Rape is not merely “sex without consent”

I was recently told by someone who is against feminism that this video shows real rape. I want to explain why it’s false.

1.Rape is not merely “sex without consent”.

It is surprising to me that someone who is against feminism adopts the most radical feminist definition of rape, but perhaps it should not be. Feminism permeates our culture, including social norms and morality. A lot of people in the West think that rape is correctly defined as “sex without consent”. They would be surprised to learn that this is not the legal definition of rape even in most of the feminist countries ( except UK, where this PSA came from) – most countries require some sort of force or a threat. These people are not the man-hating radfems, but in some ways they ironically act more feminist than the feminist states they live in. Unfortunately, with time the feminist states broaden the definition of rape more and more, agreeing that one need not use force or real threats to become a rapist. I fear we’ll soon all be like UK.

2.There is a difference between assholery behavior and criminal behavior

One reason why a normal person might think the video features a rape, is because the guy really WAS rude. He was not considerate and grabby. An average person might say “You don’t need to be so mean and socially retarded. If a woman is crying in bed with you, something is wrong and you should have known it – you should have stopped. Therefore you’re a rapist if you continue”. For some reason, people can separate being a lying friend (worthy of shunning) and being a fraudulent business partner (worthy of jail), but can’t separate being an asshole in bed and being a real rapist. I think they should not make such an exception for rape, as it is just another crime and does not require special justice rules. To continue to do so smells of female favoritism.

3.It is Ultimately the Woman’s Choice to Have a Backbone or Let Him Have It

You know what this video is? This is a girl, who decided that it’s easier to give the guy what he wants, instead of facing a potential situation where she has to fight her way out. He didn’t threaten her or anything, and he might not have rape on his mind at all, but she imagines he might threaten her, and might hit her, and therefore lets him have it . He has not done any of those criminal things himself, she just imagines that he might. And under UK law, he can be punished for her imagination. The video presents this as correct, right, and just as it should be. You, the viewer, is supposed to arrive at the same conclusion as the PSA: “Would you see rape? Oh yes, you would.”

But let’s talk about the choices of the girl. What is the point of letting that nasty man have it, if you aren’t even sure you’ve been robbed of a choice to avoid sex? You don’t yet know if he intends to rape you, or he is simply very insistent yet harmless, and it’s starting to scare you? I think M3 said it best (http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/more-random-musings-on-rape-culture-nonsense/ ):

“Assert your agency, if you feel you are about to be raped because of a misunderstanding regarding consent, and the sex you are about to have is not the sex you want, simply sit up, look at your partner and say:

“No”

And if there is any further attempts by the person to continue, use this second foolproof phrase to nail it home:

“Are you intending to RAPE me then?”

This one simple phrase should make it clear to any man that escalation has gone too far. If his intent was rape, then nothing would end up stopping him, but at least you asserted yourself and can now rightfully claim the status of victim having been acted upon against your will under duress due to threat of force. My guess is that 99.9% of men will stop right there. They may tell you to leave, or unceremoniously tell you to GTFO, or call you a SLUT for leading them on, but one thing you will not be is raped. Another thing you will not is be a voluntary victim and imagining you are being raped. That one line will empower you to get a clear intent to your partner that he has crossed a boundary. This will remove any idea from his mind that you are putting up token resistance or trying to keep your slut shield intact.”

In short, don’t volunteer to be a victim. Frankly, volunteering to be a victim can have dignity-lowering effect on your self-image, even with smaller stuff. Although I should add that M3’s method is not foolproof, since asking “Are you gonna rape me?” in a joking tone will do nothing to dissolve a man’s confusion. It should be said seriously, perhaps with follow-up questions.

Conclusion

If this was a straight up “Don’t be a rapist” PSA for guys, it would not make their “rape” so vague. It would show him overpowering a girl, putting a knife to her throat, threatening to kill or seriously harm her, something like that. This PSA is specifically vague because it wants to convince you it’s acceptable to put men in jail because the woman let him have it due to potential threat from him and thus volunteered to be a victim. This video is a part of the feminist program to convince men that they are responsible for women’s choices. They want you to agree that when a woman can’t find her backbone, you have to be labeled a rapist and face the consequences of that. And since I want women to have backbones and men to avoid spending time in jail for nothing, I strongly disagree that this video shows real rape.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Feminism, MRA and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Rape is not merely “sex without consent”

  1. Liz says:

    “A lot of people in the West think that rape is correctly defined as “sex without consent”. They would be surprised to learn that this is not the legal definition of rape even in most of the feminist countries ( except UK, where this PSA came from) – most countries require some sort of force or a threat.”

    For a rape charge this is true. “Sex without consent” is closer to the legal definition of sexual assault (which also includes things other than penetration).
    I disagree with you on the video though, Emma. In this case the woman said no, cried, and tried to push him off saying she didn’t want to. His body was on top of her so she was not able to push him off. That is force. Force doesn’t necessarily require a weapon, or strike.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Well.. each time a man and a woman have missionary sex, she ends up pinned down, and would only get out if the man realizes she’s in real distress and gets off of her. Or else sex proceeds as planned. I can’t call it force.
      Even if you call it force when he grabs her shoulders, she didn’t resist to the best of her ability given the level of threat. When there is no threat, force manifests itself as resistance. That’s the only way to know the sex was forced. (Her voice and teeth were free, but she didn’t use them)

      • Liz says:

        “Well.. each time a man and a woman have missionary sex, she ends up pinned down, and would only get out if the man realizes she’s in real distress and gets off of her. Or else sex proceeds as planned. I can’t call it force.”
        You sure can call it force if you’re saying no and crying and trying to push him off of you and he’s penitrating you aginast your will. That’s exactly what rape is.

