General

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

gotlucky — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:46:31 GMT

Three Teen Girls Begin Trial for Human Trafficking Charges

Are these self-hating women who promote rape culture, or are they just criminals?

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

Blargg — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:39:22 GMT

I like how he is referred to as the complaintant. He's complaining about being sexually assaulted.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

gotlucky — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:12:20 GMT

Four women wanted in alleged sex assault of 19-year-old man in downtown Toronto

Rape culture alive and well in Canada.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

gotlucky — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:14:21 GMT

Wikipedia on Rape, Sexual Assault, and Sexual Intercourse.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

gotlucky — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:04:05 GMT

baxter:

To me, the "sniffles" means a runny nose. It might be accompanied by a fever or virus. But a runny nose in itself will be a distraction that will impair cognitive functioning.

Distractions are not the same as cognitive impairment. Regardless, the sniffles are not a fever. If you want to talk about a fever causing delirium or whatever that might lead to cognitive impairment, that is fine by me. But a runny nose in and of itself does not effect the brain.

baxter:

Also, rape traditionally means an aggressor employing their genitals:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t

"the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual+intercourse?s=t

"genital contact, especially the insertion of the (censored)..."

Note the word "especially". Unless "especially" is dictionary-speak for "only", then you are incorrect.

baxter:

So maybe this entire thread should be about "sexual assault culture". The word "rape" is inflammatory and a red herring here. It sounds like most of the alleged assaults do not carry an STD or pregnancy risk like a rape would.

Perhaps it would be better. Perhaps not. Rape refers to a category of actions, though it is a smaller category than sexual assault.

baxter:

Finally, here is the Ohio law which is easily found

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907 "Rape... The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age."

Thank you for sourcing your claim. Unfortunately, your original claim was this:

baxter:

Apparently the law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape.

This particular law says "substantially impaired", which is considered different from your original claim under the law. I highly doubt you will find a law that is as broad as "impaired", but perhaps you will find one.

baxter:

What is substantially impaired? 1 beer? 10? 20? In my opinion, an otherwise competent person who drinks alcohol can give consent provided they are concious. I didn't see all the evidence like the judge did (and apparently there was no jury?), but if the girl was unconcious at the times she was molested then I agree a crime has been committed. Also, I have never seen a drunk person be continuously unconcious for 6 hours; I would assume there would be an extreme risk of coma or death at that point.

Well you have pointed out a major flaw in centrally planned law. Obviously, under current law, you can be impaired to a great degree and still consent to various transactions, ranging from buying burgers to buying more beer to having sex. Apparently in Ohio, the state draws the line at substantially impaired as far as consenting to sex goes. I would not be surprised if this were standard throughout the USA.

We don't know for sure what a free market in law would look like. In the case of a woman regretting having sex and accusing a man of raping her, she would be the one to take him to court, not the state. Obviously both parties know what happened (she has to know, because otherwise how could she regret it if she didn't remember consenting?), so the matter could quite possibly just end there. If she wants to convince others that it was actually rape, then she needs to provide proof. Obviously there would be people who will believe her even without evidence, but there will also most likely be people supporting the man as well. So the matter would most likely end unless she can provide evidence that she was forced. Claiming that she was impaired would probably not fly in a free market in law, but we don't know for sure.

Regarding the case, the girl appears to have been unconscious for the assault, at least according to witnesses.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

baxter — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:34:51 GMT

To me, the "sniffles" means a runny nose. It might be accompanied by a fever or virus. But a runny nose in itself will be a distraction that will impair cognitive functioning.

Also, rape traditionally means an aggressor employing their genitals:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t

"the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual+intercourse?s=t

"genital contact, especially the insertion of the (censored)..."

I think the word "rape" is inflammatory and a red herring here. It sounds like most of the alleged assaults do not carry an STD or pregnancy risk like a rape would.

Finally, here is the Ohio law:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907 "Rape... The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age."

What is substantially impaired? 1 beer? 10? 20? In my opinion, an otherwise competent person who drinks alcohol can give consent provided they are concious. I didn't see all the evidence like the judge did (and apparently there was no jury?), but if the girl was unconcious at the times she was molested then I agree a crime has been committed. Also, I have never seen a drunk person be continuously unresponsive for 6 hours; I would assume there would be an extreme risk of coma or death at that point.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

gotlucky — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:13:03 GMT

Actually it was a pretty accurate representation of what you said, you just said some things that were plain dumb to say.

No, you clearly misrepresented my post, even cutting and pasting in order to misrepresent. Dishonest through and through.

Good to see you're not letting maturity get in the way of discourse.

Did you want to debate whether the meanings of words are objective or intersubjective? People use the phrase "the sniffles" to refer to a specific thing. I have never heard "the sniffles" refer to a fever. At least I backed up my claim of what "the sniffles" referred to.

You did no such thing.

