped again in jail.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Snakecharmer said:


> I have a question.
> 
> If a man and a woman decide to get drunk, or take a drug together (let's use Ecstasy as an example) and they are BOTH equally incapacitated and end up having sex, and both regret it when they wake up together the next day, who raped whom?


I'm not entirely certain but I think it varies.
As mentioned it can play out that both assaulted each other, I know of a case in the US in which both people seemed to express their consent but were of course incredibly drunk. The girl doesn't remember having sex and ended up having symptoms of PTSD, but the college unjustly expelled the male student and it's believed they were more about an image that was seemingly tough on sexual assault when they went past what was reasonable.

But I don't think it means one is incapable of raping someone because they themselves are drunk, because in that case there was evidence to suggest both wanted it, in other cases I think it'd be clearer that it's sexual assault other wise you could just get drunk or say you were and somehow you're not raping people anymore.
Which I think would play out dependent on who initiates and whether even in that case of both being incapable of giving consent, whether one expressed consent/desire.
Because if someone gets drunk and makes a move on a girl whose too intoxicated to consent, I don't think they're absolved from rape, in the case above it was a matter that both consented it's just both their consent was void due to both being extremely drunk.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

What if it turns into a "he said/she said" kind of issue?


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Bugs said:


> BOOM /endthread. Wow great point


Yes, what an amazing point that has never been brought up before in the long history of internet rape debates, it has now been conclusively proven that its impossible to rape a drunk woman.


Snakecharmer said:


> What if it turns into a "he said/she said" kind of issue?


If only society had some sort of process to determine whether a criminal charge was valid.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

Shahada said:


> Yes, what an amazing point that has never been brought up before in the long history of internet rape debates, it has now been conclusively proven that its impossible to rape a drunk woman.
> 
> If only society had some sort of process to determine whether a criminal charge was valid.


I guess the drunk woman and man raped each other in my scenario. 

Maybe we need a legal expert in here.

@anarchitektur


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Snakecharmer said:


> I guess the drunk woman and man raped each other in my scenario.


Well, again, if society had some kind of process and system for determining whether someone charged with a crime is guilty or not, the defendant and the plaintiff could participate in that process and the truth of the matter, as much as is possible with limited information and fallible humans, could be determined. But since society has nothing like this I guess we'll never know what happened in situations like this or in legal disputes generally.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Shahada said:


> Yes, what an amazing point that has never been brought up before in the long history of internet rape debates, it has now been conclusively proven that its impossible to rape a drunk woman.If only society had some sort of process to determine whether a criminal charge was valid.


Once again you fail to produce an argument. As far as not making arguments are concerned you are very consistent.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Shahada said:


> Well, again, if society had some kind of process and system for determining whether someone charged with a crime is guilty or not, the defendant and the plaintiff could participate in that process and the truth of the matter, as much as is possible with limited information and fallible humans, could be determined. But since society has nothing like this I guess we'll never know what happened in situations like this or in legal disputes generally.


Wow , why didn't I think of this? I mean wow. Such insight! I mean surely if there was a legal system fully operational along with a whole department of justice  then truth will always be discovered! There would never be a reason to debate morals and ethics so long as this department was around codify in law what is right and wrong! Even if it put over 1 million people in prison for non violent victimless crimes the law itself would justify that!


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

Shahada said:


> So, if a woman is drinking and accidentally overdoes it, and then a man has sex with her when she is too inebriated to refuse or fight back or understand what's happening even maybe, that's not rape? The person in this scenario willingly inebriated themselves, but misjudged their limits and ended up more inebriated than they planned. Is the subsequent act not rape because this person made an honest mistake?


This is the post I was referring to. Should have quoted it in my previous post.

What if both parties overdo it, have sex, and regret it and feel they were taken advantage of?


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

"She stole his TV; however, because it was stolen and insured, he managed to get an even better TV. She asked for forgiveness, and they are still friends, and the guy has a better TV now, so would you consider that theft morally wrong?"

Yes.

Basically the same situation you listed, but breaking it down to simple terms to show the obvious nature of the question.

If your heart doesn't tell you that rape is wrong, then I'm afraid there is something skewed about your moralities. This isn't a debate that should ever need logic. It should be a mirror of your heart.


----------



## anarchitektur (Feb 11, 2011)

Snakecharmer said:


> I guess the drunk woman and man raped each other in my scenario.
> 
> Maybe we need a legal expert in here.
> 
> @anarchitektur


No one was raped in your scenario. Consent is required at the time the act took place; consent can be revoked before or during, but not after. Consent doesn't go away just because you were a little drunk or popped some molly, nor does it go away because you regret it later. Incapacity means you were physically and/or mentally incapable of consent at the time of the act; i.e. you were unconscious or fall-down drunk. Two human beings, who are each drunk enough to be legally incapacitated, would be physically incapable of having sex. At best, it'd be like slamming two rag dolls together.

So, poor life decision? Yes. Rape? No.


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> There are so many reasons that quite frankly it alarms me that you couldn't seem to find even one.


I actually very explicitly said that I have arguments for my stance, but I don't feel that they would convince those opposing me strongly enough. Your first sentence makes me think that perhaps you merely skimmed through everything I said and got a general gist before responding.



> One reason Rape is considered very wrong is because you are doing something against someone's will. Heartbreak while traumatic, can't be punished because the other person in this relationship has rights to do what they wish with their lives/bodies as well. Forcing someone to stay with you, forcing someone to have sex with you. This is WRONG. Very wrong. Our society is built on the idea of "freedom" and equal rights. Free will.


Then, the other person would argue that saying "No" is also doing something against someone's will. There has to be a solid rule that can't be questioned by any case in regards to why it's considered wrong. When you say "it's doing something that someone else doesn't want," you're implying that it's in the power of the will, and that implies that if someone has a stronger will to rape than someone else has a will to not be raped, then the rape victim deserves to be raped. I think we can both agree that this is not the case in either of our moral systems. What makes certain wills valid and others not valid?

When someone says "No" to you in a society where it is illegal to rape, are they not "FORCING" you to not have sex with them? You could argue that you're not forcing anything because they can totally still rape you, it is now only against their will because the law exists, but that implies that if you point a gun to someone's head in order to coerce them into giving up their bodies that they aren't being forced because they still physically have the option to defy you. You've only changed their will.



> Now like someone above me mentioned, there are a plethora of other reasons why rape is bad. Mental trauma, physical trauma, STD's, unwanted pregnancies, just to name a few. Feelings of shame and worthlessness. Problems with future relationships. The list goes on.


So, it's a high statistical likelihood of harm? Or is rape bad because of these results? I'm certain that there are other things that have a high statistical likelihood of harm that aren't really looked down upon nearly as much as rape. Like giving birth. The results of you bringing a child into this world will eventually be very bad for both the child and the world. Of course, you're only hoping that the good can outweigh the bad in your mind for as long as you live. I don't think anyone would deny that, yeah, rape can have pretty bad fucking effects. It would make a stronger argument to state why there can't be any good to come from it.

And if it's only bad from the results, that brings me back to what I said earlier. If even a single person ends up happy as a result of rape, it proves that rape is not inherently bad.