        “Even if you call it force when he grabs her shoulders, she didn’t resist to the best of her ability given the level of threat. When there is no threat, force manifests itself as resistance. That’s the only way to know the sex was forced. (Her voice and teeth were free, but she didn’t use them)
        The law doesn’t require that a woman resist to the best of her ability. She might have gouged his eyes out too, perhaps…anything less means he isn’t forcing her and she isn’t resisting? It looks as though there is some familiarity between the two people as well. This isn’t a guy in a dark alley she’s running from, it’s a guy she knows and doesn’t want to have sex with. People react differently in different situations and there is an element of shock when a person one knows tries to force his penis into your vagina. Kind of like a guest in the house fishing through your drawer, taking the keys to your car, and then driving off with it while you finally realize what’s happening and start yelling, “Hey stop!” A prowler in the house would get shot (at least in my house)…an acquaintance would be less likely to.
        Take the resistance argument to an extreme and no woman is really raped unless she deficates and pisses on herself…because a guy is less likely to want to pork her and if she really didn’t want the sex she’d have sh*t herself right?

      • emmatheemo says:

        “The law doesn’t require that a woman resist to the best of her ability”

        That’s because it has been corrupted by feminists in the last few decades. The law used to require resistance to the best of the victim’s ability. And I think in your country, it still does. Most countries still do. You fell for a feminist myth, Liz. They tell you that all a woman needs to do is just say no, and if sex continues, it’s rape. And not just that, they make us all believe that this is some timeless truth. Well, neither most countries, nor evolutionary psychology agrees with that rape definition. Here’s a book by real scientists on the matter: http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262700832/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408582246&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+rape (which defines rape as “Human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects”)

        And there is something else to think about. If a woman does not bother to resist to the best of her ability, then rape can hardly be a horrible crime, can it? With the “shitting herself” argument, I think you’re making it more complicated than it needs to be. We’re talking about a video where the girl is resisting by whispering and crying. It’s as far from resisting to the best of her ability as you can get. She doesn’t even fit the analogy with the house guest, because she never comes to her senses and doesn’t yell “Hey, stop!”.

      • Liz says:

        Would you call it sexual assault at least?

        “And there is something else to think about. If a woman does not bother to resist to the best of her ability, then rape can hardly be a horrible crime, can it?”

        I couldn’t disagree more. People are even killed in cold blood sometimes without resisting to the best of their ability. They can be beaten senseless without resisting to the best of their ability also. Failure to resist does not make a crime less horrible.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Beating or killing someone is not a normal part of every day life. But sex is. It’s not comparable. If you see someone being beaten up or killed without resistance, you can be reasonably sure a serious crime is happening. If you see sexual activity where no one is resisting, using weapons or threatening, you can’t be sure of that. No one can reasonably expect it’s ok to shoot or beat someone, just because they are not resisting.

        “Would you call it sexual assault at least?”
        Frankly, i dont know. But i see no reason he should go to jail at all. Or be fined. The guy who grabbed my ass when I was 7 should have been punished – I never made any indication I wanted that. But the video guy is just an asshole who might have stopped if she yelled.

      • Liz says:

        I looked into the historical resistence requirement standard. The definition of rape has not changed. Forced penitration. Penitration without consent is considered forced penitration. The resistance requirement was the standard for burden of proof of non-consent. We, however are flies in the wall in this case and it’s patently obvious the woman isn’t consenting here. Would it hold up in the old court? Definitely not…burden of proof was higher. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t considered rape, it just means she wouldn’t be able to prove she didn’t consent. By the reasonable person standard (applied to the cuprit, not the victim), he is assaulting her in this case. There is no way he believes she is consenting.

        On the flip side (probably far more realistically and very common) there are cases where a woman believes that she did not offer consent and the man truly believes that she consented. In those cases, he did not have mens rea (guilty intentions).

        FWIW, this doesn’t just apply to sex. As a medical professional anything I do to a patient requires consent…if I perform an invasive action on a patient without his or her consent it is considered assault. (there are exceptions for medical emergencies, but they don’t apply in this case…no analogy is perfect)

  2. caprizchka says:

    Emma, I agree with you even if watching this video was difficult for me (just like having sex with her date was difficult for the woman–not irrevocably damaging by any stretch.)

    Her lack of assertiveness met his assholery and assholery is a real possibility when one goes into the home of someone stronger than you. By the way, that is a gender-neutral statement. To put this in reverse-gender terms, how commonplace is it for a woman to invite a man to her home and then *put him to work* with “Honey-Do’s”? He might even be deliberately misled with the notion that to *serve* the woman might earn him some sex. I’ve seen women put beaus to work *all day* and for their efforts perhaps be given a sandwich *or nothing!* Service might include plumbing, remodeling, auto mechanics, landscaping, or even body-guarding.

