Women Self Defence!

[Tez3]

Okay, this is a non-sequitur. He's on the Supreme Court, therefore, he is a "good guy."

I'm going to say this without getting political, because I know it's against the rules here, but I can promise you that those who opposed the previous POTUS - who held not only a higher office than Supreme Court Justice, but the highest country in the nation - did not believe him to be a "good guy" on the basis of the office that he held.

So if a guy who flipped burgers at McDonald's did the same things as Brett Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas, he wouldn't be a "good guy" because he doesn't have a prestigious job?

Note: I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I just need some clarification if this isn't what you meant, and how you truly gauge whether or not someone is a "good guy."

*Sigh* now, another accusation claiming that I said sexual assaults are more likely to be committed by strangers, when this isn't even something that I've mention on this thread.

My parents never told me not to mug anyone, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to snatch purses, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to carjack anyone, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to make fun of people with disabilities, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to commit a mass shooting, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to make home-made bombs for use in terrorist activity, and I've never done it.

As you can see, I could go on forever. My parents don't have to tell me that a specific act is wrong in order for me to know that it is. Hell, when it comes to rape - as in forced intercourse with an unwilling partner - I knew what that was by the age of 8, and I knew it was wrong as soon as I had heard of it.

Again, this is all about moving the goal post to make men part of the problem who really aren't.

You see rape as the forced sexual intercourse on a female, as an assault usually by a stranger. However there's more to it than that.

Rape is where a woman doesn't want sex but is forced to by various means. Emotional blackmail for example. 'if you really loved me you would', 'I'll leave you if you don't ' very effective on younger females.

There's the 'you'll lose your job' one. The I bought you dinner/did you a favour so you owe me. The well what did you think coming in for coffee meant then? There's more, all the ways of putting a female in a situation where she doesn't want to have sex but is scared or shamed into it.

then there's the relationship one, where the man keeps on and on pestering until he gets what he wants even though she doesn't want to. Lying in bed groping her until she gives in. Have you ever had sex with your wife when she didn't feel like it but you did and you cajoled her? Didn't think it was that serious because well you're married after all. Mate, she didn't want sex, no should mean no.

then there's the chap who the girl has had sex with before in the past who insists on sex again because well like the one above it's his right isn't it? Good luck with trying to prove rape with that, judges and juries won't believe her.

Or girl who has sex willingly with one guy only for him to let his mate in for sloppy seconds. I had to deal with a girl that happened to, no prosecution because she was willing with the first guy who she'd just met so she was asking for it. 😠

There's the friend one, when the girl drinks too much, passes out and the friend says well why not shag her. It's not rape they're friends 😕 no convictions for that one either.

Yoh think of rape as just an act carried out by criminals, it's not.

 

[Tez3]

I suspect that Enzo likes a longer walk than Sadie. St. Bernards are good for about 20 minutes.

Not really he's a 40mph coach potato, greyhounds like a couple of 20 minute walks and one zoomie a day lol. They are built for short bursts of speed and lots of sleep. 😂

 

[Urban Trekker]

I disagree. He's literally on the judicial body with a lifelong appointment as one of only 9 arbiters of what is lawful and constitutional. He was vetted, and determined to be a "good guy". The real point here is that there are a lot of people, millions of people, who don't see what the big deal is.

So we're not going to question the morals of those who don't see what the big deal was?

People who flip burgers do those things. People who are generally considered good people have done those things in every walk of life. I guarantee you that some folks on this forum have done some things that others would consider sexual misconduct. 100% no doubt in my mind. You probably work with guys who have done some things. If they were in a fraternity, there is no doubt that they either acted or enabled behavior that required a female to defend herself at some point. 100%.

Probably, and if I learned that they did those things, I wouldn't look at them same.

Good guy meaning someone who isn't a bad guy by your definition. In other words, if the measure of "bad guy" is violent rape, then there are a lot of good guys out there who don't meet that threshold, but who act in a way that requires women to defend themselves in some way. And it's so pervasive that guys like you, who I presume to be a good guy, casually share examples such as the one in this thread where you saw nothing at all wrong with sharing an implied judgment about a single mom dating and having sex.

Three things:

1. I actually defended women who make these decisions by stating that regardless of their marital or parental status, they have sexual needs to be met like anyone else.
2. I also stated that my worry is how the children (not me) would view their mother, and
3. I stated that in the hypothetical situation that I ended up a single custodial father, I'd also worry how my children would view me if they saw random women coming over for sex.

