RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus

RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/27/2011 8:14:07 PM)
Firstly isn't it wonderful to see men participating responsibly in discusions of rape and how to prevent it. Thanks samboct and Aswad. Secondly, an anecdote: Some years ago, I was doing research about sexual assault and interviewing a veteran street sex worker. When she came to the question: "Have you been raped?" she stopped filling out the questionnaire and asked me" "It's not rape if you consent is it?" I said: "How do you mean?" she said: "Say I'm working and a gang of guys come up to me and we all know what's going to happen and I decide to go along with it because that's the easiest way out, that's not rape is it because I consented?" I said: "It's rape if you were coerced into sex you wouldn't have agreed to voluntarily, but you best answer it according to your understanding of rape" She put down that she had never been raped. I walked away wondering how many times the poor thing had been pack raped..... So yes, I agree that there are huge differences in what the word 'rape' means ......... to different people. Thirdly: women have been trying to negotiate this issue for decades, centuries. I believe it's terrific to see men join the conversation. I believe there's a lot more that men can do. One thing is to make it very clear that your idea of masculinity or 'real' men doesn't include those who use violence against others. Most men participate in this code, agree with this sentiment. Yet there are still huge pockets of masculinity where other values are still tolerated. How often do remarks about violence against women pass by uncriticised in these circles? The people trapped in these hideous value systems aren't likely to listen to women. But they do respect and listen to the views of other men. It's time to make these attitudes subject to the same peer disapproval we're beginning to see in areas like drink driving or racism. There are areas where men will be far more effective than any woman. We need more men speaking out and contesting these archaic value systems that authorise or are complicit in violence against women, children, gays ......... Finally I don't wish to be seen as blaming 'men' in general. I'm talking about a small minority of males here. I fully agree that rape is not a male monopoly.

xxblushesxx -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/27/2011 8:40:11 PM)
Tweakabelle, Do you see what Sambotc (sorry if I misspelled it) has been doing as speaking out against rape?