    Women who expect their sexual partners to behave like women and use psychological manipulation or negotiation without physical demonstrativeness in order to have sex, ought to consider lesbianism. Alternatively, such a woman might realize that she requires for her comfort level in sexual activity to be the *Dominant* actor in a negotiated power-exchange operation and ought to own that preference. Women who have been repeatedly told by their parents or feminists that all sex requires elaborate courtship rituals in order to cement her authority in the relationship are best advised to stick to chaperoned dates.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I often read that rape victims feel shame even if they did everything to avoid their rape. I understand it could be so, since rape violates and humiliates, on an evolutionary level reducing our SMV and status. But rolling over before the threat even starts has got to be a different type of shame. Not irreparable like you say, just crappy because it means we were temporarily weak and should not have been. I know lots of people might read this as get angry because I’m “blaming the victim”, but whatever. I think many people who experienced something like this are best served by forgiving themselves, but being more assertive next time. Me included (never had any unconsensual sex, but someone shamed me out of money once).

  3. Scott Vater says:

    The whole “rape” thing is a problem here in the US. It’s practically impossible to NOT get in major trouble the moment anyone say’s “that person raped me!”.

    There was a story a while back (maybe I’m remembering it wrong) where some womans boyfriend went to prison simply because she said he raped her. No evidence for this…no reason for him to do so…yet because the word “rape” was used that pretty much sealed the deal.

    Just because you weren’t really all that in to it or a guy doesn’t immediately stop the moment the woman showed discomfort (after she already agreed to have sex) doesn’t make that person a rapist…and these are examples I’m seeing of “rape” more than ACTUAL rape.

    Eh, I guess I’m paraphrasing at this point but in the end, yeah, I agree with you Emma.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Yes, a rape accusation is pretty dangerous in itself. I think it’s made worse by feminists brainwashing everyone into thinking that an accuser must always be believed, because so many rape victims don’t come forward at all. And it’s true – many real victims don’t wish to go to the trial and relive all their trauma, with the risk of not getting the rapist convicted. However, that’s obviously no excuse to throw out the rights of the accused. It’s even possible that most rape victims don’t report, and most accusers are false accusers. I don’t know. But it would not be a contradiction.

  4. Jerinos says:

    Well, she said no, tried to push a little, and started crying which is non-verbal language for disliking something. I would guess that would be considered rape even if it’s not VERY violent. Basically, you’re saying that this isn’t rape because it’s not violent enough. How are you going to be able to determine whether something is rape or not if the determination of adequate violence is subjective?

    Alcohol is another one that is used to determine consent which is also based on subjectivity as far as I’m aware. I don’t know of any metric they use for deciding how much alcohol is needed to decide the victim was drunk. This of course ignores the fact that both parties are probably drunk in those situations so it boils down to who made the accusation first.

    • emmatheemo says:

      “How are you going to be able to determine whether something is rape or not if the determination of adequate violence is subjective?”

      It’s not subjective. We can determine that by applying the reasonable woman standard. How much would a normal woman resist, if she really meant it? If we are to believe rape is a horrible crime that scars the mind as they say, resistance would be considerable, unless the threat of death or serious injury is too large.

      “Basically, you’re saying that this isn’t rape because it’s not violent enough.”

      No, I am saying that in this video, sex was not accomplished by force applied by the man. It was largely accomplished because the girl chose to let him have it. If she resisted as much as she could and he overpowered her, only THEN could a causal relationship be established between force and sex. The amount of force needed to make a rape, is “as much force as needed to remove woman’s choice from the equation”. In this video, choice was still in the equation.

      • Jerinos says:

        The man would be the focus of the reasonable person construct since he would be the defendant. The jury would assume he, as a reasonable person, would realize the girl didn’t want to go through with it. The reasonable person construct is inherently cultural. In the UK you would get a different judgement than in other parts of the world. They would convict the guy of rape if that scene had been a recording shown in court because that opinion of rape is what they’re familiar with.

        So, you only consider something rape when the victims resist as much as they can. How do you decide when they’ve resisted as much as they can? You can always come up with something afterwards as a way that the person could’ve done more.

        Why do you think the girl should be required to find out if the guy is willing to beat her to get sex? This is like advising a liqueur store clerk of saying no to a robber with a pistol to find out if the robber is willing to pull the trigger to get the money. They would never advise that even though I bet most robbers wouldn’t be willing to go through with it. This would be especially true since the woman is frequently drunk and not thinking clearly and the man is possibly more aggressive than normal and more likely to go threw with a beating he otherwise wouldn’t give while sober. I don’t see a point in to this since the girl is obviously not in favor. I do think that something like this should be punished differently from more forceful rape. If the punishments were more fitting and proof was easier to get, these kinds of things wouldn’t be such big deals, I don’t think.

      • emmatheemo says:

        “This is like advising a liqueur store clerk of saying no to a robber with a pistol to find out if the robber is willing to pull the trigger to get the money.”

        That’s absolutely false. The gun pointed at you is already a valid and serious threat. The guy in the video is not a clear threat at all. Yes, asking him if he intends to rape her might be a good idea. It worked for the guy who came up with the idea, and he was more outnumbered in his own case. You are telling women to submit to sex at any sign of not being in favor in the situation, no questions asked (even when the threat could well be imaginary).