You say your parents never taught you how to behave? I think you're giving your parents too little credit. How do racists become racists? Do you think some white babies are just born prejudiced against black babies?

So here's the deal: I think that as long as parents focus on bigger picture items, then the specifics should easily fall into place. Things like: Respect other people. Respect other people's property. Do not cause any physical harm to anyone unless you protecting yourself or other people. Treat others how you would want to be treated.

Again, focus on that, and everything else will follow. That's not to say that discussion on specifics aren't necessary, but from the bigger picture, it gives people a base to make judgement calls on what is right and what is wrong.

Do you think you intuitively just know that making fun of people with disabilities is wrong? I've worked with people who are disabled for decades and I hate to break it to you, but that's just not so. Discrimination against people with disabilities is rampant... often casual and cruel.

The only thing you're addressing is whether or not someone is going to do it. Just because someone does a bad thing does not mean that they're unaware that it's wrong. I can say with certainty that the people you've witnessed mistreating disabled people knew fully well that they were in the wrong.

personally, I think my mom and dad, both veterans and both very liberal, for a lot of my world views. They planted the seeds, to be sure, for what I think is a thoughtful combination of patriotism and love of country with critical thought, respect for others, and an inclination to serve others.

I envy you, because you clearly have not seen beneath the veil. We call HR and labor relations the 'dark arts' of management because you learn quickly how "good people" can do some really atrocious things... and how other good people enable them.

Four more things:
1. I'm a veteran. In fact, I retired after 20 years of service.
2. I'm liberal.
3. I work in HR. Not EEO/LR, but HR nonetheless.
4. I'm not naïve to believe that people who look good on the surface can't actually be bad. The difference is that I don't continue to see them as good when I learn of the things that they've done.

 

[Urban Trekker]

You see rape as the forced sexual intercourse on a female, as an assault usually by a stranger. However there's more to it than that.

I never said that. You and Steve need to stop putting words in my mouth.

Yoh think of rape as just an act carried out by criminals, it's not.

Well, rape is a crime and, by definition, one who commits a crime is a criminal, right?

If there's any ignorance going on, it's this: the apparent belief that one has to be of low socio-economic status in order to be "bad" or a "criminal." Or that anyone who wears a tie and slacks to work, but commits sexual assault, is simply a good guy who has done a bad thing.

For all the talk of racism and sexism on this thread, now we've got classism.

 

[Steve]

So we're not going to question the morals of those who don't see what the big deal was?


Probably, and if I learned that they did those things, I wouldn't look at them same.


Three things:

1. I actually defended women who make these decisions by stating that regardless of their marital or parental status, they have sexual needs to be met like anyone else.
2. I also stated that my worry is how the children (not me) would view their mother, and
3. I stated that in the hypothetical situation that I ended up a single custodial father, I'd also worry how my children would view me if they saw random women coming over for sex.

I'm not being super clear. My impression is that you and I have a different idea of what is and isn't sexual misconduct. My definition is much broader, and has been informed by a professional lifetime of dealing with it. I see not just the behavior, but I see the ways in which we (we meaning society, corporations, media, etc) tacitly endorse it. Holding people accountable is exceedingly difficult for many reasons. For example, let's say a woman has a lot of sex. That alone may be the reason some creep gets away with rape. That alone is often enough for otherwise reasonable people to figuratively or literally look at each other and say, "Well, I mean, she does have a lot of sex. She did agree to have drinks with him. How can that be rape?"

Can you honestly tell me you've never seen people in your life behave in a way that is creepy and unwelcome, to a point where a female was forced to act in her own defense? Women would be foolish to take a drink from a person they don't know in a bar... that's self defense. It is pervasive. And when I hear guys get defensive and start going down the "no one had to tell me that rape is bad," I call BS. I think that's exactly what happened, somewhere along the way. it's not about saying "rape is bad." Rather, it's about pointing out to good guys, "hey, you don't think that's rape.. but it is." For example, "Billy, I know that it's common in your fraternity to get women drunk hoping to have sex with them. yes, I know it happens all the time. If she's not sober enough to consent... that's rape."