FrostedFlake -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/27/2011 10:04:58 PM)
quote: Victim Wrongs: The Case for a General Criminal Defense Based on Wrongful Victim Behavior in an Era of Victims' Rights Aya Gruber University of Colorado Law School Abstract: Criminal law scholarship is rife with analysis of the victims' rights movement. Many articles identify with the outrage of victims harmed by deviant criminal elements. Other scholarly pieces criticize the movement's denuding of defendants' constitutional trial rights. The point upon which proponents and opponents of the movement tend to agree, however, is that the victim should never be blamed for the crime. The helpless, harmed, innocent victim is someone with whom we can all identify and someone to whom we can all express sympathy. Victim blaming, by all accounts, is an act of legal heresy to feminists, victim advocates, and many criminal law scholars. The aversion to victim-blaming is likely part of the reason why there is a dearth of legal scholarship concerning formal victim blaming defenses. The reality is, however, that the criminal law currently contains doctrines that absolve defendants of liability based on the conduct of the victim. Most obviously, self-defense exculpates a defendant for killing when the victim has engaged in imminently life-threatening conduct. Other victim liability defenses in the criminal law include provocation, defense of others, and defense of property. The problem is that there is no true doctrinal coherence in the existing victim liability defenses. They arbitrarily provide defenses to some defendants who respond to victim conduct and not others. Consequently, defendants who commit crimes, not because the victim is wrongful, but rather because the victim possesses certain minority traits disfavored by the defendant, are eligible for defenses under the current system. Current victim liability law often provides a pass to "reasonable racists," "provoked" wife-killers, and those who kill because of homosexual advances. A critical analysis of victim blaming defenses is more important now than ever. The victims' rights movement has elevated the crime victim to near party status in the criminal prosecution, propelling the once very public arena of criminal law toward privatization. The political force of the victims' rights movements is derived at least in part from a one-side characterization of victimhood, which portrays victims as ultimately irreproachable, truthful, and almost saintly. Juxtaposed with this is an image of the criminal defendant as guilty, unremorseful, and evil. As a result of this incomplete characterization, victims who are themselves wrongful actors are able to utilize the prevailing victimization narratives to gain the panoply of rights and moral sanctity conferred by the victims' rights movement. As a response to this problem with the privatization trend, this article proposes that the criminal law take a fuller view of victims and provides a coherent mechanism through which victim wrongdoing may be assessed at the liability level. The "non-specific victim liability defense" is a defense that applies to any crime. It requires that: (1) the victim engaged in sufficiently wrongful conduct; (2) the wrongful conduct caused the defendant to commit the charged offense; (3) the defendant was not predisposed to commit the charged offense; and (4) the defendant's response balances against the victim's wrongful conduct dictates that the defendant should be exculpated or punishment should be mitigated. This defense represents both a philosophical response to the privatization trend and a logical reformation of existing law. It solves some of the difficult race and gender problems of current victim liability law because it is more prescriptive than descriptive: It requires that the defendant respond to wrongful victim conduct. The defendant is subsequently prevented from asserting the defense if his criminal conduct was based, not on wrongful conduct, but on his own patriarchal, homophobic, or racist belief system. Part I of the article examines the trend toward increased focus on the victim and the movement in criminal law toward privatization. Part II analyzes the problem with the victims' rights movement and discusses the need for a more complete picture of the victim. Part III discusses several problems with the current collection of specific victim liability defenses that can be remedied by substituting the non-specific victim liability defense. Part IV expounds upon the meanings of the elements of the defense and its practical application. Number of Pages in PDF File: 94 Keywords: criminal law, defenses, victims' rights, provocation, self-defense, battered women http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=600741 Uuuuhmmm...yeah. "I swear, yer onner, if I didn't have means, motive and opportunity, I NEVER woulda (fill in the blank)" It seems inconceivable a legal professional would entertain such a suggestion, much less attempt to entertain others with it. It turns out, as one should expect, that this isn't what she was saying at all. Here is the money shot : quote: Consequently, the non-specific victim liability defense is more coherent than existing law because it eliminates many of the irrational classifications that occur under current law. In addition, this defense is more desirable because it is more prescriptive than the existing law. The non-specific victim liability