      • Eivind Berge says:

        Outside of the most extreme feminist jurisdictions, rape is not defined by lack of consent alone, and so “realizing the girl didn’t want to go through with it” does not make it rape. There is no “reasonable person construct” which overrides the definition of rape. There is no law saying you have to be reasonable, and you have to actually violate the rape law to be a rapist. When the law defines rape in terms of forcible compulsion, then it means just that, and lack of consent is not sufficient. Look up the principle of legality to understand why you can’t apply the reasonable man standard the way you do. To punish someone, there has to be a specific preexisting law proscribing that specific act, and your opinion of what is reasonable does not conjure one up.

        Furthermore, you are a loathsome scumbag for supporting the radical feminist definition of rape.

      • Jerinos says:

        Eivind, you are just piddling with terms. Call it rape or assault or being an asshole, you can call it whatever you want. If I was her father, the boy would be punished one way or another. I’m in favor of arranged marriage and the patriarchy.

        I didn’t realize you were such a pathetic individual to sling insults like that around, but I based that mostly on fact that I assumed Emma wouldn’t stay together with trash. Get a grip, loser.

      • Eivind Berge says:

        Jerinos, scumbags like you and Clarence are why we need a Men’s Movement. Of course it matter if we call it rape or assault or just being an asshole, because the difference is many years in prison. And when you support the feminist definition of rape, then you are the enemy. Feminist would be nothing without manginas like you, so you are far more odious than them.

  5. Clarence says:

    Emma, your knowledge of US law is wrong.
    This is a clear rape by US law. And it would have been a rape even 40 years ago around when I was born.
    You see, in the 1960’s and 1970’s the requirement for evidence of resistance was taken away in most (if not all at the time; I don’t know off the top of my head when the last state requirement was removed but I’m willing to bet it was the 1980’s)states laws.

    She says no. She does resist, even if in a very subdued manner. At no point was her body language giving a ‘yes’. This was not ‘token’ resistance. She certainly never initiated anything. She does, what at the minimum, I would consider the woman’s responsibility to protect herself from rape. I wouldn’t have a hard time convicting that guy if she brought charges, because there was an element of force involved.

    Personally, I found the whole scene disgusting. What man in his right mind wants THAT kind of sex from a woman and how could he possibly claim he didn’t know she wasn’t consenting to it?

    Anyway, plenty of rape laws are abominable – esp ones involving continuous consent or those involving (like proposed in California) ‘affirmative consent’, but I don’t think its any condemnation of rape law to call this a rape.

    • Eivind Berge says:

      It isn’t logically consistent to define rape in terms of force, and then at the same time not require the woman to resist. I know at least a few, if not most, US states still define rape in terms of forcible compulsion. Kentucky is one example:

      http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rape/

      The rape law from Kentucky quoted at that page lists various ways females can’t consent, but when they can, the criterion for rape is “by forcible compulsion.” This as a radically different doctrine than defining rape by lack of consent, and necessarily requires reasonable resistance in order to remain logically consistent. “By forcible compulsion” means the sex was ACCOMPLISHED by force, which entails a causal relationship between force/threat used and sex. It is NOT enough to merely indicate lack of consent when the woman is capable of resisting, even under contemporary US law! It follows from the way the law is worded that women have to resist to some meaningful extent when they are able to do so. Even if you are right that the “requirement for *evidence* of resistance” has been removed, this does not change the fact that resistance is required to fulfill the definition of rape. Clarence, I think you are mistaking feminist propaganda for law, and you are probably unaware of the actual law even in your own jurisdiction. Rape law has been watered down in many ways, but it is still wrong to call the scenario in this PSA rape by US law (though it certainly is in the UK, where lack of consent is sufficient). You are not only an evil misandrist but also legally wrong.

      • Liz says:

        Here is the definition of sexual assault.
        http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-assault/

      • Eivind Berge says:

        Well, even the definition of “sexual assault” in that link does not define the act in terms of lack of consent alone. The perpetrator still has to accomplish sexual penetration by means of coercion, and notice the causal relationship:

        “(1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if:

        (a) The actor causes submission of the victim by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim’s will; or…”

        [and the other criteria aren’t applicable either]

        Simply proceeding with sex despite a woman’s crying does not fit this definition. The guy in the video did not do anything out of the ordinary to CAUSE the woman’s submission or threaten consequences, did he? So unless the woman is physically helpless, which is not the case here, she must resist, basically to the best of her ability.

        In Norway, what the law calls sexual assault does indeed only require lack of consent, but that is restricted to very light forms of sexual contact such as touching only, and it is comparable to a misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of one year. Very different from rape, and not what we are talking about here, where the woman has already participated in the sort of acts that might be called sexual assault if they were uninvited. She just doesn’t like intercourse, and so if the man is doing anything criminal here it would be called rape, but rape does still require some degree of coercion or incapacity, however light. She isn’t being forced; she is letting him have it. There is a chance she could get a way with accusing rape and have a trial and possible conviction if the jury agrees, but it doesn’t honestly fit our current definition either (which is why feminist legislators are currently working on changing the law so that lack of consent will be sufficient).