I know that over the last 40 years, through a combination of experience and education, I've learned that a lot of the things I thought were okay when I was a kid are actually pretty rotten. I've mentioned Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds... I have a lot more examples from media and from "real life" I could share, but the point is the same.

So here's the deal: I think that as long as parents focus on bigger picture items, then the specifics should easily fall into place. Things like: Respect other people. Respect other people's property. Do not cause any physical harm to anyone unless you protecting yourself or other people. Treat others how you would want to be treated.

Some of the most respectful people I know, who view themselves as moral people, are real scumbags. Once again, I guarantee you that we have a few on this forum. People who view themselves as respectful and moral, and who see no disconnect between their self image and their behavior toward certain people, toward women, toward people of color, toward you name it.

Again, focus on that, and everything else will follow. That's not to say that discussion on specifics aren't necessary, but from the bigger picture, it gives people a base to make judgement calls on what is right and what is wrong.

The only thing you're addressing is whether or not someone is going to do it. Just because someone does a bad thing does not mean that they're unaware that it's wrong. I can say with certainty that the people you've witnessed mistreating disabled people knew fully well that they were in the wrong.

Four more things:
1. I'm a veteran. In fact, I retired after 20 years of service.
2. I'm liberal.
3. I work in HR. Not EEO/LR, but HR nonetheless.
4. I'm not naïve to believe that people who look good on the surface are actually bad. The difference is that I don't continue to see them as good when I learn of the things that they've done.

I've said in other threads that I think you and I would agree on more than we disagree. I think in this, you have an unrealistically optimistic opinion on this subject. At the very least, I think you have an impression that these "good on the surface" people are a relative minority. I don't see it as a binary thing. I think it's a spectrum that we're all on somewhere. The question isn't that we're on that spectrum... it's a matter of trajectory. Where we start is often a function of our background (i.e, our family and environment as a child) and our education. But from that starting point, are we static, where we see nothing wrong and avoid any introspection. Or are we continuing to grow?

As I said earlier, when guys get defensive on topics like this, I get the impression that they are at least stuck.

 

[Steve]

I never said that. You and Steve need to stop putting words in my mouth.

Well, rape is a crime and, by definition, one who commits a crime is a criminal, right?

If there's any ignorance going on, it's this: the apparent belief that one has to be of low socio-economic status in order to be "bad" or a "criminal." Or that anyone who wears a tie and slacks to work, but commits sexual assault, is simply a good guy who has done a bad thing.

For all the talk of racism and sexism on this thread, now we've got classism.

Here's a question. Well couple of questions. First, what words am I putting in your mouth?

But second, does it have to be rape to be creepy or threatening? Or said another way, does it have to be criminal behavior of any kind to be threatening or creepy?

 

[Tez3]

I never said that. You and Steve need to stop putting words in my mouth.

Well, rape is a crime and, by definition, one who commits a crime is a criminal, right?

If there's any ignorance going on, it's this: the apparent belief that one has to be of low socio-economic status in order to be "bad" or a "criminal." Or that anyone who wears a tie and slacks to work, but commits sexual assault, is simply a good guy who has done a bad thing.

For all the talk of racism and sexism on this thread, now we've got classism.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say 'apparent belief 'etc

I've never mentioned anything to do with class which is a very different thing in the UK btw.

Now as much as I'd like to continue its Friday evening and I have things to see to. I will be back Saturday night or Sunday morning if you are still pontificating.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Here's a question. Well couple of questions. First, what words am I putting in your mouth?

Accusations that I have either said or believe that rape is generally committed by strangers.

But second, does it have to be rape to be creepy or threatening? Or said another way, does it have to be criminal behavior of any kind to be threatening or creepy?

Are we discussing behavior outside of sexual assault now?

The whole issue I'm discussing is the insinuation that anyone who is not playing an affirmative role against a particular evil is contributing to it.

 

[Steve]

Accusations that I have either said or believe that rape is generally committed by strangers.

I don't think I've suggested that you've said that, though I do believe the stats are well founded that most sexual misconduct is perpetrated by someone known to the victim.

Are we discussing behavior outside of sexual assault now?

Do you think it has to rise to the level of assault for a women to warrant some level of self defense? That's what I'm asking.

The whole issue I'm discussing is the insinuation that anyone who is not playing an affirmative role against a particular evil is contributing to it.