defense, which is based on wrongful rather than merely provoking conduct, sends the message that the government only permits private citizens to harm in response to legally sufficient wrongful conduct. In doing so, it allows judges and juries more room to take into account the fairness of the treatment of the victim (essentially, to what extent the victim deserved the defendant’s conduct) and not just the mens rea of the defendant. Interestingly then, as it impacts the preexisting law of provocation, the non-specific victim liability defense is in fact more victim-friendly. It affirmatively states that criminal responses to less than wrongful victim behavior are not tolerable. In this paper, at least, the only time Ms. Gruber raises the specter of rape, is when she is being specific about what she is NOT talking about. While it is tempting to grab the first sheet off the roll and wipe with it, one must recognize that when one does, one is not relying upon the actual point being attempted by the author of the paper. On the contrary, the attempt in that case would be to use the authors name to add weight to an argument she did not herself propound.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/27/2011 10:13:06 PM)
quote: Tweakabelle Thirdly: women have been trying to negotiate this issue for decades, centuries. I believe it's terrific to see men join the conversation. I believe there's a lot more that men can do. One thing is to make it very clear that your idea of masculinity or 'real' men doesn't include those who use violence against others. Most men participate in this code, agree with this sentiment. Yet there are still huge pockets of masculinity where other values are still tolerated. How often do remarks about violence against women pass by uncriticised in these circles? The people trapped in these hideous value systems aren't likely to listen to women. But they do respect and listen to the views of other men. It's time to make these attitudes subject to the same peer disapproval we're beginning to see in areas like drink driving or racism. There are areas where men will be far more effective than any woman. We need more men speaking out and contesting these archaic value systems that authorise or are complicit in violence against women, children, gays ......... This is just what I thought I was advocating. And doing. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to come across as such. I wonder why. When I figure that out, I will be a better writer. ...or I will better appreciate the light in which I am viewed.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/27/2011 11:44:11 PM)
Some things defy summation. One such is Dr. Grubers 2009 paper, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime In that this paper is topical to this discussion, I post here the final portion, so that none need assume what is in it. I don't agree. I think Dr Gruber presents a false choice. Presents and either/or situation when the correct choice is AND. But, she defies summation, and here you go. quote: V. FEMINISTS SHOULD DISENGAGE FROM RAPE REFORMS THAT STRENGTHEN THE PENAL STATE This Article has waded into what Elizabeth Schneider calls the “murky middle ground” between women’s desperate desire for liberation from bonds of gender violence and the problems of engaging coercive state penal authority. No answers here are easy precisely because the very inchoateness and ubiquity of female subordination within law and society create a world in which women are at the mercy of individual male abusers or the patriarchal state. However, while neither the abandonment of criminal law nor continued engagement is ideal, they are not equally situated. At this particular moment, feminists ought to be consistent in critiquing the enormity and inhumanity of our criminal justice system, as well as its flawed premises. Women should not “walk the halls of power” in the criminal justice system but should rather begin the complicated process of disentangling feminism and its important anti-sexual coercion stance from a hierarchy-reinforcing criminal system that is unable to produce social justice. Even feminists persuaded that the criminal route is ideologically and materially flawed might nevertheless have some lingering doubt about receding from the criminal law. First, they might worry that feminist exit from criminal law will signal that sexual violence, particularly date rape, is not a pressing social problem. Minority scholars often feel compelled to show no weakness by perpetually supporting the strategic and philosophical positions of the group and avoiding internal critique. Indeed, there is always the risk that “attacks on liberal legalism” from the left “ultimately will do more to advance right-wing anti-liberal legalism and less to advance progressive alternatives.” Yet it is highly unlikely that sexists will premise or justify their views of date rape on progressives’ internal critique, especially if feminists make clear that the problem is with the criminal justice system and not with the concept that coerced and unconsensual sex is wrongful. Further, many critical scholars recognize that internal critique’s costs are far outweighed by its aptitude for “confronting complex subordination.” Second, the turn away from criminal law may leave feminists feeling defeated because doing “something,” even if within criminal law, is better than doing nothing. However, continuing to engage in punitive discourse and