I haven't seen this story debated on the thread, so I'm guessing it slipped by everybody...
When "Yes" turns to "No"


Briefly...


While I think the young man in the case should have stopped (at least as courtesy), I think a rape conviction is a bit extreme in this case.

Rape is a difficult subject... I've read through this entire topic, and some good (and some terrible) points were raised.
Rape is not just a female problem, and I do know this was mentioned, by men can be raped, and not just but other men, but by women as well. It's harder, but it DOES happen.
Nobody asks to be raped... There is no excuse for rape, and there is only one person at fault - the rapist.
Statotry rape is not rape unless the person was so young that their deicions were truly manipulated. However, this is no "magical age" when you become able to make your own sexual decisions. Most of 16-18 year olds can make their own choices, but some 13 year olds can. Grouping statotory rape in with actual rape is an insult to anybody who has actually been raped.
Drinking is your own fault... Drinking in the first place is stupid, something I will never understand and always warn against, but you get yourself drunk, and you know you're doing it... Any decisions you make while drunk are YOUR responsiblity. You're an idiot for even getting drunk in the first place, and once you are, you can't blame the alcohol or your altered state of mind since you altered it yourself. It's only an argument is somebody slipped a roofie or stronger alcohol into your drink.
Well, that's just my 2 cents...

Thanks for the post. That IS an interesting case.
I agree with you. Fortunately for that boy, his was classified as a juvenile offense. If he had been older, he would be a convicted felon. That would have a severely detrimental effect on his future employment.
Hopefully, he will learn from the experience and use better judgement in the future.

Shades of Gray


Should we treat all convicted rapists the same? Eh, no. Now, not being particularly religious, I find this whole binary good versus evil thing incredible anachronistic nonsense. It’s either fully rape or it’s not rape at all, you’re either with us or you’re against us (just thought I’d slip that one in!). What’s missing from this picture? Context! There’s no way that some guy who’s been explicitly provoked is as ‘bad’ as the intent prowler. Especially with some of these so-called ‘date rape’ cases where the woman complains afterwards even though she never said no at the time. Unless it can be proven that the guy intended to get her drunk for the purpose of having unconsensual sex, then the case should get thrown out IMO. After all, if she’s given the benefit of the doubt, then he’s guilty until proven innocent.

Just to illustrate how differences in context change the nature of the case, I’ll throw in a standard example that is often used to show the inadequacies of absolutist prescriptivism (e.g. the Decalogue). Let’s say that the prescribed moral absolute in question is that ‘thou shall not tell a lie’. Now, such a prescription is absolutely ‘right’ anywhere at any time, and its antithesis is absolutely wrong. So consider the case of Nazi Germany, where a family is hiding Jews in their attic. An SS officer knocks on the door and asks them whether there are any Jews in the house. I won’t insult anyone’s intelligence by spelling the rest of it out, that much should be obvious. The case does illustrate the limitations of absolute moral judgments though. The case of the naked woman is less of a rape than the unconscious nun, and the sentence should reflect that too. Indeed, if idiocy was illegal, the naked woman would be doing time herself!

In answer to the original question: Yes

Of course, those who subscribe to the curious (yet remarkably popular) feminist argument that rape is somehow "different" than any other crime disagree, but they are wrong.

How does this argument work? Well, in dismissing the proferred analogy between a thief and a rapist, a poster indicated that theft was merely about money (ask somebody who's just had their car stolen how they feel about that statement) whereas rape is about force and power.

Okay, so are there any other crimes that are about force and power?

Gee, how about murder and assault? duh....

Both crimes accept the concept of dual responsibility. Thus, we have first and second degree murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and the distinction between the different crimes is partially dependent upon the victim's actions.

With assault its even easier to demonstrate the connection because there's a simple legal doctrine (which, incidentally, is being overcome by the doctrine of victimization). Its called "fighting words." In short, provocation.

Remember, murder and assault are about force and power, just like rape....

Now for an observation that is going to really, really annoy the victimcrats and gender feminists....