        Some American jurisdictions have apparently stupidly conflated rape and sexual assault, and then I guess we just have to compare rape to the most severe kinds of sexual assault. But none of this changes the point that lack of consent alone is not sufficient in many jurisdictions and if a woman can reasonably resist, then she must or it isn’t rape or whatever they call it.

      • Liz says:

        Mr Berge, thankyou for your considered response.
        I’m ambivalent on the rape charge, and starting to lean toward the negative, but do think this qualifies as a sexual assault.

    • emmatheemo says:

      “She says no. She does resist, even if in a very subdued manner. At no point was her body language giving a ‘yes’. This was not ‘token’ resistance. She certainly never initiated anything. She does, what at the minimum, I would consider the woman’s responsibility to protect herself from rape. I wouldn’t have a hard time convicting that guy if she brought charges, because there was an element of force involved. ”

      Then I guess we can’t agree. I would have a hard time convicting the guy. Same way I would have a hard time convicting someone for stealing when they “forget” to return something they borrowed, and hoped the other person forgets, too. Or convicting the guys from M3’s story for robbery if he got scared and chose to hand over his camera. I realize in all 3 stories, people were assholes. Perhaps hoping that they can get something that doesn’t belong to them if the other party makes a mistake. But it’s still on the other party to insist they get their stuff back, or make sure they are actually being robbed or raped. It seems you are suggesting we punish assholery, instill morals forcefully, etc.. I would reserve that for actual criminals.

      “Personally, I found the whole scene disgusting. What man in his right mind wants THAT kind of sex from a woman and how could he possibly claim he didn’t know she wasn’t consenting to it?”

      Even if he knew, he might have thought insistence would fix it. Or perhaps he would even escalate the situation into real rape, if she didn’t choose to give up first. Or perhaps he’d stop once she screamed and jolted him back to reality. But we’d never know which of the last two would happen, because she chose to give up first…

      • Clarence says:

        “Even if he knew, he might have thought insistence would fix it. Or perhaps he would even escalate the situation into real rape, if she didn’t choose to give up first. Or perhaps he’d stop once she screamed and jolted him back to reality. But we’d never know which of the last two would happen, because she chose to give up first…”

        He’s already used force to restrain or at least assault her hands. We don’t know if she ‘gave up’ from that point on because we clearly don’t see this thing from start to completion, but we do see THAT. Just how much force does he have to inflict on her for this to be a ‘real rape’ in your eyes? Does he have to bloody her mouth? Perhaps fracture a bone or two? Does he have to orally threaten her? Perhaps he needs a gun or a knife? Did you see anything other than violence and a determination to overcome resistance in his actions or his body language? I must say his sudden change in demeanor would have concerned or frightened me, I have no doubt the lady the actress is portraying is scared and sad.

        As the initiator (which men are, and mostly will always be) the person doing the initiating has the responsibility of persuading. I certainly can’t threaten by words or ACTIONS any form of violence, violence being defined by the dictionary as physical attacks on a person or on other people.

        As soon as he decided he would not take ‘no’ for an answer and farther decided he would use physical compulsion to complete the sex act no matter what he became a rapist. It really is not that hard. She said no. Not once but repeatedly. She was not unclear. She played no games. She tried to guard her vagina or her clothing (not sure where her hands are), he had to use force to get access. And at no point there or after did she ever change her mind or initiate a single touch in that video. Far as I’m concerned she did everything she had to do, from this point on he is a rapist.

      • emmatheemo says:

        He has to use as much force as needed to take her choice out of the equation. Her choice was still in the equation. So he grabbed her arms and initiated light forms of force. But is there a causal relationship between his force and sex? I say no, because she likely gave into an assumption that he will use more force if she used more resistance, until she was truly overpowered. But we shouldn’t punish anyone for hypothetical scenarios that only MIGHT have happened.

  6. Clarence says:

    Maybe I should be more clear:
    Had she said ‘no’ once or twice, but then laid there like a lump and maybe turned her head I would agree with you. Even more so if she never even said no. And had she been saying “no” but unzipping his fly, or guiding his hand to her ass or something like that, once again we would agree.

    • Liz says:

      Or maybe, “No” (giggle giggle) “we really shouldn’t…well, (giggle)…”
      Agree with what you’ve said 100 percent, Clarence. All three posts.

  7. Clarence says:

    Here’s the sad and yet funny thing about that PSA:
    In practice , lots of the ‘rapes’ they prosecute in Britain, and lots of ‘rapes’ the feminists talk about aren’t even as clear-cut as that and you and I both know that quite a few feminists consider the “no means no” standard oppressive, just like they consider the accused having any legal rights at all oppressive.

    You pine for a standard that I consider way too harsh; they advocate for no standards at all, or standards that are so easily abused and misunderstood as to have practically the same affect.

  8. Clarence says:

    Ahh, Eivind.
    You might want to educate yourself just a bit.
    This is a good overview of US law over the past 30 years or so.
    It’s currently a mess, but yes, this is rape under US law.
    http://law.jrank.org/pages/1927/Rape-Legal-Aspects-Forcible-rape-elements-offense.html

    Then again, I find it funny you trying to tell me what the law is in a place where I have to live. I do, after all, live in Maryland, state where consent can be withdrawn at any time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maouloud_Baby_v._State_of_Maryland

    And you are whining about THIS, a scenario that has arguably been rape forever.