pro-prosecution reform is arguably more damaging to all subordinated groups, including women, than doing nothing. Moreover, this Article is more hopeful than many critical projects because it does not take the position that law can never be a mechanism of true feminist progress. Critical, feminist, and minority scholars have long objected to the singular reliance on positive law to achieve social justice ends. Drawing on insights about the limits of legal rules from Critical Legal Studies, many minority theorists have concluded that legal proposals provide limited potential for securing group justice because American law manifests primarily in a liberal form. Feminist scholars in particular have suggested that legal proposals inevitably reinforce patriarchy because “women are cast as requiring protection from the world of male violence while the superior status of men is secured by their supposed ability to offer such protection.” By contrast, this Article leaves open the possibility that changes in labor and employment law, public benefits law, immigration law, and the construction of educational, vocational, and other programs could, in fact, lead to women’s economic and social empowerment and have a positive effect on curbing sexual violence. There is even a possibility that under different political conditions, criminal law could be part of a feminist agenda. Thus, this Article is not a call for decriminalization of date rape. Civil libertarians and others suggest that nonconsensual sex or sex in the absence of affirmative consent should be punished as a minor misdemeanor, diverted into mediation programs, or subject to minimally punitive shaming punishments. These proposals, however, tend to make the problematic assumption that date rapes are not as “serious” as “normal” crimes. Constructions of “serious” criminality and “true” victimhood are not neutral, but products of specific social and political belief systems. Date rape is a phenomenon intimately entwined with gender inequality and, as such, is properly a matter of serious feminist concern. Further, in this age of massive overcriminalization, it appears both unfair and gender biased to select date rape, out of all other crimes that are overprosecuted and overpunished, for decriminalization. The argument here is not that date rape is not a “real” crime, but rather that addressing sexualized violence through increasing the prosecutorial power of the state is an endeavor in which, at this particular moment, feminists should no longer enlist. Activists should turn their attention to investigating methods of addressing rape and gender inequality outside of a system that carries so much political and practical baggage. However, those proposing non-criminal anti- rape projects should be wary that other strategies “come complete with their own perpetual perils.” Any feminist policy could pose theoretical problems or have unintended negative consequences and, as such, would likely benefit from the rigorous balancing analysis to which this Article subjects criminal rape reform. Nevertheless, the possibilities for feminist exploration outside criminal law appear extensive and exciting. Feminists can undertake to shape norms through political activism and legal scholarship expressly directed toward dispelling stereotypes and sexist practices. Engaging in scholarly, social, and political efforts to encourage unity between women could go far in changing the cultural preconditions of date rape. Feminists can also counteract the rape-permissive gender norms largely enforced by women instead of relentlessly focusing on the criminality of men. In addition, reformers may turn their attention to publicizing how sexist cultural attitudes harmfully construct male sexuality and masculinity. But in order to begin a dialogue with men, especially young men, about their interests in dismantling the behavioral and cultural predicates of date rape, feminists must talk to them as people, not just seek to incarcerate them as criminals. CONCLUSION At this moment of punitive excess, at this “time we will look back on in shame,” and in this era of devolved gender norms, feminists should turn away from prosecutorial power and toward the principles of solidarity and distributive equality Catharine MacKinnon espoused over a quarter century ago. Of course, all the inspired reformers who have worked tirelessly for rape reform within the criminal law are true feminist heroes. Their story is a thread in the larger tapestry of the women’s movement, and its constitutive importance cannot be denied. Feminists, however, have reached the limit of that effort, and the current criminal law no longer provides a meaningful avenue for transformation. The lonely voice of women’s empowerment cannot and will not be heard above the sound and fury of the criminal system’s other messages—messages that reinforce stereotypes, construct racial and socio-economic binaries, and unmoor crime from issues of social justice. Now is the time for us to step back, change directions, and reclaim the feminist movement from the hands of mainstream power and conservative ideology. It is time for feminists to leave the halls of criminal power and return to the streets where violence occurs, roll up our sleeves, and begin the process of formulating the next wave of feminist intervention Yes. Ripping up a PDF is messy AND I COULD HAVE ARTFULLY DRESSED IT UP AGAIN. Yeah. And Dr Gruber could have done a better job, too.