> Women in this world are made to believe that a significant amount of their worth is in their virtue. There have been many cases during wars that mass rapes have occurred during battles/invasions. The women were often raped and the men were killed. Why were the women left alive? Why weren't all of them killed as well? Because the mindset was such that rape meant ruin for a women. They were now considered worthless anyway.
> 
> Men are thought to be impervious to rape. Men can't be raped, they're men. And if they are that makes them less, pathetic. Like you would view a person who's lost their limbs in a tragic accident. Sympathetic because they're not able to function properly in society anymore. This is the mindset that society holds for males. Men that I know in real life and even on the internet seem to be much more afraid of being falsely accused of rape than they are being raped themselves. Even though, statistics wise, they're much more likely to be raped than falsely accused of it.


Is your point in the first paragraph that rape is bad because it takes away what women see as value in themselves? So, by that logic, would rape be good if it happened and someone ended up valuing themselves more? Again, you're arguing from results, and the results only show that rape can be bad, not that it is inherently bad. What is it about the nature of rape that makes it, not only bad, but for extra credit, as bad as it is considered in relation to many other things? How bad is it really? Is it really worse than heartbreak or not?

If someone says "Well, rape itself isn't bad. It CAN be good. You can just try and hope for the best," then what is a good response? When you argue from results, the other person will say "That's why it's a risk. Most of the time, it's bad. Sometimes, it's not."

Would you just concede and go "Yeah, you're right. Rape can be good sometimes." I probably wouldn't. That's pride fucking with me. What would you say?

(Not really sure what the second paragraph is totally about, I'm only getting a weak gist of it)



Andromeda31 said:


> Why would you use this as an example? Are you trying to trivialize rape?
> 
> Sorry but I find it offensive when people classify everything that may slightly cross the line as rape.
> 
> There's a wide spectrum of experiences that someone can go through and the more serious instances can leave a person traumatized for life.


No...? I just found an example and used it and I knew that that was classified as rape. So, what do you think is rape?



ScarlettHayden said:


> Why don't you find out.


Experiences are subjective and it's unlikely that this would lead me to understand why rape is inherently bad. So far, the only argument in this post that argues anything to that effect is Prophet's thing about Free Will. By being raped, I would only observe the results, and I've made my point for why that shows nothing in terms of why rape is inherently bad.



TheProphetLaLa said:


> You're being offended at the wrong things. That is considered rape. Simple. Crossing the line no matter how slightly is wrong. The line is there for a reason.


You again! 

Anyway, would you say, then, that rape is always at a certain level of bad? Like, in relation to murder and theft. Or would you see it as a case-by-case thing? Or do you see things as just "bad, good, neutral" without levels? What does "crossing the line" mean?

If someone were to argue against me and say "Well, you shouldn't always make such a big deal of rape and automatically consider the rapist bad. Sometimes, they only sorta crossed the line and benefited way more than the rape victim was hurt, and you should consider that," what should I say?

I could say "They still imposed their will on someone else without their permission," but resistance is also imposing a will without permission, no?



Falling Leaves said:


> Rape is obviously detrimental, both to the individual and the society.
> 
> If rape were suddenly made legal, I doubt it would be safe for women to walk the streets, or be alone with a man. Don't get me wrong, I sincerely believe most men understand that rape is wrong and wouldn't do it, even if it were decrimninalized - they know it's an absolutely vile thing to do to someone. HOWEVER, I also happen to sincerely believe there are men out there to whom the prospect of getting caught is the only thing stopping them, as terrifying and sobering as that thought is.
> 
> ...


So, it's the results on a _society wide scale_ that makes rape bad? This, I think, is an acceptable argument from results. I might want to hear more from you.



knittigan said:


> Rape is wrong because it's wrong to violate someone's bodily autonomy and treat them like an object.


With the exception of the word "and," this is a fairly usable argument. Of course, with autonomy, a part of the definition is rationality, and that could open quite the can of worms, so I might disregard that part of the definition.

The treat like an object part is probably something I'll leave out as well. That might be an argument for a future date.

I'll respond to more eventually. This is all I've gotten through. I can see someone people I recognize responding in a couple pages, so I'm eager to get there. Be patient. I also have to compile what I've already gotten through, taking in the good and leaving out the bad.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

anarchitektur said:


> No one was raped in your scenario. Consent is required at the time the act took place; consent can be revoked before or during, but not after. Consent doesn't go away just because you were a little drunk or popped some molly, nor does it go away because you regret it later. Incapacity means you were physically and/or mentally incapable of consent at the time of the act; i.e. you were unconscious or fall-down drunk. Two human beings, who are each drunk enough to be legally incapacitated, would be physically incapable of having sex. At best, it'd be like slamming two rag dolls together.
> 
> So, poor life decision? Yes. Rape? No.


I think a lot is being assumed but the hypothetical is simply lacking in too much detail to be able to come to a conclusion I'd say, there is very little detail as to how the consent played out other than the assumption that both were intoxicated.
I'm thinking two scenarios, one like I mentioned earlier in which though both are incapable of consent due to intoxication they in some sense assaulted one another, there is no one to blame, they both seemed to show consent but of course were beyond their own mental faculties.

The other scenario i'm imagining is if one person is out of it and the other starts acting on the other, they never gave their consent and didn't express any desire for it and later realize what has happened thinking back to how it was all hazey in their mind, that they don't remember ever wanting it. I think in that case it can still be sexual assault, being intoxicated doesn't make one incapable of assault other wise all you need to do to avoid being convicted with rape is make a case to say that you weren't responsible for the crime because you were drunk which I think is a weak defense. 
As far as I understand it, being drunk doesn't absolve one of crimes.

I would hope that if I was significantly intoxicated and someone performed a sexual act on me that people wouldn't inherently assume it wasn't assault because the other person was similarly out of it.

It still comes down to understanding if consent was in play.


> * I was drunk or they were drunk - does that mean it isn't rape? *
> Alcohol and drugs are not an excuse – or an alibi. The key question is still: did you consent or not? Regardless of whether you were drunk or sober, if the sex is nonconsensual, it is rape. However, because each state has different definitions of “nonconsensual”, please contact your local center or local police if you have questions about this. (If you were so drunk or drugged that you passed out and were unable to consent, it was rape. Both people must be conscious and willing participants.)


Just wanted to summarize that can't say it was or wasn't assault in a hypothetical that is lacking the details I imagine the Justice system would require to come to any conclusions.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Snakecharmer said:


> I have a question.
> 
> If a man and a woman decide to get drunk, or take a drug together (let's use Ecstasy as an example) and they are BOTH equally incapacitated and end up having sex, and both regret it when they wake up together the next day, who raped whom?


In a scenario where both parties are equally intoxicated and both feel violated afterward, neither was capable of giving meaningful consent, so if they wish to push the issue, they can legitimately claim that they raped each other. 

However, one issue that isn't being properly addressed is the way some rapists intentionally use alcohol to make their victims vulnerable. It is especially dangerous to act like the problem is that women (because women are more likely to be victimized in this manner) shouldn't drink in public, when we know that rapists rely on that kind of attitude to get away with their crimes. It makes it socially acceptable to remove all responsibility from the perpetrator when we focus so much on what the victim shouldn't have been doing. 

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/11/...n-of-rapists-not-evidence-for-victim-blaming/



> Beyond the damage inflicted by Yoffe and Wiley’s victim-blaming, their argument is logically flawed. As any student in an introductory statistics course can recite, “correlation does not equal causation.” A correlation between intoxication and rape does _not_ mean intoxication causes rape. In fact, nearly all college students consume alcohol, just under 40 percent  are heavy drinkers, and male students drink more often and more heavily than female students. Logically, if victim intoxication were a primary cause of rape, then men would be raped more often than women—but they are not. Untangling Yoffe and Wiley’s “logic,” we realize that drinking isn’t the problem: being _female_ and drinking is the problem. The implication is that women should not be allowed to participate in campus party culture (or their everyday lives) without paying the penalty of rape.