Contributing isn't quite the right word. But if you're arguing defensively in a thread like this, you're at least not working to mitigate it. Look at it like this. If someone says, "Racism is bad," would you reflexively say, 'Well, is it really even racism if it isn't doesn't meet these specific criteria I'm listing for you now?"

Or maybe it will help if you look at the actual argument you're making, which hinges on a belief that sexual norms and behaviors are not learned behaviors. If we can agree that they are learned behaviors, then can't we also agree that our parents (among others) have something to do with our perspectives on what is and is not appropriate and acceptable (i.e., that our parents actually did teach us not to rape)? And if we can agree on that, can we not also agree that our perspectives can (and I'd argue should) continue to evolve throughout our lives?

And the question does remain unanswered, which is, does it have to be criminal behavior of any kind to be threatening or creepy?

 

[Urban Trekker]

I don't think I've suggested that you've said that,

Quoting Tez3: "You see rape as the forced sexual intercourse on a female, as an assault usually by a stranger. "

Quoting you: "And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger."

though I do believe the stats are well founded that most sexual misconduct is perpetrated by someone known to the victim.

Seems to me that it would only be necessary to keep repeating this if you feel that it refutes something that I either said or believe.

Do you think it has to rise to the level of assault for a women to warrant some level of self defense? That's what I'm asking.

Well, this isn't something that I want to get into; but it depends on what we mean by "self defense" (semantics, I know, I hate it too). If a guy in a bar is staring at me hard like he wants to kick my ***, does that give me the right to walk up to him and hit him first?

No. There's no law saying that he can't give me the evil eye.

Do I have the right to leave the premises in order to avoid whatever I feel may happen? Of course. Are we counting that as self defense?

I suppose that if a man is being "creepy" (the word "creepy," by the way, is almost purely based on perception and not on anything measurable) towards a woman, then the same would apply.

Contributing isn't quite the right word. But if you're arguing defensively in a thread like this, you're at least not working to mitigate it. Look at it like this. If someone says, "Racism is bad," would you reflexively say, 'Well, is it really even racism if it isn't doesn't meet these specific criteria I'm listing for you now?"

Only I've never done this on the topic of rape or sexual assault. In none of the scenarios that you or Tez3 gave did I ever dismiss them as not being rape, or even treat any of them as if it were up for debate.

Or maybe it will help if you look at the actual argument you're making, which hinges on a belief that sexual norms and behaviors are not learned behaviors.

That depends on what we're talking about.

Are we talking about things like promiscuity, sexual orientation, or anything else that involves consenting adults?

Or are we talking about things that include someone that is not a consenting adult?

There are two tribes in Papua New Guinea - the Sambia and the Etoro - that have a ceremony for young pre-teen boys transitioning into adolescence; the details of which are too graphic to describe here, but if you Google them, I urge you to mentally prepare yourself for the worst.

I suppose that what happens in these ceremonies could support your point about morality being relative, but you need to question whether or not you yourself made a moral judgement of these people based on what you just learned of them.

If we can agree that they are learned behaviors, then can't we also agree that our parents (among others) have something to do with our perspectives on what is and is not appropriate and acceptable (i.e., that our parents actually did teach us not to rape)?

I think the "big picture" life lessons for me on this worked out just fine. Treating others how you want to be treated, respecting others, etc, etc are not specific to non-sexual situations.

And if we can agree on that, can we not also agree that our perspectives can (and I'd argue should) continue to evolve throughout our lives?

Sure, I don't see why not.

And the question does remain unanswered, which is, does it have to be criminal behavior of any kind to be threatening or creepy?

Well, threats are a crime, so that's that.

"Being creepy" isn't. As, I've said earlier, "creepiness" is based almost purely on perception. Two guys could be doing the exact same thing, and only one of them be seen as creepy. In any case, you can't pepper spray a guy because you think he's "creepy."

 

[geezer]

...then there's the relationship one, where the man keeps on and on pestering until he gets what he wants even though she doesn't want to. Lying in bed groping her until she gives in....

...You think of rape as just an act carried out by criminals, it's not.

Er, actually it is, I think ...Rape is a criminal act .... if you commit rape, you are engaging in a criminal act ...so doesn't that make you a criminal?

Being a "criminal" isn't an innate quality... that you manifest for your entire life. Rather, it's what you are if you engage in criminal acts.