I'm actually beginning to think you're the only troll here. Are you really so dense that you don't know that crimes are prosecuted that are not specifically defined as criminal acts to the letter of the law all the time? That so long as they can be justified under the blanket of some type of crime is all that's relevant? So, again, contrary to your insistence, there need be no such specific definition under the rape statutes in order for it to be prosecuted as rape, so your request is superfluous. Do you understand that now? Are you even going to make an attempt?

Again with the trolling. Baxter said: "Apparently the law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape." I responded: "I would also like a source that says that touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape." What the law says is absolutely relevant to the conversation. Furthermore, you have yet to point to which statutes are being used to justify "touching someone who is 'impaired' is rape". It doesn't have to be word for word, and I doubt it is. But seriously, if Baxter or you are going to claim that this is what the law says or if prosecutors are "interpretting" the law in this manner, then please cite either examples of such a case or the actual law being used.

Otherwise, quit trolling. You wrote a bad post, and now you are trying to weasel out of it.

I know you're trying to save face after a dumbass post. Quit making it so hard on yourself.

lol k bud.

So because the boys (or someone else) didn't file a counter-complaint for rape it's irrelevant? I'd say you need to re-read Baxter's post, because clearly you don't understand the point he was trying to make. But given your continued (and unjustified) belligerence, I'm guessing that won't be forthcoming.

For a crime to exist, there has to be both a malefactor and a victim. If these boys, or even anyone on their behalf (rightly or wrongly), do not claim that there was a crime against them, then there was no crime. Of course, perhaps you are not a libertarian and you believe in victimless crimes, or in this case, perhaps you believe that someone can consent to rape.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

myhumangetsme — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:02:04 GMT

gotlucky:
Your entire post was uncharitable to everything I had said. In fact, it appears like it was actually a deliberate [sic] misrepresentation.

Actually it was a pretty accurate representation of what you said, you just said some things that were plain dumb to say.

gotlucky:
I can't understand what you just said. Please define the following:

You're, in, no, better, position, to, define, the, sniffles, than, I, am, which, is, point, it's, also, why, your [sic], haphazard, dismissal, of, it, not, only, mystifying, wrong

Good to see you're not letting maturity get in the way of discourse.

gotlucky:
"Who says there needs to be a specific law that says..."

"Legal justification under the rape statutes is all that's required..."

Dude, quit trolling.

I'm actually beginning to think you're the only troll here. Are you really so dense that you don't know that crimes are prosecuted that are not specifically defined as criminal acts to the letter of the law all the time? That so long as they can be justified under the blanket of some type of crime is all that's relevant? So, again, contrary to your insistence, there need be no such specific definition under the rape statutes in order for it to be prosecuted as rape, so your request is superfluous. Do you understand that now? Are you even going to make an attempt?

gotlucky:
Ah, someone trying to save face after a dumbass post.

I know you're trying to save face after a dumbass post. Quit making it so hard on yourself.

gotlucky:
Whether the boys were drunk or sober is irrelevant. The girl was never accused of raping them, so his comment was irrelevant to the Steubenville case.

So because the boys (or someone else) didn't file a counter-complaint for rape it's irrelevant? I'd say you need to re-read Baxter's post, because clearly you don't understand the point he was trying to make. But given your continued (and unjustified) belligerence, I'm guessing that won't be forthcoming.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

gotlucky — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 05:35:34 GMT

Wow you went from rational argumentation to overreactive ad hominem in the blink of an eye. Good showing, gotlucky. Seriously, do you take medication of some kind? Every one of your responses today in this thread have been almost completely off your norm.

Your entire post was uncharitable to everything I had said. In fact, it appears like it was actually a delibrate misrepresentation. You off your meds?

You're in no better position to define "the sniffles" than I am, which is the point. It's also why your haphazard dismissal of it is not only mystifying, it's wrong.

I can't understand what you just said. Please define the following:

You're, in, no, better, position, to, define, the, sniffles, than, I, am, which, is, point, it's, also, why, your [sic], haphazard, dismissal, of, it, not, only, mystifying, wrong.

And my point to you did nothing to take away from what you said, so how you define that as "trolling" is beyond me. And who says there needs to be a specific law that says "touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape"? Legal justification under the rape statutes is all that's required, that does not require any such specific definition, which is why rape laws are so dangerous.

"Who says there needs to be a specific law that says..."

"Legal justification under the rape statutes is all that's required..."

Dude, quit trolling.

Well, Baxter said, "If two people are impaired...are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd." to which you replied, "That would be absurd. It also seems to be irrelevant to the Steubenville case." Given the facts of the case, we know that the girl was extremely inebriated, so in order for Baxter's statement to be irrelevant, you would have to be claiming that her rapists were not drunk. As far as I know, those facts have not been spoken about.