> Research shows that rapists—including sex offenders on campus—exhibit high levels of hypermasculinity and anger toward women, they need to dominate women and they lack empathy. Dr. David Lisak’s research on undetected rapists finds that just 4 percent of young men on campus are the serial rapists who commit nine out of ten campus rapes, with an average of six rapes committed over the course of their college careers. According to Lisak, undetected college rapists:• are extremely adept at identifying “likely” victims and testing prospective victims’ boundaries
> • plan and premeditate their attacks, using sophisticated strategies to groom their victims for attack and to isolate them physically
> • use “instrumental” not gratuitous violence; they exhibit strong impulse control and use only as much violence as is needed to terrify and coerce their victims into submission
> • use psychological weapons—power, control, manipulation and threats—backed by physical force, and almost never resort to weapons such as knives or guns
> ...



The fact that this happens is just one more reason to be careful about saying that women who drink and have weakened inhibitions are at fault for being taken advantage of. Rapists use that to rape with impunity.


----------



## anarchitektur (Feb 11, 2011)

Wellsy said:


> I would hope that if I was significantly intoxicated and someone performed a sexual act on me that people wouldn't inherently assume it wasn't assault because the other person was similarly out of it.


Doesn't matter what is inherently assumed. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Prosecution has the burden of proof, and they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent.



snail said:


> In a scenario where both parties are equally intoxicated and both feel violated afterward, neither was capable of giving meaningful consent, so if they wish to push the issue, they can legitimately claim that they raped each other.


They can "claim" it, but that doesn't make it legitimate.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> Experiences are subjective


Right. 'Wrong' is actually just 'unpleasant' on a mass scale.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

anarchitektur said:


> Doesn't matter what is inherently assumed. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Prosecution has the burden of proof, and they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent.


Of course, but I would say thats because one doesn't have substantial evidence to prove something occurred, but this also isn't proof that it didn't occur either. It'd be a matter of there's simply not enough evidence to conclude that it didn't happen or it did happen. That's how many people have been assaulted but the perpetrator isn't charged or convicted, it doesn't mean that the person wasn't raped, just the legal standards weren't met.
So I wouldn't use words that say something wasn't rape but rather can't determine one way or another, could be a minor difference to some in language but I'd say it's a pretty large gap between the possibility of saying someone wasn't raped and they weren't able to prove that they were.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Bugs said:


> Once again you fail to produce an argument. As far as not making arguments are concerned you are very consistent.


Your post wasn't an argument either. I was making a humorous observation at how you were seemingly amazed by a silly argument that's been beaten like a dead horse in these threads a million times over. Why would I look for an argument with you anyway? Most of the time when I do take the time to do so you mysteriously abandon the discussion just as its getting good 



Bugs said:


> Wow , why didn't I think of this? I mean wow. Such insight! I mean surely if there was a legal system fully operational along with a whole department of justice  then truth will always be discovered! There would never be a reason to debate morals and ethics so long as this department was around codify in law what is right and wrong! Even if it put over 1 million people in prison for non violent victimless crimes the law itself would justify that!


The question was: "What if this turns into a he said/she said issue?" I was pointing out there is an existing social institution to determine who is most likely at fault in such situations. I'm not sure how you got an endorsement of the criminal justice system as a whole from that.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> Pumpkin spice but not so nice.


 I'm sorry but nothing you say makes any sense to me whatsoever. Maybe you're just at a superior level of intelligence …We can't all be super smart now can we? 

How is saying No to someone taking away their will? Da fak? Look its very simple. In the act of rape you're forcing someone to _partake_ in an action they don't wish to partake in. In the instance of heartbreak nobody is forcing you to partake in an action. They're simply removing themselves from the scenario. Sex, relationships, bla bla bla, these are all mutual activities where both parties participate WILLINGLY. You can't be punished for choosing NOT to partake in a relation with a person, only if you FORCE someone to partake in a relation with you. Again FREE WILL. This is a very basic building block of our society. 

Of course there are different levels of severity for rape as there are different levels for physical assault. And the punishment doled out will be in accordance to the severity of the crime. But physical assault is always considered physical assault, as is rape.

I believe you're trolling. And I'm going to have to ask you to either take this seriously or stop wasting my time.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

anarchitektur said:


> They can "claim" it, but that doesn't make it legitimate.


It might be pointless to seek legal penalties, if they would have to admit to being perpetrators in order to be recognized as victims, but it would still be true. 

Anyhow, the question was only asked to make us defend against something absurd and unlikely, to make our entire position seem silly. None of this changes that fact that consent ought to be required for people to have sex, or the fact that drunk people cannot give meaningful consent, or the fact that there are people out there who prey on those who are too drunk to protect themselves, or the fact that being drunk should not be an invitation for predators.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

snail said:


> It might be pointless to seek legal penalties, if they would have to admit to being perpetrators in order to be recognized as victims, but it would still be true.
> 
> Anyhow, the question was only asked to make us defend against something absurd and unlikely, to make our entire position seem silly. None of this changes that fact that consent ought to be required for people to have sex, or the fact that drunk people cannot give meaningful consent, or the fact that there are people out there who prey on those who are too drunk to protect themselves, or the fact that being drunk should not be an invitation for predators.


The drunk thing has never made much sense to me. Being drunk shouldn't be an invitation for predators, but it also shouldn't exonerate your from the consequences of your stupid actions. Rape is a matter of consent, so assuming you do give clear verbal consent, I don't see how it matters whether or not you were drunk (assuming you weren't poisoned or something crazy like that). We don't let drunk drivers off the hook because they weren't thinking so clearly, or drunk murders, drunk domestic abusers, etc. Why do you make an exception for drunk women?

Edit: I want to clarify that I'm not talking so much about how 'moral' it is to have sex with someone who's drunk, but whether or not it should be illegal. There are definitely cases where a guy could exploit a drunk girl, and that's certainly an unethical move, but I don't think it should be illegal. It's a dick move to encourage your drunk friend to try to hit 160 on the freeway in his car, but when the friend hits someone, it's still his fault for making the bad decision.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Yomiel said:


> The drunk thing has never made much sense to me. Being drunk shouldn't be an invitation for predators, but it also shouldn't exonerate your from the consequences of your stupid actions. Rape is a matter of consent, so assuming you do give clear verbal consent, I don't see how it matters whether or not you were drunk (assuming you weren't poisoned or something crazy like that). We don't let drunk drivers off the hook because they weren't thinking so clearly, or drunk murders, drunk domestic abusers, etc. Why do you make an exception for drunk women?


Well the drunk woman who gets raped isn't committing a crime like the drunk driver/murderer/domestic abuser, for one thing.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> The drunk thing has never made much sense to me. Being drunk shouldn't be an invitation for predators, but it also shouldn't exonerate your from the consequences of your stupid actions. Rape is a matter of consent, so assuming you do give clear verbal consent, I don't see how it matters whether or not you were drunk (assuming you weren't poisoned or something crazy like that). We don't let drunk drivers off the hook because they weren't thinking so clearly, or drunk murders, drunk domestic abusers, etc. Why do you make an exception for drunk women?