That said, I'm not sure "pestering" a person and asking for sex until they just give up and give in by saying "Oh, very well, go ahead" is necessarily rape. It may be abusive and unacceptable, but "rape" implies forced sex, whether by physical or psychological means.

Somehow just "pestering" doesn't seem to rise to that standard. It sounds more like ...well like a child at the checkout line saying, "Can I have a candy bar, huh, can I, can I, can I, can I, ....Pleeeez, can I, can I, can I, (cue bratty tantrum, and fussing) ....and finally the exhausted parent (or, in the other case, sexual partner) gives in to shut the kid up.

Really, people just need to put their partners in time out if they carry on like that! ...Or show them the door, once and for all.

Seriously, we need to support women being assertive when dealing with partners like this. In some cases it seems to be innate For example my wife and daughter are both little people around 5'2" and scary strong willed and assertive about everything. I'm proud of that. Others may need more support and coaching. And all we need to fight old societal norms that encourage women to be docile and submissive.

I thought that change was already well underway ...but in the last few years it seems there has been a huge backlash and progress has been stalled. The culture wars are still raging ...at least where I live.

 

[Steve]

Quoting Tez3: "You see rape as the forced sexual intercourse on a female, as an assault usually by a stranger. "

Quoting you: "And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger."

Speaking to my own words, I think that's true. I've said a few times that I think you and I have in mind different definitions of some key terms. So far, you are kind of avoiding clarifying your definitions.

Seems to me that it would only be necessary to keep repeating this if you feel that it refutes something that I either said or believe.

I think, as mentioned above, I'm reacting to your statements by trying to clarify my own. Just to help us break out of this cycle, do we agree that this is a credible fact? Because, if we can't agree on that, then we can't get to the point where I can figure out what you are actually saying. To be honest, I can't be completely sure I understand what you think well enough at this point to know where we agree and disagree. You avoid direct questions and answer others defensively. As I said, I think we agree on more than we disagree, but I'm at the point where you're just not being very clear.

Well, this isn't something that I want to get into; but it depends on what we mean by "self defense" (semantics, I know, I hate it too). If a guy in a bar is staring at me hard like he wants to kick my ***, does that give me the right to walk up to him and hit him first?

Well, I mean, it's the subject of the thread.

No. There's no law saying that he can't give me the evil eye.

Evil eye?

Do I have the right to leave the premises in order to avoid whatever I feel may happen? Of course. Are we counting that as self defense?

I suppose that if a man is being "creepy" (the word "creepy," by the way, is almost purely based on perception and not on anything measurable) towards a woman, then the same would apply.

Okay. Sure. now I'm curious. Can you think of any behavior that you would consider creepy? If so, I think we're close enough. Is every behavior you think is creepy criminal behavior? I'm asking for your opinion.

Personally, I can think of a lot of behavior that is creepy that doesn't rise to the level of criminal.

Only I've never done this on the topic of rape or sexual assault. In none of the scenarios that you or Tez3 gave did I ever dismiss them as not being rape, or even treat any of them as if it were up for debate.


That depends on what we're talking about.

Are we talking about things like promiscuity, sexual orientation, or anything else that involves consenting adults?

Or are we talking about things that include someone that is not a consenting adult?

Maybe I haven't been concrete enough. What I'm pointing out to you is that the very definition of consent has evolved. While one may argue that it has never actually changed, the societal understanding of the term certainly has. There are, I think, a lot of parents out there now including in "the talk" some version of, "This is what consent means." @Tez3 has shared several specific examples of things that society has historically not categorized as "consent" that today are definitely understood to be so.

So, once again, I don't know if we agree or not on this, but just to state my own belief as clearly as I can, I do think that kids are taught what consent is. I don't think they know it intuitively. I have shared some concrete examples of how society's definition has shifted. Do you disagree or agree? Please be specific.

There are two tribes in Papua New Guinea - the Sambia and the Etoro - that have a ceremony for young pre-teen boys transitioning into adulthood; the details of which are too graphic to describe here, but if you Google them, I urge you to mentally prepare yourself for the worst.

I suppose that what happens in these ceremonies could support your point about morality being relative, but you need to question whether or not you yourself made a moral judgement of these people based on what you just learned of them.

I'm willing to look it up, but if you're saying we aren't born with an intuitive understanding of consent in complex social situations, I agree.

I think the "big picture" life lessons for me on this worked out just fine. Treating others how you want to be treated, respecting others, etc, etc are not specific to non-sexual situations.