The woman who insists on strutting nearly naked into a frat house party on a Friday night, flaunting the goods, with the "look but don't touch" attitude, is all about power and control. The insistence, in the face of millenia of the mating dance otherwise, that "no always means no" is all about power and control. When the Sisterhood starts slapping down women who play the above manipulative games with even a tenth of the energy that men spend opposing rape, rather than glorifying them (anybody check out Cosmo, soap operas or Sex & the City recently?), then maybe we can take the categorical assertions of innocence more seriously.

Until then, in the real world, some women are, in the classic sense, "asking for it", either through deliberate provocation or sheer stupidity. This doesn't mean that the rapist is innocent, because contrary to what some folks here seem to think, rape responsibility is very, very rarely a zero sum game.

Why does this matter? Because as long as someone thinks they bear no responsibility for what happened to them, why should they change their behavior? If a coed is raped at a frat house party, then returns the next week, is raped again, returns the next week, is raped again, return, rape, etc, does she ever bear any responsibility?

Anybody who claims the coed is completely innocent (i.e., bears no moral, legal, OR intellectual responsibility) the third time around is insane. (And anybody who permits the frat house to stay open after the second time is likewise insane, after the first time is iffy....)

Rape can happen anywhere--in broad daylight during a Superbowl victors parade, in a dark alley, in Eastern countries where women wear birkas.

All I can do is encourage my daughter not to wear provocative clothes, be with a trusted friend, and not frequent places where these things are known to happen.

Even at that, it might still happen to her, God forbid.

BUT IT IS ALWAYS THE FAULT OF THE RAPIST, whatever errors in judgement the victim has made.

I think are responsible, if not we won't make laws pertaining rape

I completely disagree with the claim that raped women are not (partially or entirely) responsible for the rape that happen to them. The fact that they are raped implies that there are sexual attractions transmitted by their bodies to the men around them. Therefore they can (and must be) blamed if they deliberately use this sexual attraction to attract men around them.

Are you serious?!?

How do you explain rapes by men on elderly patients in nursing homes? (see: Nursing home rape reported)

Or the rape of a coma victim? (see: Arrest in coma rape case spurs other complaints ).

Are you willing to tell me that an 74 year old alzheimer's patient or a coma victim "transmitted something" to turn a man on SO much to the point that he just had to violate these physically weak people? If you ARE willing to make such a claim, could you please provide some evidence to support it?

Your attempt of provoking me proved to be successful. Unfortunately you missed an important word in my argument, i.e 'deliberately'. Therefore the case of the comma woman is totally irrelevant. As with the case of the old women, we can still blamed her if she deliberately exposed her 'sexual properties'. Of course there are many cases in which raped women did not do anything that can arouse men's sexual desire. But my point was that ' women who deliberately use their sexual attractions to attract men around them can (and must) be blamed.

This is totally nonsensical, yusuf. According to your logic, a 120 pound man walking down the street in an armani suit is responsible for being beat up and robbed. His body was "transmitting" both wealth and weakness.

A "sexy" woman is no more responsible for her sexiness than an ugly man is for his ugliness. To avoid rape, then, should beautiful women wear burlap sacks, never shower, and have their front teeth pulled?

Perhaps in your universe men just can't be blamed for giving into their animal desires and jumping on the nearest attractive female, but not in mine. Part of our social contract has to do with curtailing our desires when regarding other people and their rights. I can't rape someone just because she is sexy, nor can I murder someone because they "looked at me funny." I can't beat someone up just because they are smaller than me. The man you are describing is a psychopath, because he has no control over his actions and no thoughts towards consequences.

Are you trying to tell me that men don't have the ability to control their own sexual attraction? They know that rape is wrong...at least in western society. By your logic, if I stole something...a nice stereo, for example, I could blame my thievery on the object that I stole rather than taking responsibility for my own actions. Well, it was just sitting there looking so nice in the window of that store, and it was taunting me! I had no choice but to steal it. It just isn't a logical conclusion. Men CAN control their desires.

If a woman OR a man says No, it means No.

You must admit that by doing something provocative DELIBERATELY, a woman is incapable of being innocent. It is one of those 'he/she-asked-for-it' cases. Your analogies and examples are totally irrelevant. We, I mean I am talking about the case so keyword-ed by one of the member of this debate club'I need it bad baby'. Of course a rapist is guilty of what he did. But the woman is not blame-less as well. We are not supposed to lit our matches in a gas station.