    Sorry, but if she says no, and you have to force her hands away, you’ve raped her.

  9. Clarence says:

    Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

  10. Liz says:

    I’m reminded of the day I quit the libertarian party. I had an epiphany when debating the subject of animal cruelty. I claimed that laws against animal cruelty did not violate the LIbertarian premise, and one didn’t have to subscribe to the uncurbed abuse of animals if one was Libertarian. I said that there was a danger of becoming mired in philosophical hair-splitting, thus wasting our time and making us look like a bunch of Ivory Tower loonies to outsiders, and that offering animals limited legal rights — essentially the right to be protected from obvious neglect and abuse — is a matter of common sense, just as it is with children, and is not a threat to anyone’s liberties. I said that it was a false dichotomy that either animals should receive no rights at all, or the rights that people as PETA would have as the only options. I submitted that neither of those extremes was an attractive option.

    Candidly, I’m feeling that vibe now. Men should absolutely have a right to due process and presumption of innocence (this is NOT the case now). But on the flip side, women should reserve the right to their own self integrity without being held to a higher standard of proof than other types of crime.

    • emmatheemo says:

      “But on the flip side, women should reserve the right to their own self integrity without being held to a higher standard of proof than other types of crime.”

      But is this not the case? I don’t think I demand women produce more proof than other victims of crime (say, robbery). In both cases, the victim is someone who didn’t simply hand it over to the other person… Did you read M3’s “robbery” story btw ( http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/relinquishing-your-rights-and-accepting-victimhood/ – skip to the middle)? In fact, it feels like it’s everyone else that’s holding rape to a lower standard of proof than other types of crime nowadays :/

      • Liz says:

        What crime depends on the level of resistence of the victim?
        If a person takes my bicycle, I might yell, try to run after them, or stare in shock…it’s still a theft. The crime might not happen if I were less foolish (say, picked a better area to ride my bike, or fending them off better) yet it remains a crime regardless. It’s my bike, not theirs. I might not win in court if the burden of proof is too high, but it’s theft regardless. If the would-be camera thieves had beaten M3 and taken his camera they would be guilty of both assault and theft. If the would-be camera thieves had just stared him down and said they were taking the camera, and he sheepishly said, “Please don’t take my camera” as they took it off his neck, it would still be a crime. If a sexy gorgeous woman walked up to him and said, “Hey I love that camera! May I please hold it?” and he said sure and handed it over, then she threw it over the crowd to a waiting friend and ran away and it was stolen that way it would still be theft. If she said, “Hey I love that camera! I’ll suck your c0ck if you give it to me…and they went to his car, he handed her the camera and she ran away with it, it would still be theft. Crime is not defined by WWM3D? were he a victim in this case.

        The woman has made it clear she doesn’t want this guy’s dick inside her body. He is placing his dick in her body and it shouldn’t be there. Why is he doing this? The ONLY adequate defense would be that he isn’t aware that she doesnt’ want it there. That isn’t a defense in this case. Think about the reason for the resistence proof in the first place. Burden of proof….that is all. It isn’t legal to violate a person despite his or her objections.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I think rape is less like a theft and more like a robbery. If a shoplifter leaves the shop, it only becomes a robbery if you come after him/her and try to take the stuff back (and they fight you). Otherwise it’s just theft. And I don’t think of “theft sex” as the situation in the video. To me, theft of sex is like when someone has sex with a sleeping/comatose/drugged person.

        I guess there is also a sudden snatching robbery, where neither much force nor resistance of the victim is necessary. But that is because it happens rather quickly. It can’t be analogous to rape at all, because you can’t rape someone in 2 seconds. The worst you can do is grope them, therefore doing sexual assault.

      • Liz says:

        “It isn’t legal to violate a person despite his or her objections.”

        Just to add: Nor should it be. I can’t even give a patient a shot if he or she objects, even when it’s in his or her best interest…it certainly isn’t okay to violate a person in a much more disturbing and personal way without his or her consent.

        Emma: “In fact, it feels like it’s everyone else that’s holding rape to a lower standard of proof than other types of crime nowadays :/

        But we aren’t discussing burden of proof. If we were you would be right.

      • Liz says:

        Should have said: We aren’t discussing burden of proof. If we were you would be right. You are discussing what defines a crime.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Yes, but you replied about burden of proof, which is why I replied about it also. But anyways, I think I don’t ask more from rape than I ask from robbery, really.

  11. Clarence says:

    I see my comment that links to a relatively recent summary of US law on the subject hasn’t been posted. The SPAM filter, perhaps?

  12. Clarence says:

    And I disagree totally with Eivind on whether force was involved with this. I watched the video again and even paused it. He not only pushes her around, he forces her hands apart when she tries to stop him. Game, set, match.

  13. Clarence says:

    The new “Emma Standard” for rape:
    “You must use as much force as is necessary to take choice out of the equation.”