The women aren't the ones attacking or harming someone. If that were the case then your point would be valid. Drunk domestic abusers, drunk murder, drunk car accidents all harm others.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Snakecharmer said:


> I have a question.
> 
> If a man and a woman decide to get drunk, or take a drug together (let's use Ecstasy as an example) and they are BOTH equally incapacitated and end up having sex, and both regret it when they wake up together the next day, who raped whom?


Firstly, it is unlikely either party would remember the event so they would be less likely to press charges. How can you regret something you're not even entirely sure happened? 

And even if they did, "I don't remember what happened your Honour" is so embarrassing, they should both be jailed for wasting taxpayers' money.



Bugs said:


> BOOM /endthread. Wow great point


No it's a ridiculous point.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

@Shahada @TheProphetLaLa That isn't the point though. In one case we say the person is responsible for his or her actions, in the other we do not. That's a problem.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Yomiel said:


> @_Shahada_ @_TheProphetLaLa_ That isn't the point though. In one case we say the person is responsible for his or her actions, in the other we do not. That's a problem.


She's responsible for getting drunk, yes. She's not responsible for getting raped. She didn't rape herself. This one might need some more time in the oven Phoenix.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I agree with that* but my point is that this other person would either have to show that I committed fraud or I would have to confess.* Ideally I would confess if it was true. *But I think in reality most people wouldn't to save their butts. *
> But to answer your question no. They may or may not have said "no" if rightfully given the choice.* But you should be punished for deception which leads to an invalid consent.*


It's just as easy to prove "consent-fraud" as it is to prove forceful PIV rape - aka, difficult. So that doesn't make any difference.

If the whole point of rape is that consent was not given before the sexual act took place, why are you demoting lack of consent in this case to deception sex? Does that make any sense?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Shahada said:


> She's responsible for getting drunk, yes. She's not responsible for getting raped. She didn't rape herself. This one might need some more time in the oven Phoenix.


No, no, she's not responsible for getting raped, but let's assume she clearly asks someone to have sex with her. She has consented in this case, so why is someone else now responsible for her actions?


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> No, no, she's not responsible for getting raped, but let's assume she clearly asks someone to have sex with her. She has consented in this case, so why is someone else now responsible for her actions?


Because she's not in the right state of mind. Same reason why children or some people with certain mental illnesses aren't allowed to give consent. Same rules are applied for signing binding contracts.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Snakecharmer said:


> Oh my gods! Don't let me drink tequila and we will be fine. :laughing:


I kind of want to go out drinking with you snakecharming. I feel like you would be fun for some reason.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Bugs said:


> Are you serious? Are you confusing drunk with unconscious? So if you're drunk and a friend asks you if you want another shot and you say ' Yah baby' you would argue that your friend forced you to drink because you could not consent to drinking more?


This was a sad attempt. :'( No more carrots for you.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Bugs said:


> Are you serious? Are you confusing drunk with unconscious? So if you're drunk and a friend asks you if you want another shot and you say ' Yah baby' you would argue that your friend forced you to drink because you could not consent to drinking more?


Okay, let's start with the basics. Do you know the meaning of the word, "consent"?

If someone opens their mouth to say yes to something, then that's consent. The thing is though, when someone is too drunk to open their mouth to say yes, they can't consent.

This is the distinction between regret sex and rape. You consented and let it happen freely even though it was not a smart move.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> I kind of want to go out drinking with you snakecharming. I feel like you would be fun for some reason.


LOL! If you are ever in the DC area, let me know!

I rarely drink these days, but I can make exceptions. :laughing:


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Snakecharmer said:


> LOL! If you are ever in the DC area, let me know!
> 
> I rarely drink these days, but I can make exceptions. :laughing:


LOL!! I knew it!! You were crazy back in the day, don't even lie. I can tell. XD

I'll let you know if I ever am. Unlikely any time soon, but who knows? I've only been to DC once but it was pretty cool.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Okay, let's start with the basics. Do you know the meaning of the word, "consent"?
> 
> If someone opens their mouth to say yes to something, then that's consent. The thing is though, when someone is too drunk to open their mouth to say yes, they can't consent.


You said drunk not the degree to one is drunk. When I was younger there were plenty of times I was drunk and gave my consent for various things , couple of them I regret of course. If they are so inebriated that they cannot form a coherent thought then obviously consent is not possible. But if they are drunk but still aware of the scene around them and could still make decisions (even ones they probably wouldn't make sober) then they ought to be held accountable for those decisions and not blame someone else. The same logic can be applied to a guy who got so drunk that he knocked up a girl one night and a child was the result. I don't think you would argue that he shouldn't be held responsible for fatherhood especially if he wasn't forced into having sex but probably wouldn't have if he wasn't drunk.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Bugs said:


> Such a case would be disgusting ( I mean you would have puke all over you , goddamn) but not rape if the person welcomed the sex then I fail to see the rape aspect. If she passes out before you can have sex with her and you decide to do it anyway then yeah that's rape. Their body is telling you they just want to sleep and pass out or else they would be conscious for the sex.


OK then, so you were wrong to say that initiation by a party is necessarily a get out of rape free card then, which is why I presented the scenario.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Bugs said:


> You said drunk not the degree to one is drunk. When I was younger there were plenty of times I was drunk and gave my consent for various things , couple of them I regret of course. If they are so inebriated that they cannot form a coherent thought then obviously consent is not possible. But if they are drunk but still aware of the scene around them and could still make decisions (even ones they probably wouldn't make sober) then they ought to be held accountable for those decisions and not blame someone else. The same logic can be applied to a guy who got so drunk that he knocked up a girl one night and a child was the result. I don't think you would argue that he shouldn't be held responsible for fatherhood especially if he wasn't forced into having sex but probably wouldn't have if he wasn't drunk.


Ah, I finally see it now. We're arguing past each other.

Okay, it seems you are talking about degrees of drunkenness. Which is fair play and all but if a woman goes to court and she swears she was too drunk to consent, but the defendant's only defence to that is "Well she looked pretty sober to me!"

Then the judge has to base the judgement on did she actually consent? And on that defence, no she probably didn't because the defendant is resting his case on how drunk she looks and not whether she agreed to it or not.

Does that clear it up now?

And in your accidental fatherhood scenario, he's not responsible to the kid because of personal responsibility, he's responsible to the kid out of moral obligation. Two different things, but you're combining them as one.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> LOL!! I knew it!! You were crazy back in the day, don't even lie. I can tell. XD
> 
> I'll let you know if I ever am. Unlikely any time soon, but who knows? I've only been to DC once but it was pretty cool.


:laughing:

Oh, the stories...lol. I'll just say that I was a Hasher (Hash House Harriers, the drinking club with a running problem) and used to be able to consume quite a bit of beer for someone my size. :wink:

DC rocks!


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Shahada said:


> OK then, so you were wrong to say that initiation by a party is necessarily a get out of rape free card then, which is why I presented the scenario.


I've said many times someone too inebriated to make a coherent thought is incapable of giving consent. But someone can be drunk and still give consent such as spreading their legs voluntarily or saying let's go to my place and have sex. I was commenting more on the latter scenario.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Ah, I finally see it now. We're arguing past each other.
> 
> Okay, it seems you are talking about degrees of drunkenness. Which is fair play and all but if a woman goes to court and she swears she was too drunk to consent, but the defendant's only defence to that is "Well she looked pretty sober to me!"
> 
> ...


That's a poor argument by the alleged rapist. A better argument would be to tell the truth. ' Yeah , we were both pretty intoxicated but the accuser made it clear to me that they wanted intercourse and reciprocated sexual action to me.' I'm certain the people in the bar would vouch that she was talking to me the entire night and saw us getting very intimate and heard her express interest in sleeping with me.' 