But you didn't say anything about a woman crying "give it to me baby." you said


When a women dresses in an attractive manner, she is indeed, obviously trying to elicit a sexual response. So are you when you dress nicely and go out to a club or a bar. That has nothing to do with "asking for it." We are animals. We mate. We seek to impress each other in hope of mating. We perform all sorts of complex (and often amusing) mating dances and rituals. A woman who dresses up may be seeking a potential mating, or she may be seeking approval from her peers, but that is a far cry from asking to have your clothes ripped off and being forced to mate.

So no, Yusuf, I do NOT need to admit what you are saying has ANY basis in truth.

Again I ask you, what would you have people do? Make themselves as ugly as possible? Dress in rags and smear themselves with dog poo to make themselves less "provocative?"

Your thinking only works in a society run by the Taliban or its ilk. Even then it doesn't "work." It reflects a grotesque and horrifying abrogation of women's rights.

Obviously you and I have a different opinion on what 'provocative' means. And most obviously it is caused by the different culture and way of thinking in which we were brought up. I take it that in your 'animal world' (you considered YOURSELF animal) it is quite alright for a woman to wear bikini or even get naked in the street or city hall or in a mall. Therefore she can not be charged with case sexual offence, thanks to your 'animal' thinking.
This may be a bit out of context, but if a raped woman who did provocative things prior to the rape can not be blamed, then can you blame her if she does it to a 7-year-old-schoolboy with a pure intention of wanting to have sexual intercourse with him? If the answer is no, then what in the world is wrong with doing an animal instict with another normal animal? Another thing: if adults can do these animally speaking normal sexual activities (which in my opinion 'provocative), then you have no reason to forbid children from doing them. Why adults and children are, using your term, animals of the same species.
Again I'm not trying to say that rapists are not guilty of the rape they did. I just want to say that provocative acts will meet destructive responses.

Using your exact logic, I suppose it would be okay if the seven year old boy looked provocative.

Here's a hypothetical:

Edited to clarify:

A father dresses his 15 year old daughter up as a slut, then goes down to a outlaw biker bar with her in order to tease and taunt his rivals. He has no intention of anything happening to his lit'l girl. He starts a fight. He gets the tar beat out of him, and she gets passed around by the bikers, gang raped.

Does the father bear any responsibility for what happened to her?

If you said "yes", why?

To Bikerdad: the answer is no:THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE COLLECTIVE SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. He wanted her to be a slut, then that's the logical result.

to mrs pig: i'm trying to make hypothetical examples using quarkhead's (and most probably your own) logic.

What I am trying to demonstrate to YOU is that provocative is in the eye of the beholder. If you ameliorate or exonerate a sexual offense based on the premise that the victim looked provocative (or acted provocatively), you are effectively saying that everyone, with the exception of a coma victim, is 'asking for it'.

I don't think it matters what the womans intentions were. When society has made it law, then the man must respect the woman's will. If she says no, then the man must respect that no.

Having sex is not a human right.

Incidently, the man also has that power. He can also say no any time he wishes....

Your example is somewhat blurry, bikerdad. What do you mean by 'dresses his 15 year-old as a slut'?
This imbecile you call father dresses his teenage daughter as a 'slut' (!) with the intention of making his fellow bikers envy him? I want to make it clear that I debate not for the pleasure of debating. This is the kind of hypothetical that i will call 'worth make fun of but not think of'. However this maybe logical in quarkhead's 'animal world'.
Yet even if we accept it, it is clear that your hypothetical is completely irrelevant with my argument. I said 'the raped woman is guilty for her DELIBERATE intention of provoking men'.
To mrspigpen: I somewhat agree to 'provocative' is in the eye of beholder'. But we must agree that there are actions that are provocative in the eye of any and every beholder. A guy who comes to you and hits you on the face is provocative. Jennifer Lopez's and Madonna's songs and videos must be categorized as provocatives.