Cool. So, then... that's a yes? You use a lot of imprecise language that I think leads to misunderstanding, so I'm just trying to be as concrete as possible.

Sure, I don't see why not.

Well, threats are a crime, so that's that.

Threats are a crime? Really, all threats? If I say something to you that you perceive as threatening, in every case, I am breaking a law? Please do tell.

"Being creepy" isn't. As, I've said earlier, "creepiness" is based almost purely on perception. Two guys could be doing the exact same thing, and only one of them be seen as creepy. In any case, you can't pepper spray a guy because you think he's "creepy."

I think we can get close enough to a shared definition of creepy for it to be constructive. But if it would help you, please feel free to be more specific.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Er, actually it is, I think ...Rape is a criminal act .... if you commit rape, you are engaging in a criminal act ...so doesn't that make you a criminal?

Being a "criminal" isn't an innate quality... that you manifest for your entire life. Rather, it's what you are if you engage in criminal acts.

Yeah, I pointed this out earlier. Clearly, she means something else when she says "criminal." A big scary-looking guy with a bunch tattoos and no job, maybe? You're not a criminal, unless you're that type of guy? So as to not put words in her mouth, I'll let her clarify whatever it is she does mean.

 

[Steve]

Er, actually it is, I think ...Rape is a criminal act .... if you commit rape, you are engaging in a criminal act ...so doesn't that make you a criminal?

Being a "criminal" isn't an innate quality... that you manifest for your entire life. Rather, it's what you are if you engage in criminal acts.

That said, I'm not sure "pestering" a person and asking for sex until they just give up and give in by saying "Oh, very well, go ahead" is necessarily rape. It may be abusive and unacceptable, but "rape" implies forced sex, whether by physical or psychological means.

Somehow just "pestering" doesn't seem to rise to that standard. It sounds more like ...well like a child at the checkout line saying, "Can I have a candy bar, huh, can I, can I, can I, can I, ....Pleeeez, can I, can I, can I, (cue bratty tantrum, and fussing) ....and finally the exhausted parent (or, in the other case, sexual partner) gives in to shut the kid up.

Really, people just need to put their partners in time out if they carry on like that! ...Or show them the door, once and for all.

Seriously, we need to support women being assertive when dealing with partners like this. In some cases it seems to be innate For example my wife and daughter are both little people around 5'2" and scary strong willed and assertive about everything. I'm proud of that. Others may need more support and coaching. And all we need to fight old societal norms that encourage women to be docile and submissive.

I thought that change was already well underway ...but in the last few years it seems there has been a huge backlash and progress has been stalled. The culture wars are still raging ...at least where I live.

I'd like to introduce you to a guy named Anthony Bouchard. He is not only admitting that he statutorily raped a 14 year old girl when he was 18, he is asserting that he is the good guy because he married her. I mean, sure, she had a baby at 15, was divorced by him at 18, and committed suicide at 20. But he's the good guy. Not only is he not being prosecuted for this. He is running for national office.

we can discuss whether WE think he's the good guy or not. I certainly don't. But what is relevant is how he is viewed by society at large. While we may disapprove of his choices, he is not accountable, and in fact, he is being supported by a cross section of society in spite of (and in part, because of) his actions. That he didn't allow her to have an abortion is actually an exonerating fact for many people.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I'd like to introduce you to a guy named Anthony Bouchard. He is not only admitting that he statutorily raped a 14 year old girl when he was 18, he is asserting that he is the good guy because he married her. I mean, sure, she had a baby at 15, was divorced by him at 18, and committed suicide at 20. But he's the good guy. Not only is he not being prosecuted for this. He is running for national office.

we can discuss whether WE think he's the good guy or not. I certainly don't. But what is relevant is how he is viewed by society at large. While we may disapprove of his choices, he is not accountable, and in fact, he is being supported by a cross section of society in spite of (and in part, because of) his actions. That he didn't allow her to have an abortion is actually an exonerating fact for many people.

Just beign purely factual here. i havent read the rest of this dicussiong but:

Statory rape and rape are diffrent crimes. Rape is without consent, statory rape is where the person is not of age to consent. I would go as far to say, if somone not of age to consent consents, thats generally looked on more favourable than straight out rape. Witholding the arguing about when you can cosnent and to whome etc. Just using those paramters.