As @anarchitektur explained , and he is actually an attorney, all parties are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that rape occurred. I think witnesses in the bar would provide some reasonable doubt , don't you?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Bugs said:


> That's a poor argument by the alleged rapist. A better argument would be to tell the truth. ' Yeah , we were both pretty intoxicated but the accuser made it clear to me that they wanted intercourse and reciprocated sexual action to me.' I'm certain the people in the bar would vouch that she was talking to me the entire night and saw us getting very intimate and heard her express interest in sleeping with me.'
> 
> As @_anarchitektur_ explained , and he is actually an attorney, all parties are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that rape occurred. I think witnesses in the bar would provide some reasonable doubt , don't you?


Yes they would and if they say "she was too drunk to consent when he made a pass at her" then he looks like he's lying. I don't know what you're getting at, I'm really struggling to understand why you don't accept the consent argument. Seriously.

And to the underlined bit, if she says that no she didn't the burden of proof will be on her to prove that.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

> And in your accidental fatherhood scenario, he's not responsible to the kid because of personal responsibility, he's responsible to the kid out of moral obligation. Two different things, but you're combining them as one.


What if he doesn't believe in moral obligation and argues that the woman coerced him into having sex while he was intoxicated? Ridiculous right? An argument the other way around wouldn't be?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Bugs said:


> What if he doesn't believe in moral obligation and argues that the woman coerced him into having sex while he was intoxicated? Ridiculous right? An argument the other way around wouldn't be?


Too bad morality supersedes personal opinion. A psychopath doesn't have a moral compass - doesn't exonerate them from being obliged to follow the law though.

And I'm not sure why he would be as selfish enough as to blame the actions of an emotionally unstable woman on a defenceless child. The child didn't ask to be born into a family with Jerry Springer type issues.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Yes they would and if they say "she was too drunk to consent when he made a pass at her" then he looks like he's lying. I don't know what you're getting at, I'm really struggling to understand why you don't accept the consent argument. Seriously.
> 
> And to the underlined bit, if she says that no she didn't the burden of proof will be on her to prove that.


The point is that someone can be lying. The burden of proof is on the accuser to demonstrate that they were coerced into sex. If and that IF the defense can demonstrate that witnesses didn't observe the accuser ' too drunk to consent' then the prosecution must provide evidence , beyond reasonable doubt , that consent wasn't given. 

Btw , 'looks like lying' isn't actual evidence as far as I know especially in a case with such serious implications. I'd love @anarchitektur to chime in here. But seriously , imagine if you were the prosecutor and made the argument to the judge or jury ' just look at him , he looks like he's lying!' I think that's objectionable.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Too bad morality supersedes personal opinion. A psychopath doesn't have a moral compass - doesn't exonerate them from being obliged to follow the law though.
> 
> And I'm not sure why he would be as selfish enough to blame the actions of an emotionally unstable woman on a defenceless child. The child didn't ask to be born into a family with Jerry Springer type issues.


A courtroom isn't always concerned with morality but legality. Legal and moral are not the same thing.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Bugs said:


> A courtroom isn't always concerned with morality but legality. Legal and moral are not the same thing.


In the case of a father having to support his offspring, yes they are. That's why child support exists.



> The point is that* someone can be lying. *The burden of proof is on the accuser to demonstrate that they were coerced into sex. If and that IF the defense can demonstrate that witnesses didn't observe the accuser ' too drunk to consent' then the prosecution must provide evidence , beyond reasonable doubt , that consent wasn't given.


Which is why it's IMPORTANT to establish consent BEFORE engaging in sexual acts. If he would have made 100% sure he had gotten consent, this would NOT be an issue.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

> In the case of a father having to support his offspring, yes they are. That's why child support exists.


Child support exists to increase the estate of the parent who has full custody over a child.* THIS is another topic that requires a thread of its own.* Not going to get too much into it. The decision over child support takes into account tax records, employment status , gender , and other factors that have nothing to do with morality.




> Which is why it's IMPORTANT to establish consent BEFORE engaging in sexual acts. If he would have made 100% sure he had gotten consent, this would NOT be an issue.


If the defendant claims there was consent and the accuser doesn't then the whole trial is about whether or not the defendant raped the accuser and should go to prison ( where he or she would probably be raped themself). The whole trial is about consent. Either the accuser really didn't give consent and the defendant raped them OR the accuser is lying ( possibly one of the reasons being the accuser has some serious regret and shame) and is trying to punish the defendant. 

It is the task of the prosecution to establish , beyond reasonable doubt , that consent was not given for sexual intercourse.

I hope this makes sense to you.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Bugs said:


> Child support exists to increase the estate of the parent who has full custody over a child.* THIS is another topic that requires a thread of its own.* Not going to get too much into it. The decision over child support takes into account tax records, employment status , gender , and other factors that have nothing to do with morality.


I'm getting really bored with you now. Your arguments are so silly.
It has everything to do with morality, because that's WHY they want to "increase the estate of the parent who has full custody over a child" in the first place - to make sure the father is doing their bit to help with ensuring the welfare of the child. Aka fulfilling a moral obligation to their child.

I don't understand how you can be so selective about issues in order to make them fit some specialised version in your worldview.



> *If the defendant claims there was consent and the accuser doesn't then the whole trial is about whether or not the defendant raped the accuser and should go to prison *( where he'd probably be raped himself). *The whole trial is about consent. Either the accuser really didn't give consent and the defendant raped them *OR the accuser is lying ( possibly one of the reasons being the accuser has some serious regret and shame) and is trying to punish the defendant.
> 
> It is the task of the prosecution to establish , beyond reasonable doubt , that consent was not given for sexual intercourse.
> 
> I hope this makes sense to you.


I don't understand how that differs from anything I've previously said so I'm not really sure from which planet you're typing your comments.

My previous post: *"Then the judge has to base the judgement on did she actually consent?"*


And to the underlined bit: this is blatantly FALSE. "Not found guilty" ≠ "accuser is lying."


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

> I'm getting really bored with you now. Your arguments are so silly.
> It has everything to do with morality, because that's WHY they want to "increase the estate of the parent who has full custody over a child" in the first place - to make sure the father is doing their bit to help with ensuring the welfare of the child.


I know , it frustrates you that I'm not PC. Sorry , I'm just not like that. I prefer to look at things based on logic and reason and not what _feels_ right. I find it interesting how you are a bit sexist here. You assume the parent that ought to pay child support is the _father_ and implicit in that is the assumption that the parent with custody should be the mother. That's not always the case though courts tend to slant heavy biases towards mothers. But if you are bored with the conversation that's fine with me. It doesn't feel very productive at any rate.



> I don't understand how you can be so selective about issues in order to make them fit some specialised version in your worldview.


I'm not the one assuming the negligent parent would be _male_. I try my best to use gender neutral terms. I don't have an ideology.





> My previous post: *"Then the judge has to base the judgement on did she actually consent?"*


*

Implicit in your answers are that the alleged rape victim is female. My descriptions are gender neutral. Look at it. It's telling of your worldview though. You just said , and I quote :

If he would have made 100% sure he had gotten consent, this would NOT be an issue.