tweakabelle -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 12:12:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake quote: Tweakabelle We need more men speaking out and contesting these archaic value systems that authorise or are complicit in violence against women, children, gays ......... This is just what I thought I was advocating. And doing. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to come across as such. I wonder why. When I figure that out, I will be a better writer. ...or I will better appreciate the light in which I am viewed. The fault is entirely mine FrostedFlake. No excuses. My bad entirely. My sincerest apologies. Please forgive me.

CoreFocus -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 12:22:59 AM)
a small question ( perhaps I missed it while reading)..isn't planning a crime illegal? Where these people arrested?

Aswad -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 1:29:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So yes, I agree that there are huge differences in what the word 'rape' means ......... to different people. And to different legal systems. Our criminal code includes "grossly negligent rape", which used to be "negligent rape", and which specifically applies only to male on female contact. An example is when two people flirt, hook up, get drunk together, and then have sex. That she's too drunk to consent is obvious to anyone that's actually sober. Yet, he got drunk together with her, so he is equally impaired, and doesn't perceive her inability to consent. Neither person complains. The parents of the girl file charges. He gets jail time. That's the law working as intended. In my view, that's an insult to women, implying that they're so incapable as to need others to govern their autonomy and sexuality for them. Building a society on the idea that women are weak and incapable, and that they cannot be agentive, autonomous and free, seems no different from the old patriarchial systems of male rule over women, save that the state exhibits a more "benign" rule than was culturally conditioned in those systems. I'm inclined to reject that those systems could gain validity simply by culturally conditioning the men to be more benign rulers. As such, this seems oppressive, disrespectful and ultimately counterproductive by any metric. I could see a slap on the wrist for engaging in voluntary sex with someone too drunk to consent in the legal sense of the word, though my political inclination is that such is beneath the threshold of what law should cover. Sticking people in jail for something that is arguably undertaken together, with both parties aware of the possible implications, seems like charging men with moderating the women around them, acting as proxies for the state that owns those women. quote: One thing is to make it very clear that your idea of masculinity or 'real' men doesn't include those who use violence against others. Depends on the violence, the reasons for the violence, the circumstances and the target of the violence. Violence is part of the 'male legacy', and for good reason, but violence needs legitimacy, and legitimacy is usually a function of purpose and direction. Random violence is not a sign of mental stability and health. Even a sadist has some reason for violence (i.e. gratification) and properly directs it (e.g. at a consenting partner). Protection or defense is one of the reasons that tend to confer legitimacy, for instance. Back in the Viking era, we didn't have a problem raiding monastaries in the UK, yet attacking women and children was a likely way to end up as a figurehead on the prow of the ship during the next raid, as that was considered the act of nidingr (loosely translated: coward, weakling, etc.). However, attacking a shieldmaiden would be regarded no differently from attacking a man. I'm mentioning this to illustrate that violence isn't all that simple, and it would be unrealistic to say it's 'outdated', as there's every indication that violence is, has been, and will remain, a part of the species, and probably more prominent in men (except when targetted at children; women are far more likely to be the perpetrators of violence against children than men, in all categories of severity). quote: Finally I don't wish to be seen as blaming 'men' in general. I'm talking about a small minority of males here. I fully agree that rape is not a male monopoly. It's not a small minority. It's a sizeable minority. About 30% or so in Scandinavia, for instance. Which is one of the reasons why it seems inane not to distinguish assault from other categories of non-consenting sex, as we're not talking about 1 in 3 men committing assault type rape, but rather 1 in 3 men at some point engaging in a sexual relation that is without legally valid consent. It ranges from stuff most would write off as a failed date, to battered wives having their heads bashed against the concrete while the bastard hubby is humping away. And that, in turn, brings us to another key point: trauma does not define crime. There is a difference between taking advantage of a drunk date and raping a stranger at gunpoint, both qualitatively and quantitatively, and this difference is neither invalidated, nor diminished, by the degree of trauma for the specific victim. This is reflected in laws on violence, where there is a difference between causing and intentionally causing grievous bodily harm, for instance. In the analogous distinction, it is clear that the man who takes advantage of a drunk date may cause substantive trauma to some women, but his act is not intended to do so, and it may be argued that it would not be reasonable for him to expect that outcome. In contrast, the man who rapes a stranger at gunpoint might encounter (by chance) one that is not substantively traumatized by it, yet his act carries clear intent to violate severely, and it is absolutely reasonable to expect substantive trauma. As such, the latter- IMO- clearly warrants a stricter judicial response than the former, even in the hypothetical example where the former has caused less trauma than the latter. I'm not sure how that works in the USA, but around these parts, it could easily be the other way around in the courts, as it is the result, rather than the intention, method and what we might call the "driving force" or "state of mind", which forms the primary basis for the rendered verdict and the sentence meted out. While I cannot speak on behalf of women, I know a lot of men feel it is an unfair arrangement, and for myself, it smacks of making the victim part of the crime itself (target centric, as opposed to agent centric or action centric or other more conventional bases for other laws). I'm no voice of reason as regards these things, being a cave man who thinks spoils of war should've remained part of the rules of engagement and operating with a much narrower definition of slave trade than those working to put a stop to it. But there is such a thing as common decency between the members of a community, and that line is crossed by most of the things we call rape. Plus, I'm a bit of a bleeding heart when it comes to women, children and animals. My primary concern, though, is consistency, meaningful differentiation and public effort being expended in a manner that actually accomplishes the intended goals with reasonable efficiency. Don't confuse that with not seeing the attraction. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 1:35:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoreFocus a small question ( perhaps I missed it while reading)..isn't planning a crime illegal? Maybe I need to reread the case, but I see no evidence that a crime was really being planned, as such. In Norway, thinking about a crime is being made illegal after 22/7, but the USA still requires credible preparation AFAIK. Health, al-Aswad.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 2:23:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoreFocus a small question ( perhaps I missed it while reading)..isn't planning a crime illegal? Where these people arrested? As I pointed out, earlier; there's a difference between: 1) Who would you *like* to smack in the face? and 2) Who are you *going to* smack in the face? One is letting off steam and one is a threat. When you involve a second person in the second example, you've got conspiracy. None of these cretins was arrested nor, under existing laws, should they be (according to some of us) but I think all of us believe that they deserve some form of punishment or "sensitivity education". Peace and comfort, Michael