And as far as i know, males get thw short end of the stick for this one, if both parties are under aged.

Also, in some countries and legalities rape charges are dropped if the person agrees to marry you within a certain time bracket. (just thought it was a intresting tid bit, not looked into what countries have this law)

(no idea if its of relivence, or if its supportive or not supportive of what has been written)

Addendum: Skimmed up a little. The previously mentioned issue would be (if criminal, and serious) harrassment. If it gets into harassment territory anyone should know to contact police. Now there is a line between annoyance and not a police issue and harassment and thus a police issue. (police to mean legal action in general) Harrassment is only harassment, no other crime. (it can accompiny other crimes though)

 

[Steve]

Just beign purely factual here. i havent read the rest of this dicussiong but:

Statory rape and rape are diffrent crimes. Rape is without consent, statory rape is where the person is not of age to consent. I would go as far to say, if somone not of age to consent consents, thats generally looked on more favourable than straight out rape. Witholding the arguing about when you can cosnent and to whome etc. Just using those paramters.

And as far as i know, males get thw short end of the stick for this one, if both parties are under aged.

Also, in some countries and legalities rape charges are dropped if the person agrees to marry you within a certain time bracket. (just thought it was a intresting tid bit, not looked into what countries have this law)

(no idea if its of relivence, or if its supportive or not supportive of what has been written)

Addendum: Skimmed up a little. The previously mentioned issue would be (if criminal, and serious) harrassment. If it gets into harassment territory anyone should know to contact police. Now there is a line between annoyance and not a police issue and harassment and thus a police issue. (police to mean legal action in general) Harrassment is only harassment, no other crime. (it can accompiny other crimes though)

Quick comments on this. First, if a person is not old enough to consent, she (or he) cannot by definition consent. The idea of a person "not of age to consent" consenting... it just gives me a headache to consider it, the logic is so flawed.

Second, laws such as if the child should marry the guy, it's cool... that reinforces the salient point here which is that consent is a concept that heavily influence by societal norms, and is very much a concept that is taught to kids, not instinctively understood.

 

[Steve]

Alright. With that, I think I'm out. I've said my piece on this.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Just beign purely factual here. i havent read the rest of this dicussiong but:

Statory rape and rape are diffrent crimes. Rape is without consent, statory rape is where the person is not of age to consent. I would go as far to say, if somone not of age to consent consents, thats generally looked on more favourable than straight out rape. Witholding the arguing about when you can cosnent and to whome etc. Just using those paramters.

And as far as i know, males get thw short end of the stick for this one, if both parties are under aged.

Also, in some countries and legalities rape charges are dropped if the person agrees to marry you within a certain time bracket. (just thought it was a intresting tid bit, not looked into what countries have this law)

(no idea if its of relivence, or if its supportive or not supportive of what has been written)

Addendum: Skimmed up a little. The previously mentioned issue would be (if criminal, and serious) harrassment. If it gets into harassment territory anyone should know to contact police. Now there is a line between annoyance and not a police issue and harassment and thus a police issue. (police to mean legal action in general) Harrassment is only harassment, no other crime. (it can accompiny other crimes though)

I have to comment on this, because once again while giving legal advice you're wrong on multiple accounts here.

The first is that there is no crime called statory rape. The crime is statutory rape. And it is considered a variation of rape, not something different (in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of)

And it is still without consent, as the official reason (in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of) is that the person is legally incapable of consenting, due to either age or mental/physical handicap. Which means that they still did not consent.

Regarding males getting the short end of the stick here, you can make that argument based on stats, but legally (again in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of), the law is phrased either (regarding age, not mental/physical handicap/other reasons): you cannot have sex with someone under x-age, in which case both people can theoretically be charged. ie: in California, if I'm 17 and my girlfriend is 17 and we have sex, we can both be charged. Or, it's if one person is above the age of consent. ie: in texas, it's legal so long as both people are above the age of 14, and within 3 years of age. If they're not then it's illegal, with one being the perpetrator and one being the victim. So if I was 19 and had sex with my 15 year old girlfriend, that's rape. If I'm 16 and had sex with my 16 year old girlfriend, then it's not.

In both of the above scenarios, you'll notice that from a legal standpoint male/female had nothing to do with it.