Along with the alleged rapist being male according to you in which I did not specify gender, the alleged could claim that they in fact did have consent and that the accuser is lying. Its an issue if the accuser makes the accusation , its the job of the court to determine whether the accusation is true. It's the job of the prosecution on behalf of the accuser to show beyond reasonable doubt that the accuser is telling the truth. In my book if a person male or female , makes a rape accusation, then that's not enough to make me look at the accused with a guilty bias.*


----------



## Random Person (Apr 30, 2013)

For the first point, there is only one crime to which everyone reacts in exactly the same way. That is murder, corresponding reaction being, well, death of the victim. No two ways to view that. With every other violation, emotional trauma can vary greatly. Be it theft, assault or torture. I can think of no reason at all why rape would be singled out in any one way.

The second point suffers from a major flaw. Namely, there's a huge difference between doing things with your own life and body and doing things to lives and bodies of other people. Heartbreaking is painful, sure. And sometimes, you have a full right to break someone's heart. You don't owe sustenance to anyone. Nobody does. Nor do you have to restrain your actions in any way, given that they don't violate any reasonable boundaries. To simplify this, think of people's lives as non-overlapping roads. You can do anything you like on your own road, regardless of what other people would rather you do. However, you have no right to jump onto another person's road and plant a pile in the middle of it. It's not the heartbreak. It's the way it is inflicted.

As to why rape is bad, the simplest answer is that a reasonable person can or should expect it to turn out to be a highly traumatic experience. Deviations will happen. But, just like with other crimes mentioned in the first paragraph, it's common knowledge that they're by and large traumatic. One need not know with absolute divine certainty that rape will hurt the victim. Only that it can be reasonably expected that it will. If you pick up a brick and bash someone on the temple with it then no sane man will take it as an excuse that you weren't sure if it'd be really very hurtful. Rape is not and ought not to be any different.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

I guess if there is no trauma then for you it fits into consentual.

I guess those women raped by Bill Cosby, if they consented for so long - it must be "okey".

Does this principle also hold up with theft?
A person so rich that he doesn't feel any loss of his money (consentually) stolen?!

Sounds to me you are working with an agenda clothed in deep deep philosophy


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Well I think rape is considered wrong simply for the fact that it is forcing a physical, intimate act on a person without their consent. It kind of clashes with the concept of "personal freedom" if you violate someone else's. 

I think the "trauma" is probably overblown in some cases. Women are encouraged to be mentally damaged by it by feminists because it plays into their belief that women are inherently victims.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> I think the "trauma" is probably overblown in some cases. Women are encouraged to be mentally damaged by it by feminists because it plays into their belief that women are inherently victims.


Ridiculous.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

It would have to be someone who has never been raped and doesn't have reason to see being raped as a potential problem who would ask why rape is considered morally wrong. Many people have no empathy for anything that isn't a problem for them or don't have to worry about.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> Ridiculous.


How so? Forced sex is certainly a bad thing, especially if it is accompanied by violence, but in the end it is still sex.


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

Zee Bee said:


> I guess if there is no trauma then for you it fits into consentual.
> 
> I guess those women raped by Bill Cosby, if they consented for so long - it must be "okey".
> 
> ...


Are you talking to me? I can't make an immediate connection between what you said and what previous people said, so I really can't tell what this is a response to, but you say "for you," so this must be response to something? If you are replying to me, I'm afraid you completely misunderstood my OP. If you weren't replying to me, ignore this, but if you were, please explain what "agenda" or "philosophy" you're talking about? What the hell are you talking about with those women consenting with Bill Cosby? They didn't consent, hence why it was rape. It's not consensual just because someone doesn't speak up, a lack of consent is a lack of consent. Also, that doesn't even parallel with your theft example.

This post is just all over the place.



Master Mind said:


> It would have to be someone who has never been raped and doesn't have reason to see being raped as a potential problem who would ask why rape is considered morally wrong. Many people have no empathy for anything that isn't a problem for them or don't have to worry about.


Wow. Just...wow.

This isn't okay. Of course I encourage this is be discussed, but it's not okay to accuse people of not being raped based on stereotypes, especially since it looks like you're just saying this out of nowhere. 8 Ways the Legal System Screws Rape Victims (Like Me) | Cracked.com

When you say shit like "You can't have ever been raped because [flimsy reason]," it reinforces stereotypes that just makes rape less likely to be reported. Yes, I'm glad that this thread is being revived and I'm glad that we're discussing this, but I paradoxically would like to discourage this type of accusation, because it just makes things worse.



Sourpuss said:


> Well I think rape is considered wrong simply for the fact that it is forcing a physical, intimate act on a person without their consent. It kind of clashes with the concept of "personal freedom" if you violate someone else's.
> 
> I think the "trauma" is probably overblown in some cases. Women are encouraged to be mentally damaged by it by feminists because it plays into their belief that women are inherently victims.


I think that expectations can influence how traumatic someone acts. In the article I linked, it mentions a bit about that, how people "expect" you to act like you're ruined because of the rape or they don't believe you, and that does sort of cause this positive feedback loop. At the same time, I think you should disclaimer this shit with "But some people are actually this traumatized and you shouldn't act skeptical just because some cases can be overblown."

I'll respond to the other things eventually (maybe). I'm glad that this has been revived.

And PLEASE watch what you say, people. Think about the consequences of your words, first. Thanks!


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> Ridiculous.


If you're not willing to discuss things and just want to throw out accusations without any support, please leave the discussion. Don't force people to ask you what should already be in your message.

Thank you!


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> "But some people are actually this traumatized and you shouldn't act skeptical just because some cases can be overblown."


No, I don't think that's necessary. Anyone with common sense can come that conclusion without my help.

My grandmother was "raped" (in a sense) by a doctor. She was certainly traumatized by it. Of-course it was an extremely painful experience. No guilty orgasm for her.


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> No, I don't think that's necessary. Anyone with common sense can come that conclusion without my help.
> 
> My grandmother was "raped" (in a sense) by a doctor. She was certainly traumatized by it. Of-course it was an extremely painful experience. No guilty orgasm for her.


Well, I think that there are a lot of things you can say about rape that anyone with "common sense" should understand the same way the speaker does, but as there are clearly misconceptions about rape, I think that it's fair to say that disclaimers are, alas, necessary sometimes when it seems like they really shouldn't.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> Wow. Just...wow. This isn't okay. Of course I encourage this is be discussed, but it's not okay to accuse people of not being raped based on stereotypes, especially since it looks like you're just saying this out of nowhere. 8 Ways the Legal System Screws Rape Victims (Like Me) | Cracked.com When you say shit like "You can't have ever been raped because [flimsy reason]," it reinforces stereotypes that just makes rape less likely to be reported.


 "Accuse people of not being raped based on stereotypes?" "Make rape less likely to be reported?" Did you even read the post you quoted? (So many people don't on the internet.) I said it would have to be someone who hasn't been raped and doesn't have reason to see being raped as a potential problem (i.e, believing "it's not going to be something that's going to happen to me") who would ask why rape is morally wrong. I can't imagine anyone who's actually been a victim of rape asking why rape is considered morally wrong (I know rape victims, and the first girlfriend I ever had had been raped. None of them ever asked why rape was considered morally wrong). The OP ends: "My strongest argument at this point is that rape should be taught as bad simply because by saying that "*sometimes, rape can be good*," *even if it's true*, people who don't know what that means will rape when it will lead to far more atrocity than good." There is no scenario in which rape is good. (And consentual nonconsent doesn't count, because it's something that has been discussed prior to, and consent was given. Rape is forcible sexual intercourse without consent or sex with someone below the age of consent.) Forcing a person to have sex *without their consent* is bad. Sex with consent = good. Sex without consent = bad. Note how the presence or absence of consent makes it good or bad. Just like if I ask you for $20 and you give it to me, that would be okay, but if I beat you up (or hold a weapon to you) and take the $20 from your wallet without your permission, it would be wrong. It should be clear why the latter is wrong.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> How so? Forced sex is certainly a bad thing, especially if it is accompanied by violence, but in the end it is still sex.