samboct -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 5:23:59 AM)
KK Doesn't seem like we're going anywhere- so I'll recap. 1) The divide between us seems to be based on an interpretation of Koss's findings. Her hypothesis- and by extension yours- is that women in college have been raped, but have been unaware that what's happened to them should be termed rape. Thus, we've needed to educate these women- and men. There is a vast sea of unreported rapes, which mostly include women in relationships. 2) My comment is that although Koss's findings have been reproducible (other studies when asking similar questions have similar findings), that after over two dozen years of "educating" women that they may be raped in their relationships with men, that the needle on reported rapes in colleges hasn't budged. Using UMass as a representative example, according to NIJ statistics, compiled in a manner similar to Koss's, estimate that 350 women out of 10,000 get raped during their college years. Given that UMass has 27,000 students- this would suggest that 1,000 women should be reporting getting raped. That last year the number was less than a dozen or approximately 1% of the projected numbers. While 20 years ago, it could be argued that women were unaware of Koss's rape statistics, they've clearly become a well known part of campus education. Hence, if rapes are unreported, that leaves two possibilities: A) A conspiracy theory where all schools suppress relationship rape statistics so thoroughly that effectively none are being reported..or B) Women in relationships involving violence do not think that they have been raped or are unwilling to call it rape, because the punishment does not fit the crime. Hence, even if the dictionary definition of rape fits the violence that has taken place, terming the violence rape is unpalatable. If hypothesis 2B is correct- well, it seems to me that what Aya Gruber wants to look at- is EXACTLY what we should be looking at- its the hypothesis that best fits the data. Clearly you find it unpalatable. That doesn't make it wrong. Tweak- thanks for chiming in, but at this point, (although I've said this before)- I think I've shot my bolt. Cheers, Sam

Miserlou -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 5:27:54 AM)
you have.

CoreFocus -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 5:29:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: CoreFocus a small question ( perhaps I missed it while reading)..isn't planning a crime illegal? Where these people arrested? As I pointed out, earlier; there's a difference between: 1) Who would you *like* to smack in the face? and 2) Who are you *going to* smack in the face? One is letting off steam and one is a threat. When you involve a second person in the second example, you've got conspiracy. None of these cretins was arrested nor, under existing laws, should they be (according to some of us) but I think all of us believe that they deserve some form of punishment or "sensitivity education". Peace and comfort, Michael I was asking that...because over here ( Holland) you will get arrested for such things. Because we don't want to mis the thin line between"perhaps" and "to late". Was curious if it was the same over there. Often it are just words of bratty people..agree...but we have also some cases were people just went out to kill ( and it was on the web).