I disagree. I don't believe in absolutes, and I'm sure that there are many men who don't find Jennifer Lopez or Madonna to be provocative. Sexuality exists more in the mind than anywhere else. A naked body does not necessarily have to be a symbol of sex, and in the same turn the smallest glimpse of skin could be thought of sexually given the right state of mind. It is a man or a woman's responsibility to recognize and control actions based on these thoughts. It is this kind of reasoning that separates us from other animals.

This is exactly what I call 'different opinion on what 'provocative' means'. In your culture and society exposing sexual 'properties' can often be considered normal. Erotic stories and movies are considered romantic. Even explicit sex magazines can be published and distributed freely. In this kind of environment it is no wonder we become more permissive and we tend to loosen definitions on what is forbidden and what is not, morally and legally speaking. And it is no wonder that most women will willingly try to attract prospective male companions by exposing their bodies. Women are valued based on the size of their hips, bust, and waist. A mere commodity in a sexual world is a woman in your culture .
This is the point at which I disagree with quarkhead's reply. Quarkhead reply impies that a woman can only be attractive if she exposes her sexual things, which i find a disgrace to women's self-esteem. And speaking about taliban, do you recall that an English female journalits who was arrested and then released by them (this being prior to America's patriotic aggression) considered these men as 'respectable and honorable' (I do not know the exact English word, because i read the news in my language) despite the fact that she was ARRESTED by them?
And another one: I think women can pay respect to themselves by not consenting to this sexual rule of finding a husband. Women can be a lot more attractive by exposing their other good sides, other than sexual 'properties'.

Indeed, many of these things are considered to be normal here, but while you and many other Americans find it morally reprehensible, there are others who do not. Morals are a relative idea. There is an interesting article on the relationship between rape and pornography:

Rape is Normal

I think that it is relevant, because I feel that forcing women to avoid their own sexuality to avoid confrontation with men is not the answer. It merely weakens the position of women, and it fails to uphold the ideals of personal responsibility.



Sometimes this is true. Other times it is not. You are trying to characterize the whole of this culture in one sweeping generalization. It is more complicated than that.



I did not deduce this from Quarkhead's reply, but I will allow him to clarify his meaning for you.

I personally see no reason why a woman can not be viewed as attractive through a combination of intelligence, beauty, and sexuality. These are not mutually exclusive ideas, and I don't believe that the majority of men look for only one trait when choosing a woman.



I have interacted with many respectable Middle Eastern men, and I have interacted with many respectable American and European men. It is not black and white, either or. We are culturally different, but differences don't necessarily denote right or wrong.

yusuf_23d:


I don't know, yusuf. Maybe. I was born and "brought up" in a muslim-majority part of Northern India. What about you? If you were raised in a Muslim country (I realize that your name is Islamic, so I am guessing that to be so), then yes. But are we capable of transcending cultural mores? I certainly hope so.



Are you saying you believe humans are NOT animals? I understand that some religious folks think this, but scientifically, the idea that we are not animals is about as sensible as the idea that THE EARTH IS FLAT.



A person can be charged with a sexual offence if... they commit a sexual offence.



I'm sorry indeed, if that's what you got from my post. If you want to argue that the way women are objectified in American society is detrimental, I'll be right with you. That has, however, little bearing on our wanting to appear attractive to those we are attracted to. What's really a "disgrace to women's self-esteem" is not letting them go to school, not letting them wear the clothes they choose to wear, forcing them to marry someone who rapes them, or protecting the "right" of the husband to beat the crap out of them.



The thing is, Yusuf, I agree with you on this point. But it is still irrelevant to the discussion. This truth does not imply that a woman is responsible for being raped. The whole "provocation" argument is for the birds. As bikerdad so cleverly ( ) showed, one can always find some extreme example that seems to make the argument moot. There are extreme examples in which the implied "consent" is a grey area, sure. But neither bikerdad's example, nor my own (the woman, naked, with the sign hung around her neck), are at all indicative of 99.9% of rapes.

You seem to be saying that by discussing issues of physical attraction, I am demeaning women. You claim a higher ground, that women should be valued for other traits. However, you undermine your own argument by saying that a woman who does "expose her sexual properties" is responsible (partly) for being raped. If you respect women, if you value their minds, etc., then how is it that if they dress alluringly, all of a sudden it's understandable for a man to grab her and rape her? Indeed, you seem to be saying that a man can ONLY respect a woman's mind if she is in NO WAY being sexually attractive, and that as soon as she shows a bit of leg, well then you can't blame a man for jumping her.