    Did it ever occur to you that that is such a loose standard going the opposite way that if upheld by some hypothetical court of law it would probably legalize pretty much all rape unless a woman was beaten to unconsciousness or worse? Or if one takes into account individual women’s courage, fighting ability, strength, etc, it becomes such a loose standard as to allow a man in the same legal jurisdiction to go to jail for the exact same act, depending on only his choice of individual victim? Even statutory rape makes more sense than that, for at least there is a standard (in whatever jurisdiction) for age.

    There’s a reason that ‘force or threat of force’ is in these statutes and not very much if anything at all about AMOUNT of force.

    And what ‘choice’ are you talking about anyway? Theoretically, she ALWAYS has a choice. If he puts a gun to her head, she is still free to resist and possibly get her brains blown out. Coercion does NOT depend on him incapacitating her, it only takes a credible threat that he MIGHT. And if she , logically, chooses to go along when threatened with a knife, gun, or serious violence, she has still been raped.

    In our video above, our rapist not only established his physical dominance, not only committed a physical assault, but also showed his victim that he could overpower her and do whatever he wanted. I’d say, absent more evidence, she made a legitimate choice not to risk physical injuries on top of what was probably already a broken heart. She did know the guy after all.

    Much as I like you and respect your intellect and arguments on many things, Emma, it is obvious you do not think like either a philosopher OR a lawyer. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, -all of them- will always look for loopholes. And your proposed standard not only overturns established understandings but is just asking for legal mischief.

    • emmatheemo says:

      “And what ‘choice’ are you talking about anyway? Theoretically, she ALWAYS has a choice. If he puts a gun to her head, she is still free to resist and possibly get her brains blown out. Coercion does NOT depend on him incapacitating her, it only takes a credible threat that he MIGHT. And if she , logically, chooses to go along when threatened with a knife, gun, or serious violence, she has still been raped.”

      No, sorry, that’s just beyond silly. I’m using this definition of rape: “Sex resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects”. I don’t see what’s unreasonable about this definition. It DOES take into account that death or a serious injury are not much of a choice. In this video however, things weren’t anywhere near that. There is possibility of screaming, for example, as she is at a party and the guy is doing absolutely nothing to prevent this possibility.

    • emmatheemo says:

      “Did it ever occur to you that that is such a loose standard going the opposite way that if upheld by some hypothetical court of law it would probably legalize pretty much all rape unless a woman was beaten to unconsciousness or worse?”

      I can say the same about your standard, which would make pretty much anything into rape. You call my standard loose, yet it is you who say rape is when ANY force at all is used, no matter how slight. Where does it stop? Holding a girl’s wrist? Lightly pushing her? And if she submits right there and then, no matter the level of threat, that’s rape?

      If THIS is the standard of normal behavior nowadays, if women submit so easily to the most miniscule levels of threat and force and the man is legally responsible, then perhaps it’s time to go back to men’s full responsibility for women. That means chaperoning women and delivering them from father’s to husband’s protection upon marriage. We obviously can’t make sexual choices on our own, and need to be protected from ourselves.

      ” it is obvious you do not think like either a philosopher OR a lawyer. ”

      Are you a lawyer or a philosopher, then? You must be, since you think I obviously don’t think like either. I admit I don’t have formal education as either, but I know plenty, and have common sense.

  14. Clarence says:

    “I can say the same about your standard, which would make pretty much anything into rape. You call my standard loose, yet it is you who say rape is when ANY force at all is used, no matter how slight. Where does it stop? Holding a girl’s wrist? Lightly pushing her? And if she submits right there and then, no matter the level of threat, that’s rape?”

    In my lifetime Prosecutors have secured convictions because the ‘force’ element has been met simply by the mere act of being penetrated OR being “on top” during the act of coitus. After all, many men outweigh many women and if she is a typical woman who doesn’t do strength exercise all that much if at all, it could be impossible for her to push him off.

    Do I think that’s bad? Absent other evidence of guilt, sure I do.
    But that’s where the law often is, already in many jurisdictions in the US.

    However, in the US at least there is usually a “Reasonable Person” standard when it comes to most laws and juries (which , since rape is a felony all accused of rape are legally entitled to) are hesitant to convict when either the force OR the alleged violation of consent seem dicey.

    Let’s take this present fake case, as an argument. Remember that in the PSA we have a “Gods Eye” view. We have the rapist looking at himself and telling himself not to do it. And we have us, the viewers in the background. I believe it is rape because of reasons I’ve elucidated: she said no, he had to use force, etc. I can even see why she didn’t scream – she was probably at that point in shock or scared.

    But now I’m a juror in this fictional PSA world.. I didn’t see this PSA video, because it doesn’t exist in this hypothetical world for a normal person like me. I can’t get inside either of their minds and see what happened (or what they THINK happened, which because memory is faulty and scared or angry or drugged impressions can’t always be trusted). I know the young lady involved was in a crowded house. Presumably someone saw her kissing him earlier. Presumably the people at the party – at least some of them- knew that the two were not strangers. She’s in his room by choice for the whole time, at least as far as any witnesses know. There is no real physical evidence here – just evidence of sex. Sure the SANE nurse (or whatever Britain’s equivalent is) might say she has “internal tearing consistent with rape” but any defense lawyer would easily be able to point out that most normal sex produces the same result. And, silly girl, she didn’t scream.

    Am I going to convict this guy? Remember, I didn’t see the PSA video that people in our world are looking at.