Also, do you notice how within this I used the phrase in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of? That's important, and something you continuously do not mention when you give people legal advice on here about rape, or self defense, or weapons, or basically anything else. You seem to go by memory, and state what you are stating as fact, which is never how legal issues work, and is a very dangerous thing to do when people may read what you are writing as something to be taken seriously/legitimately.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Speaking to my own words, I think that's true. I've said a few times that I think you and I have in mind different definitions of some key terms. So far, you are kind of avoiding clarifying your definitions.

You think it's true that I believe rape is generally committed by strangers, despite having never said it? Or that it's true that I have a limited definition of sexual misconduct, despite the fact that I've never debated anyone on it?

I think, as mentioned above, I'm reacting to your statements by trying to clarify my own. Just to help us break out of this cycle, do we agree that this is a credible fact? Because, if we can't agree on that, then we can't get to the point where I can figure out what you are actually saying. To be honest, I can't be completely sure I understand what you think well enough at this point to know where we agree and disagree. You avoid direct questions and answer others defensively. As I said, I think we agree on more than we disagree, but I'm at the point where you're just not being very clear.

Yes, we agree.

Evil eye?

I don't think this requires explanation, but I'll give one if I need to.

Okay. Sure. now I'm curious. Can you think of any behavior that you would consider creepy? If so, I think we're close enough. Is every behavior you think is creepy criminal behavior? I'm asking for your opinion.

Personally, I can think of a lot of behavior that is creepy that doesn't rise to the level of criminal.

No, I don't think all creepy behavior is criminal; as a matter of fact, I'll even say that if a particular behavior can only be described as "creepy" and nothing else, it's probably not criminal.

I'll even say that, other then the possibility of them snapping (Son of Sam style), most guys that can be described as "creepy" are pretty harmless.

Maybe I haven't been concrete enough. What I'm pointing out to you is that the very definition of consent has evolved. While one may argue that it has never actually changed, the societal understanding of the term certainly has. There are, I think, a lot of parents out there now including in "the talk" some version of, "This is what consent means."

Which, to be frank, is more in the context of telling their children what they need to know in order to stay out of trouble, and less about respecting the rights of the other person. Which is fine, as long as the results are the same.

Look, one definition that has changed during my adulthood is having sex with someone who is intoxicated. In my late teens and early 20's, if we woke up with a hangover next to someone that we wouldn't have touched with a stick while sober, we owned it and got the hell out of there.

This changed sometime in the mid-00's.

Now, off-topic, there is a dilemma: minors can be convicted of raping an adult victim, the precedent has already been set for that a long time ago.

What if a drunk 30 year old man and a sober 14 year old girl has sex? On paper, they both committed rape. But we both know that only one of them is going down, and it's not the girl.

Outside of that, though, when a rule changes, I'm not one to protest. I simply accept the new rule and adjust my behaviors accordingly (thankfully, I've never been on the wrong end of anything that is now considered sexual assault that wasn't in the past).

@Tez3 has shared several specific examples of things that society has historically not categorized as "consent" that today are definitely understood to be so.

And I've never debated her on those.

So, once again, I don't know if we agree or not on this, but just to state my own belief as clearly as I can, I do think that kids are taught what consent is. I don't think they know it intuitively. I have shared some concrete examples of how society's definition has shifted. Do you disagree or agree? Please be specific.

Certain things. Let's take intoxication, for example: getting someone drunk for the purpose of sex? That's a line I wouldn't have crossed, even when there were no laws telling me not to do it.

Avoiding sex with someone, solely on the basis of being sober while the other person is drunk? That probably has to be taught. I'm not sure that's even illegal, but it's definitely best to not FAFO.

Threats are a crime? Really, all threats? If I say something to you that you perceive as threatening, in every case, I am breaking a law? Please do tell.

You didn't know this? You didn't know that telling someone "I'm gonna show up to your job and kick your ***" can get you arrested?

I think we can get close enough to a shared definition of creepy for it to be constructive. But if it would help you, please feel free to be more specific.

That's the thing: I can't. I'm not trying to avoid your question or anything, but as I've said before, what's creepy and what's not creepy is based on perception. It's one of those things where you know it when you feel it, but you can't explain it. That's why I said that it's not something that's measurable. Myself, I try to avoid using the words "creep" and "creepy" because of this.

 

[geezer]

Alright. With that, I think I'm out. I've said my piece on this.

Smart move, Steve. I'm following your lead!