If you truly respect women as thinking, feeling, distinctly unique entities, you would never rape a woman, even if she was cavorting naked down main street.

Interesting article pertaining to the root causes of rape, Cyan. It would be a good topic for debate.

My argument is that a raped woman is (partially or entirely responsible) for the rape happened to her if she does a provocative thing, e.g wears dress that exposes her sexual organs, before the rape. The idea is that it can arouse men's sexual desire. So if a woman deliberately does the same thing to a man near her with the same purpose then she must be ready for sexual responses from the man. Now the argument that 'a man must be able to control his sexual desire' is another thing. I'm discussing the part of the woman, how she is guilty in the rape. She wants the man to give as hot a response, even hotter, as her provocative invitation. Surely the woman does not expect a destructive response like a rape, but in this case she must, before doing it, make sure that the man has the same idea, that the man can control himself however provocative her invitations could be in whatever situation and condition, or even does a statistic research about the highest possible amount of sexual response caused by the invitation. Now, if she doesn't then she must be ready for any sexual response from the man, including a rape. So if the rape does happen then we can blame her for her carelessness.
The argument 'a man should be able to control his sexual drive apart from however provocative the woman is' is somewhat unfair. People make mistakes, it is human nature to be careless, same as the woman. The argument denies this fact and tries to picture all men-and force them to be-(and therefore making an 'absolute') as perfectly flawless, God-like creatures, or even human-like robots with no potential of destructive act. Yes we must control our destructive attitude/act but there are times in which we lose control and does illogical things, especially when the timing and cause is right. Of course we must blame men for their mistakes, but so must woman. This is one reason why we make law. Law consider men and women as creature with potential destructive act, and therefore prepare punishments to teach men to control our destructive power.
To Cyan: I mentioned taliban, because quarkhead's reply implies that all their attitudes to women are wrong.

yusuf_23d



This is a ridiculous argument. It relies on the assumption that men are not able to control their own sexual impulse.

As a man, I have no problem with controlling my sex drive. I am quite capable of looking at a naked or provocative women without feeling the need to rape her.

If you have a problem with provocative women then I suggest you see a psychologist.




No it is not. Rape is not a simple 'cause and effect' argument where the rapist is rendered helpless before the sexual organs of his victim!

The rapist makes a decision to rape the victim. It does not happen automatically outside of his control!




Why?




How is it unfair? It is a mistake to break the law and it is only unfair if you didn't know your action was illegal.

Every one knows rape is illegal.




No it does not. The '' says; rape is illegal. If you are found guilty in the rape some one you will be punished.

Flirting, is a two way game. Plenty of men also flirt with women, this does not mean they are asking to be raped!

I have often flirted with women, both seriously and casually, but I never expected to be taken with force, so why should the women expect it?

Any one who does not understand this, should do themselves a favour and seek professional behavior.

There is NO excuse for rape.

A woman, under no circumstance, is responsible for her own rape. I don't care if she walks down the street completely nude, she has the right to her body. If she says "no," regardless of what actions may have led to the possibility of sex, then it is rape. A firm NO is my answer to this topic.

I do not think a girl is ever responsible for her rape. I am not saying rape is right, and I do not think its the girls fault, but girls need to think twice before wearing something. Women need to be carefull of what they wear, and make sure they know how to defend themselves, or be with a big group( at clubs, bars, parties, new places) because there are a lot of psychos out there. It is never their fault but they need to be aware of the fact that males are stronger, and it is so easy for them to do anything to us.

It is so sad that we do have to think about things like this. I mean, if I want to wear a tube top and a mini-skirt, and go drinking by myself in a bar, why shouldn't I be able to? Not saying that I would ever wear a tube top in public, but what a sorrowful state our society is in where we have to tell our daughters and sisters to do nothing short of wearing sweat pants and sweaters to prevent a rape. Or that we always have to be with a large group of people--quite frankly, I don't like people. I would rather hang out by myself. But I can't. Because I might get raped. I agree with this quote. But what a shame.