And if they were drunk (and on this I'm sure you agree) then how to do we justify excusing one's behavior due to alcohol and not the other's?

Ah, someone trying to save face after a dumbass post. Look, I agreed with him that it would be absurd, but it is irrelevant to the Steubenville case. I would say reread my response to you, but evidently I can't expect you to try and represent my posts accurately. You see, the girl was never accused of raping the two boys. Whether the boys were drunk or sober is irrelevant. The girl was never accused of raping them, so his comment was irrelevant to the Steubenville case.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

myhumangetsme — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 05:26:01 GMT

Wow you went from rational argumentation to overreactive ad hominem in the blink of an eye. Good showing, gotlucky. Seriously, do you take medication of some kind? Every one of your responses today in this thread have been almost completely off your norm.

gotlucky:
The sniffles are not a fever, for which you could possibly have had a point about cognitive impairment. Alas, seeing as the sniffles have nothing to do with cognitive impairment, you just wasting all of our time.

You're in no better position to define "the sniffles" than I am, which is the point. It's also why your haphazard dismissal of it is not only mystifying, it's wrong.

gotlucky:
Again with the trolling. My actually statement was this...

And my point to you did nothing to take away from what you said, so how you define that as "trolling" is beyond me. And who says there needs to be a specific law that says "touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape"? Legal justification under the rape statutes is all that's required, that does not require any such specific definition, which is part of why rape laws are so dangerous.

gotlucky:
Is that what I said?

Well, Baxter said, "If two people are impaired...are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd." to which you replied, "That would be absurd. It also seems to be irrelevant to the Steubenville case." Given the facts of the case, we know that the girl was extremely inebriated, so in order for Baxter's statement to be irrelevant, you would have to be claiming that her rapists were not drunk, no? As far as I know, those facts have not been spoken about.

And if they were drunk (and on this I'm sure you agree) then how to do we justify excusing one's behavior due to alcohol and not the other's?

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

Malachi — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:38:36 GMT

I don't see how a situation like the one depicted here can warrant such grandiose claims about culture or the lack thereof.

"crisis of values" = "acting really stupid"

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

Malachi — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:30:58 GMT

so all of that means the thread isnt over? I daresay, what are we talking about then? would you prefer your own words that say the same thing without referencing the op's argument?

I just see an isolate case of drunken kids acting really stupid, with the difference that now we have powerful internet channels that broadcast their actions and blow these things out of any reasonable proportion.

lol thread beyond ovar!1!1!!1!1!1

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

ToxicAssets — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 00:23:47 GMT

Malachi:

Also we don't have much of a culture just in general. To my mind there isn't anything like a positive rape culture out there. What there is a deep-seated crisis of values in general and the corresponding lack of culture as such.

thread over.

This really sounds good at first, but then I fail to distill anything concrete or useful from such an abstract complaint about a "lacking culture".

I don't see how a situation like the one depicted here can warrant such grandiose claims about culture or the lack thereof.

I just see an isolate case of drunken kids acting really stupid, with the difference that now we have powerful internet channels that broadcast their actions and blow these things out of any reasonable proportion.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

Malachi — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:09:27 GMT

Also we don't have much of a culture just in general. To my mind there isn't anything like a positive rape culture out there. What there is a deep-seated crisis of values in general and the corresponding lack of culture as such.

thread over.

Re: Steubenville Case/Rape Culture

gotlucky — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 22:51:44 GMT

troll:

First of all, what? A cold or a fever can be just as impairing as being drunk, not to mention the drugs you might take to relieve their symptoms. Second of all, whether you think the sniffles has anything to do with being impaired has nothing to do with what the legal system will accept, and both that and being drunk share the convenience that by the time legal proceeedings begin, they'll be long gone. So it boils down to a guessing game.

The sniffles are not a fever, for which you could possibly have had a point about cognitive impairment. Alas, seeing as the sniffles have nothing to do with cognitive impairment, you just wasting all of our time.

troll:

You have Google, look it up for yourself. You will find instances where men were charged and/or convicted of rape when both parties were drunk, and you will certainly find that most interested parties believe that situation to be rape if the woman says it was. The rape crisis lines will tell any woman that calls that the only standard to justify a rape claim is that the woman says she was impaired.

Again with the trolling. My actually statement was this:

gotlucky:

You full well know that the sniffles does not have anything to do with impairment. I would also like a source that says that touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape. Drunken hookups are common, and clearly people are not being arrested and prosecuted for drunken hookups. So you really need to source that claim.

I am waiting for the source that says, "[T]he law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape." My response is directly relevant to that claim. Quit wasting our time with cut and paste hack jobs.

troll:

Is it? Do we have some source that proves unequivocally that the boys were not themselves drunk?

Is that what I said? Would not a more accurate reading be that the girl herself has not been accused of raping the two boys?

I guess the troll got what it wanted...I responded to a troll post.