It is NOT sex. It's a violent crime. Sex is consensual. Rape and sexual assault is not.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> It is NOT sex. It's a violent crime. Sex is consensual. Rape and sexual assault is not.


Penis in vagina is penis in vagina. What differs is the context (assuming a violent beating isn't also involved, which it may not be)


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> Penis in vagina is penis in vagina. What differs is the context (assuming a violent beating isn't also involved, which it may not be)


No no no no no.


----------



## Son of Mercury (Aug 12, 2014)

ENTP in rare form.


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

Master Mind said:


> "Accuse people of not being raped based on stereotypes?" "Make rape less likely to be reported?" Did you even read the post you quoted? (So many people don't on the internet.) I said it would have to be someone who hasn't been raped and doesn't have reason to see being raped as a potential problem (i.e, believing "it's not going to be something that's going to happen to me") who would ask why rape is morally wrong. I can't imagine anyone who's actually been a victim of rape asking why rape is considered morally wrong (I know rape victims, and the first girlfriend I ever had had been raped. None of them ever asked why rape was considered morally wrong). The OP ends: "My strongest argument at this point is that rape should be taught as bad simply because by saying that "*sometimes, rape can be good*," *even if it's true*, people who don't know what that means will rape when it will lead to far more atrocity than good." There is no scenario in which rape is good. (And consentual nonconsent doesn't count, because it's something that has been discussed prior to, and consent was given. Rape is forcible sexual intercourse without consent or sex with someone below the age of consent.) Forcing a person to have sex *without their consent* is bad. Sex with consent = good. Sex without consent = bad. Note how the presence or absence of consent makes it good or bad. Just like if I ask you for $20 and you give it to me, that would be okay, but if I beat you up (or hold a weapon to you) and take the $20 from your wallet without your permission, it would be wrong. It should be clear why the latter is wrong.


Master Mind...



> Did you even read the post you quoted? (So many people don't on the internet.)


A better question would be if you read any of my posts at all...



> I said it would have to be someone who hasn't been raped and doesn't have reason to see being raped as a potential problem (i.e, believing "it's not going to be something that's going to happen to me") who would ask why rape is morally wrong.


Yeah, and I'm saying that when you say things like "This person can't have been raped because they did this," it de-legitimatizes claims from rape victims because you can go "Hey, they asked if it's morally wrong, so they weren't raped, voila!"

I really dislike stereotypes, so I dislike these strange generalizations that people make based off of no or inconclusive stuff, so I'm just telling you to, you know, not do that, and you replied with "No no no, you didn't hear me" and did exactly what I just said to keep out of this thread again. I hear you loud and clear, I'm just not agreeing with you.



> There is no scenario in which rape is good. (And consentual nonconsent doesn't count, because it's something that has been discussed prior to, and consent was given. Rape is forcible sexual intercourse without consent or sex with someone below the age of consent.) Forcing a person to have sex *without their consent* is bad. Sex with consent = good. Sex without consent = bad. Note how the presence or absence of consent makes it good or bad. Just like if I ask you for $20 and you give it to me, that would be okay, but if I beat you up (or hold a weapon to you) and take the $20 from your wallet without your permission, it would be wrong. It should be clear why the latter is wrong.


You quote the OP where it says "My strongest argument at this point is that rape should be taught as bad simply because by saying that "*sometimes, rape can be good*," *even if it's true*, people who don't know what that means will rape when it will lead to far more atrocity than good." The context makes it clear that this is taken from a consequentialist approach, and it's not necessarily what I personally believe. It's hard for me to believe that you just read this one part and literally nothing else in the OP, so I'm getting the vibe that you're just fucking with me, dude.

And also, you made your viewpoints, "rape is bad and so is theft!" Okay? It's easy to say what is, it's not so easy to always say why, and you're dodging the point of this thread and I'm beginning to feel like this is going to be continuous and I'll just get frustrated. I don't know if you're misunderstanding something severely or if you're just trying to make me frustrated and upset, so I think the best course of action is you tell me what you understand and I'll confirm or correct as needed. If you have problems with this solution, please come up with a better one before I just rage quit or report you and then bad things happen and then I'm sad.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Sourpuss said:


> How so? Forced sex is certainly a bad thing, especially if it is accompanied by violence, but in the end it is still sex.


lol...you can put the 2015 Post of the Year contest to bed now people, nothing's beating this.


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

A simple Google search will show that rape is non-consensual sex. Move on, people. @Sourpuss is right about that, deal with it.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> How so? Forced sex is certainly a bad thing, especially if it is accompanied by violence, but in the end it is still sex.


It is not the same thing. Rape victims often feel degraded and their sense of personal security and safety is damaged. 
Rape can be extremely harmful to one's psychology.
Of course we can't generalize and say that all rape victims experience the same feelings, each person has a different way of handling things.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> A simple Google search will show that rape is non-consensual sex. Move on, people. @_Sourpuss_ is right about that, deal with it.


Deal with what? It was how nonchalant he talked about it that bothered me, tbh.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Noir said:


> Dude, this is the 3rd time I am giving you the link for this. Please read through it. Of course, we can't rely on it for every single thing, that is why positive law exists. But some things can be argued based on this.


My point is, you shouldn't be relying on it for rape either. If you use your brain you can find much better reasons to denounce rape beyond "it makes me feel icky".


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> My point is, you shouldn't be relying on it for rape either. If you use your brain you can find much better reasons to denounce rape beyond "it makes me feel icky".


Actually, historically speaking, that was one of the first justifications used for incriminating rape. History of rape.  This occurred somewhere in the roman law. Going to have to check my book again to see the exact context.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Noir said:


> Actually, historically speaking, that was one of the first justifications used for incriminating rape. History of rape.  This occurred somewhere in the roman law. Going to have to check my book again to see the exact context.


The Romans also crucified people, practiced slavery, and even made a spectacle of murder. Not to mention all the imperialism.

Make a better argument.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

[No message]


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> It's not as traumatic as billed.


I imagine that something like "How traumatic is rape?" has an incredibly high sigma. I think that when "tumblr feminists" talk about rape, they're referring to what could happen and is also reasonably likely to happen, not what's MOST likely to happen.

I mean, when you play Chess, you always assume that no matter what move you make, your opponent will make the worst one for you possible. You base decisions on what can happen more than merely what's most likely to happen, and that's probably the focus on the extremes of reactions to being raped. I imagine that the mean, mode, and median are a bit less drastic, but that's incredibly difficult to determine because like I said, the sigma (AND stigma making it hard to find the sigma, I'll be here all night, ladies and gentlemen) would be very high, making the mean incredibly difficult to assess, so the statement "It's not as traumatic as billed" seems...you know, empty.



Noir said:


> @TheOminousMuffin Our instinct makes us feel repulsed by it. What further justification does it need?
> Natural law. It is the same reason murder is wrong.
> If rape was legal, and you never knew it was immoral, would you do it? No, because it is in our conscience not to. Unless, of course, you are a psychopath.
> I would also like to note that whether or not it is traumatic has nothing to do to whether or not it is right or wrong.