tazzygirl -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 10:12:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoreFocus quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: CoreFocus a small question ( perhaps I missed it while reading)..isn't planning a crime illegal? Where these people arrested? As I pointed out, earlier; there's a difference between: 1) Who would you *like* to smack in the face? and 2) Who are you *going to* smack in the face? One is letting off steam and one is a threat. When you involve a second person in the second example, you've got conspiracy. None of these cretins was arrested nor, under existing laws, should they be (according to some of us) but I think all of us believe that they deserve some form of punishment or "sensitivity education". Peace and comfort, Michael I was asking that...because over here ( Holland) you will get arrested for such things. Because we don't want to mis the thin line between"perhaps" and "to late". Was curious if it was the same over there. Often it are just words of bratty people..agree...but we have also some cases were people just went out to kill ( and it was on the web). No one was arrested yet. We dont know the extent of anything. At this point, I dont view this as "planning".

xxblushesxx -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 10:26:01 AM)
Yeah, I don't either. The problem with the "questionairre" is, you don't always know if the people you are talking to are normal, intelligent, reasonable human beings who see this as just an academic question, or if someone will take it as a challenge. If a woman I loved was on that list, I'd certainly be extremely concerned for her safety.

tazzygirl -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 11:47:26 AM)
Those who put out the survey may very well have seen it merely as a joke/stunt/ect. There is no guarantee those reading it, or the results, would also view it that way.

xXLithiumXx -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 12:42:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoreFocus a small question ( perhaps I missed it while reading)..isn't planning a crime illegal? Where these people arrested? I would have thought it to be conspiracy, but...I don't know that it really applies here. And of course you have to take each states different law into consideration on what is defined as a crime and how it is defined.

xXLithiumXx -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 12:45:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: CoreFocus quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: CoreFocus a small question ( perhaps I missed it while reading)..isn't planning a crime illegal? Where these people arrested? As I pointed out, earlier; there's a difference between: 1) Who would you *like* to smack in the face? and 2) Who are you *going to* smack in the face? One is letting off steam and one is a threat. When you involve a second person in the second example, you've got conspiracy. None of these cretins was arrested nor, under existing laws, should they be (according to some of us) but I think all of us believe that they deserve some form of punishment or "sensitivity education". Peace and comfort, Michael I was asking that...because over here ( Holland) you will get arrested for such things. Because we don't want to mis the thin line between"perhaps" and "to late". Was curious if it was the same over there. Often it are just words of bratty people..agree...but we have also some cases were people just went out to kill ( and it was on the web). No one was arrested yet. We dont know the extent of anything. At this point, I dont view this as "planning". And there in lies the crux...Saying you would like to do something and actually "planning"-I think that is what negotiates the difference between dreaming and conspiracy. Its sick, it sucks, and women all over the country that are aware of the subject probably feel the need to take a long hot shower with a wire brush and some lye soap.

tazzygirl -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 1:16:18 PM)
Its because of the reactions of women, such as those on this board, that keeps this from becoming a reality. If we allow this as a "boys will be boys" and pat them on their heads and say... now now, be a good boy... what do they learn? Only that this is something they can get away with again and again... eventually they take another step. Just not worth the risk.

Aswad -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/28/2011 9:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl If we allow this as a "boys will be boys" and pat them on their heads and say... now now, be a good boy... what do they learn? Only that this is something they can get away with again and again... eventually they take another step. I have a problem with the assumption that another step is just waiting to be taken, contingent only on the absence of an external aversive input. Please explain to me how it is an inherent thing that these guys will move on to actual rape if not slapped by women for actions neither intended as threatening nor malicious? Sounds like you're saying men are all rapists waiting for the circumstances that allow them to mature into real rapists. Which, in turn, paints a picture of women like yourself just sitting around and waiting for a chance to take men down for having a penis. Talk about perverse incentive. Might as well get some mileage on ye ole biological travesty then, right? Whoever went at you, it seems counterproductive to confuse all of us with that person. Health, al-Aswad.

Page: << < prev 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625