User Controls
False Rape Claims
-
2017-11-11 at 9:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The categorical denial of non-consensual actions where physical resistance isn't present is what's comic here.
Maybe it's rape because consent isn't given? Protip: consent doesn't mean struggling after a rape attempt is started
You'll have to clarify for me Lanyard, since I'm also not really sure what you're saying as far as rape and struggle and consent and whatnot.
A date rape scenario I can see as applicable to a "non-struggling" rape, but other than that, I don't get what you're saying in terms of sexual rape. Are you suggesting it's common that consent is not given but after the man insists anyway, that women will just allow it without resistance because...Just because?
Also how is getting metaphorically raped by taxes a fair analogy to getting physically raped by another human? You're not getting a black eye because you can't get a black eye. Again all I can think of that comparing to is a girl not giving consent but allowing herself to get fucked anyway 'just to get it over with' or some shit. Is that accurate?
Halp me understand. -
2017-11-11 at 9:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny lol, ok, so if I knocked you out and fucked you it would be 100% consensual because hey, you didn't resist. God damn, you're so gay, just taking my cock like that. Total fag alert over here.
Knocking someone out is physically violent. And in the case of using drugs, I'd argue that as being use of a weapon.
Originally posted by Lanny The categorical denial of non-consensual actions where physical resistance isn't present is what's comic here. See (again) the "tax season" analogy.
I believe I originally said physical violence. Obviously if a man incapacitates a chick so he can rape her, violence has occurred.
Originally posted by Lanny Maybe it's rape because consent isn't given? Protip: consent doesn't mean struggling after a rape attempt is started.
If consent wasn't given, she will resist getting fucked. Simple as that.
Originally posted by Lanny wut? Illuminate me, if the fact that in fairly rigorously conducted surveys women report rates of rape wildly above the rate of rape reported to police departments doesn't constitute a reason to question if the rate of rape being reported corresponds to the rate of actual rape, what on earth does? Please tell me, what on earth would qualify as evidence that rape is underreported if not that?
Ok. Fine. I dunno. It's getting convoluted. Maybe you're right. My point was, because unreported rapes are not held up to any measure of scrutiny, there's no way to tell how accurate they are. Saying "100 rapes went unreported this year" gives the impression that 100 rapes happened, when we have no idea if that's true. That's all.
Originally posted by Lanny Statistics don't count if they don't agree with my opinion!
No, that one has quite literally been debunked. I'll be sure to pull you the info on it when I'm a little more sober. -
2017-11-11 at 9:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ You'll have to clarify for me Lanyard, since I'm also not really sure what you're saying as far as rape and struggle and consent and whatnot.
A date rape scenario I can see as applicable to a "non-struggling" rape, but other than that, I don't get what you're saying in terms of sexual rape. Are you suggesting it's common that consent is not given but after the man insists anyway, that women will just allow it without resistance because…Just because?
While date rape is the most clearcut case of rape where physical violence isn't involved, and the primary one I'm considering there, there are certainly others. If a woman is beaten for refusing to have sex repeatedly and then doesn't struggle thereafter this seems like a clear case where consent doesn't happen but sex is had without new physical violence. A more subtle case exists where there's implied violence for non-cooperation. While this does seem to be dargo's position I think it's fucking barbaric to consider consent equivalent to "willing to suffer physical injury in order to resist having sex".Also how is getting metaphorically raped by taxes a fair analogy to getting physically raped by another human?
I didn't say I'm "raped" by taxes, I said I don't consent to them. There are things in our lives we don't consent to but which happen anyway, that's my point. When money is extracted from me by the government without my consent it's taxation, and maybe that's considered OK, but the point is "I wasn't physically injured preventing X" is not the same thing as "I consent to X".You're not getting a black eye because you can't get a black eye. Again all I can think of that comparing to is a girl not giving consent but allowing herself to get fucked anyway 'just to get it over with' or some shit. Is that accurate?
I'm mostly talking about situations where a person is unduly pressured into having sex (e.g. "have sex with me or I'll leave you on the side of the road" kind of stuff), or where violence is threatened but not executed (consider a threat of violence, the options are to get raped or be beaten or get raped, we shouldn't deny a crime happens because a person chooses the former). -
2017-11-11 at 9:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo Knocking someone out is physically violent. And in the case of using drugs, I'd argue that as being use of a weapon.
Fine, incapacitating someone by drugs is violent. That's an example of violence you don't have a reliable forensic test for and further would be reasonable to find is not reported. The "she didn't put up a fight" thesis is null and void in the case of drugging: we expect no resistance in this subtype of rape.If consent wasn't given, she will resist getting fucked. Simple as that.
Again: false. Plainly false. See tax case. Consider another: I hold you at gunpoint and demand you withdraw money from an ATM and give it to me. You can not resist me in this process but is that the case as giving consent?Ok. Fine. I dunno. It's getting convoluted. Maybe you're right. My point was, because unreported rapes are not held up to any measure of scrutiny, there's no way to tell how accurate they are. Saying "100 rapes went unreported this year" gives the impression that 100 rapes happened, when we have no idea if that's true. That's all.
fine, I already said I'm fully willing to consider methodological errors in trying to discover the real incidence of rape (although one has to wonder what the motivation for systematic lying on non-identifying surveys is). The point is you can't dismiss unreported rape on the grounds of "if you get raped you report it, just because!". -
2017-11-11 at 10:09 AM UTC
-
2017-11-11 at 11:47 AM UTC
-
2017-11-11 at 12:18 PM UTCits ok if ur very clever they wont catch u
-
2017-11-11 at 7:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The "she didn't put up a fight" thesis is null and void in the case of drugging: we expect no resistance in this subtype of rape.
My beginning thesis was 'physical violence occurs'. This is most often seen when the chick is conscious and resists getting fucked, leading to a scuffle. In the case where the man has already knocked her out, see above.
Originally posted by Lanny Again: false. Plainly false. See tax case. Consider another: I hold you at gunpoint and demand you withdraw money from an ATM and give it to me. You can not resist me in this process but is that the case as giving consent?
I already addressed the weapon scenario, so this analogy is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Lanny fine, I already said I'm fully willing to consider methodological errors in trying to discover the real incidence of rape (although one has to wonder what the motivation for systematic lying on non-identifying surveys is). The point is you can't dismiss unreported rape on the grounds of "if you get raped you report it, just because!".
I'm just gonna assume we're good on this one. It seems like we're mostly on the same page. -
2017-11-11 at 8:14 PM UTC
Real rape is violent, typically unexpected, and traumatic.
This is an objectively false statement that is easily disproved. Your argument never had any sort of legs to stand on, there is no point in debating it because you are basing it off an assumption you made about something that is false. It's not wrong because it's an opinion different than mine, it's wrong because we can look at rape cases and find a lot of them where shit didn't go down like how you claim. There's no bipartisan politics bullshit, it's just plain untrue.
You and lanny are just acting out some weird online version of a street theater political debate for some reason. What are you doing? I don't understand. -
2017-11-11 at 8:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Come to think of it, I don't think I know of a single person other than someone famous that has dealt with such allegations. Is that coincidence or a reflection of the TRUTH? Just like most of us don't frame our enemies, perhaps the false rape accusations are also just as rare and it's not nearly as big of an issue as we're lead to believe.
Just popping in here, I have, and I'm not famous. Not saying it just to say it either. I was just a convenient scapegoat and it got thrown out very quickly into the ordeal, thank fuck. I think it does happen, and the famous/rich invite all kinds of crazies. I mean, there are people who admit to murders they had no connection with and then spend years in jail only for the courts to find out that it was made up. Rare? Sure. But money is a pretty good motivation.