Noir said:


> Natural law plays a very important role in all legal systems. It is a concept originating from Plato and Aristotle, developed by pretty much every following philosopher in one way or another. Toma d'Aquino thought of it as the divine law.
> 
> You are also confusing concepts. Fear and inside morality are two different things. If rape was legal, and you would witness a rape in the middle of the city, would it not make you feel disgusted?





Noir said:


> Dude, this is the 3rd time I am giving you the link for this. Please read through it. Of course, we can't rely on it for every single thing, that is why positive law exists. But some things can be argued based on this.
> 
> Let me spell it out for you: Can you think of any justification for rape? Any particular setup you can think of where that would be the good thing to do?


ANY particular setup? Like, just, any? Not just ones that you won't scoff at and go "Pssh, that would never happen though." I mean, I can think of some involving supercomputers, Einstein-Rosen bridges, or just people with mental problems, but those don't constitute the norm.

Also, "good" as in utilitarian? Good, like, consequentialist just like in my OP? You do say that how much trauma happens doesn't matter, so you're talking either about the natural law you brought up or deontological law, which involves rape being inherently bad, which makes your argument, you know, meaningless.

"Wanna know why rape is bad? Assume rape is always bad. Now, under that assumption, is rape ever good? No? Therefore, rape is always bad!"

Circular logic. Poor conclusion. Build a better argument, dude.

And like Sourpuss pointed out, instinct is not good to act on alone when forming laws. We have bs laws against gay marriage, incest, and in my state, holding office without believing in God, all formed on instinct. Do you honestly think that everyone who holds office should have to believe in God? You do mention that we have positive laws whenever we think we should, without too much elaboration aside from your circular logic. Anonymous is built on instinct, and they're clearly not perfect and a lot of innocent people get hurt by Anon's raids and shenanigans.



Noir said:


> Actually, historically speaking, that was one of the first justifications used for incriminating rape. History of rape.  This occurred somewhere in the roman law. Going to have to check my book again to see the exact context.


...okay!? I don't see how this is relevant. Are we using Rome as our standard for what should be done or are you bringing up a random, barely related fact? "We shouldn't form laws because certain things are icky!" "But Rome did it!" wtf



Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> Don't feet the troll people.


Are you seriously just here to harass people without an argument? This is beginning to get on my nerves. Someone made a horrible argument and Sourpuss called them out on it, and I don't think that's trolling. What, we were just going to ignore the fact that there's an argument that refused to explain itself as of yet?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Rape is not about power in all cases. People just like to reduce everything to nothing. There are multiple reasons as to why people say that they have raped.


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

@TheOminousMuffin



> ANY particular setup? Like, just, any? Not just ones that you won't scoff at and go "Pssh, that would never happen though." I mean, I can think of some involving supercomputers, Einstein-Rosen bridges, or just people with mental problems, but those don't constitute the norm.
> 
> Also, "good" as in utilitarian? Good, like, consequentialist just like in my OP? You do say that how much trauma happens doesn't matter, so you're talking either about the natural law you brought up or deontological law, which involves rape being inherently bad, which makes your argument, you know, meaningless.


And how exactly would a utilitarian vie deem rape good? Actually, tell me how any moral system would deem it good, under any circumstance.



> "Wanna know why rape is bad? Assume rape is always bad. Now, under that assumption, is rape ever good? No? Therefore, rape is always bad!"


That is nowhere near my argument. 



> And like Sourpuss pointed out, instinct is not good to act on alone when forming laws. We have bs laws against gay marriage, incest, and in my state, holding office without believing in God, all formed on instinct. Do you honestly think that everyone who holds office should have to believe in God? You do mention that we have positive laws whenever we think we should, without too much elaboration aside from your circular logic. Anonymous is built on instinct, and they're clearly not perfect and a lot of innocent people get hurt by Anon's raids and shenanigans.


You misunderstand things. Gay marriage and natural law have nothing to do with this. 
Natural law is used to justify incrimination of things such as murder, rape, genocide, torture and so on. You also seem to misunderstand what positive law means. Positive law are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action.



> ...okay!? I don't see how this is relevant. Are we using Rome as our standard for what should be done or are you bringing up a random, barely related fact? "We shouldn't form laws because certain things are icky!" "But Rome did it!" wtf


Society evolved throughout history. Nothing you see around yourself has spontaneously sprung up. Understanding the evolution of things throughout history gives us an insight into the future. 
Did you know the roman empire's evolution is very similar to the evolution of the USA?

Here is a very brief article.

I do not see you deconstructing my argument. All I see from you is poor comprehension of things and a rather aggressive attitude. Please calm down and try to have a more open attitude.



> Someone made a horrible argument and Sourpuss called them out on it, and I don't think that's trolling. What, we were just going to ignore the fact that there's an argument that refused to explain itself as of yet?


Except, it is not my argument. It was originally attributed to Aristotle, Plato, Th. D'Aquino and Hobbes. 
@Grandmaster Yoda

I fully agree with you. However, there should be a common point between rapists. I just wonder what it is...


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Noir said:


> @TheOminousMuffin
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There may be, but no one bothers to ask rapists so they just construct theories to explain the intentions of rapists.


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> There may be, but no one bothers to ask rapists so they just construct theories to explain the intentions of rapists.


I am not sure they realize what their intentions are :kitteh:.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Noir said:


> I am not sure they realize what their intentions are :kitteh:.


yeah i don't think they think they're doing anything wrong. apparently, a lot of others don't either.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

I think it is time to rephrase the question.

If somebody forces you to eat a quadruple scoop banana split brownie sundae, and lets say this sundae magically has the power to possibly produce your child or give you disease...... is this as morally reprehensible as rape? Also keep in mind that being forced to eat can also be very physically painful. In other words, would it help the victim to hear from their trauma faster and more fully if sex wasn't so gosh darned stigmatized in the first place? Could society take away some of the pain through the detachment of values from the act? Or, yes, this force feeding is as heinous because it is a violation of bodily autonomy. And before anyone even goes there, I'm not comparing rape to a delicious ice creamy treat. Okay, yes, I am sort of comparing sex to a delicious ice creamy treat: both are very pleasurable unless they are forced. Part of this is me trying to comprehend how something that is pleasurable could ever cause me trauma... and the closest thing I can get to comprehending it is imagining being force fed ice cream. 

I apologize if this has already come up. 27 pages is just too long to read.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Noir said:


> I am not sure they realize what their intentions are :kitteh:.


Those alcoholics.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

ElectricSparkle said:


> I think it is time to rephrase the question.
> 
> If somebody forces you to eat a quadruple scoop banana split brownie sundae, and lets say this sundae magically has the power to possibly produce your child or give you disease...... is this as morally reprehensible as rape? Also keep in mind that being forced to eat can also be very physically painful. In other words, would it help the victim to hear from their trauma faster and more fully if sex wasn't so gosh darned stigmatized in the first place? Could society take away some of the pain through the detachment of values from the act? Or, yes, this force feeding is as heinous because it is a violation of bodily autonomy. And before anyone even goes there, I'm not comparing rape to a delicious ice creamy treat. Okay, yes, I am sort of comparing sex to a delicious ice creamy treat: both are very pleasurable unless they are forced. Part of this is me trying to comprehend how something that is pleasurable could ever cause me trauma... and the closest thing I can get to comprehending it is imagining being force fed ice cream.
> 
> I apologize if this has already come up. 27 pages is just too long to read.


No one would say that in 28 pages. And no bodily autonomy is a broken argument. Vaccines just destroyed it.


----------