Not directed at you shelley, I just used your words because I hear this alot.

Sarcasm switched on.

I should be able to wear a KKK outfit and waltz into harlem and not get touched, it's MY body.

Sarcasm switched off.

Yes, they did kill me and that's wrong, but I didn't have to put myself into a situation where I thought I might be harmed.

Look, I'm not saying a woman asks for it, or even implies that she's ready to get it on just because she's wearing a miniskirt(although I know more women than men that would disagree with that statement). But, isn't it common sense? Isn't avoiding a dangerous situation common sense? Women carry around mace(sp?) all the time, they avoid parking in unlit areas, I've been asked numerous times by women to escort them to their car and have done so without hesitation. So, why should putting yourself in danger of being raped be any different? Is it because it's sexual in nature, is someone infringing upon your freedom of sexual expression by saying maybe a more conservative cocktail dress would be more appropriate than a "tube top and miniskirt"? Well, all I have to say is, it's your call and I hope that if you, god forbid, ever get raped, I just hope it had nothing to do with such a petty thing like a decision on clothing.

Now, I'll have to seperate two distinct points, legally and well....everything else

Legally, no means no. The guy goes to prison and gets a taste of his own medicine, period.

Everything else, use common sense. Be safe, carry pepper spray, aim for the eyes and if you accidentally get some on him, down there I never said a thing....

In reading all these posts, I still haven't seen a clear definition of "rape".

The crime "rape", in itself, is an act of violence in my opinion. The responsibility of the crime lays with nobody other than the attacker. It doesn't matter if the woman is nude having fun with inanimate objects in front of the guy - no is no.

The problem appears to be that a gray area has been created. A woman decides the next day she made a mistake - and calls it rape. The woman got drunk and said PLEASE, but regretted it later. The list goes on and on. In THESE cases, I think the woman does bear some responsibility.

Here's a case in point. I can honestly say, unequivocally, I was date raped. And I'm a guy. There is no need to get into the gory details, but I put myself into a position I should not have been. I truly felt violated (and since I know you will ask, males will "respond" with some types of stimulation no matter what the situation).

So, do I go to the cops and cry rape? After laughing their a$$es off at me, they'll ask me to prove it. Which, as a guy, I can't (which is a whole other topic of discussion probably).

But the bottom line, I knew I couldn't do anything because I was the idiot that put myself in that situation. I was completely responsible. I could have said "no" and hit her to resolve that situation, but she could make a claim against me and I'd have no way of fighting or defending that (i.e. "He pulled my hair and threw me around!"). If I shut up and held my breath, it would be over and the chances of me being in trouble are minimized. There was no way I could win.

And it's not a fair playing field with this type of problem. A woman can claim a guy hit her and he will go to jail with or without marks (pulled hair, etc). A woman can claim she was "raped" after consensual sex and the guy would have a very, very difficult time defending that. But something that happened to me CAN happen and I would become editorial fodder for even suggesting the same protections.

I don't know what the answer is, but regretting sex is not "rape". And from what I see, that's what it's become.

NO WAY. I havent read the whole thread yet, but this cant be let go. I tend to wear revealing clothes, but I am never on the look out for a man when I go out. Just because I am wearing a push up bra and a miniskirt, I am responsible for my maybe being raped? Never. I should be able to wear whatever I want without worrying whether or not someone is going throw me into the back of their car and rape me. When I was in France, a friend and I were walking back from school and she happened to be wearing a miniskirt, and some man came up behind her and grabbed her butt, did she deserve it because she was wearing a miniskirt? Hardly.

Just because a woman is responsible for turning on a mans sex drive does not mean she is responsible for her rape. Men are solely responsible for the way they act sexually, its not the womans fault for being attractive, or flashing her boobs around.

I can see instances where rape can be confused. I dont always think its as black and white as "no meaning no". It seems the majority of rapes are by acquaintances, and I can definatley envision a situation where the couple is getting hot and heavy and then the girl decides no, but tries to go about it in a round about way, and the man not really getting the hint. Does that mean its her fault? No.