    Nope. Not enough evidence. Even though I believe he was a rapist based on the PSA. In short, one doesn’t get very many convictions based on purely he-said, she-said, like above, and many prosecutors won’t take such cases. The winnowing process of the jury already pretty much undoes any harm to the defendant that the current force standards (it certainly didn’t take much ‘force’ to convict a black man of raping a white woman in parts of the American south for about 100 years so it isn’t like this is new to American law but the poor black men often didn’t even have legitimate trials) might imply. No, it’s other laws (expansive rather than very restrictive “Rape Shield” laws, Federal rules of evidence) that start to tilt against the defendant. And I’m sure we both agree such laws need repealed in at least some cases.

    • emmatheemo says:

      You’re right that lack of evidence often ruins any chances that someone like this video guy can be convicted. Reducing the amount of proof needed is more dangerous than watering out the rape definition. But just because the former is worse, doesn’t mean the latter is ok.

  15. Clarence says:

    Let me explain something that is probably confusing you and Eivind about US law because you don’t live here.

    As a matter of fact (and one could argue it’s a matter of LAW as well, but that’s an argument I don’t want to elucidate about) juries determine what the law is when you have a jury trial.

    If they feel the law is wrong, juries may simply refuse to convict no matter that the evidence for the states case is overwhelming. This is called Jury Nullification, and even in our benighted times, the power of the Jury to do this and not be punished for so doing has been upheld repeatedly. They also (unless you have a trial before a Judge which is an option for many crimes) have to decide whether the elements of the crime were present, what weight to give testimony, etc.

    Ok, now another aspect of US law is called Prosecutorial Discretion. Prosecutors represent “The People” and bring charges. They are given nearly total legal immunity (because of their power and how easily abused I would LOVE to change this to a much more limited immunity and require a standard of legal care) and are free to take cases and prosecute them or to not take cases as they choose.

    A. Sometimes they take and prosecute cases for political reasons. In most jurisdictions in the US , “Prosecutor” is an elected position. It almost never hurts to be ‘tough on crime’, esp. sexual crime.
    B. Sometimes they take and prosecute cases for reasons of $. The feds often fund states as a means of incentive for various legal policies. Get enough “sexual assault” cases , no matter how iffy the actual prosecution of them (As an example. This doesn’t just happen for sexual crimes but also for drug crimes, and some others.)turns out to be, and your jurisdiction can profit.
    C. Sometimes they take and prosecute cases for reasons of ideology. That is, they might charge someone with a new interpretation of a law(say a law is vague about something) and see if a court, or the courts (if it goes to appeals courts) agree with them. When this is successful it’s often like making the law themselves.

    And of course they get to ‘stack’ charges. That is add this charge to that charge to this charge and thus -due to the severe nature of the prison sentence involved with so many charges and the chance that a jury might convict on even ONE of a long list of charges – coerce plea bargains. Most – the vast majority, including, I think of rape cases- criminal cases in the US never go to trial; they are settled by plea. Drug cases are esp infamous for this.

    Despite this and the fact that I think the US justice system -both state and federal- is broken and needs huge reforms that I despair of ever seeing in my lifetime, most rape cases that go to trial do not result in convictions. And that is despite ALL of the feminist tinkering with what evidence may be introduced, lowering the standards of resistance, etc.
    And that is why feminists and totalitarians of all stripes HATE juries and standards of probable cause.

  16. Pingback: Rape is not merely “sex without consent&r...

  17. look up the innocence project…

    but you so-called MRA’s don’t really give a shit about innocent low status men from the wrong side of the tracks…

    and as far as the above video, nope, I wouldn’t do that to someone…

    • emmatheemo says:

      Innocence project (which uses DNA from what I just read) would only help someone if no sex whatsoever has taken place (rape or not). But I can still see its use.

      And MRAs not caring about low status men.. Really? Sure, high status men get falsely accused too (and get into the media much more than all those unknown men), but haven’t you heard the common saying that “If he’s hot, it’s sex, if he’s unattractive, it’s rape”?

      • there is simpler advice to give young man-it won’t be given because it goes against all PUA advice. Avoid drunk women. If a woman goes to a room alone with a man, it’s not your concern what happens to either. Don’t be alone with a woman unless you literally trust her with your life. Don’t engage in a relationship with a woman unless you trust her with your life. That’s a MGTOW approach…

        I can’t repeat this enough–

        avoid drunk women…

        avoid violent women….

        avoid mean women…

        avoid dishonest women…

        avoid feminist women…

        (actually very easily done.)

  18. Rape basically doesn’t exist anymore in the West as a crime.

    Rape was historically a property crime against a woman’s father or husband or a crime against woman’s chastity. Since women are no longer dependent on their fathers or husbands that way nor are they chaste the act itself can exist but I see no reason for it to be a crime in most cases. Taking some skank against her consent she hands out so easily to most disgusting thugs being a crime is insane. In sane times ladies were protected and respected and sluts were raped. That was the sane approach.

    • Liz says:

      I see no reason why I can’t lock up people I don’t like in my dungeon.
      Give them a salt lick and a bowl. In sane times that would be kidnapping, but now that people so willingly relinquish their liberties anyway I see no reason why I can’t do whatever I want to them.

      • You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, eh?

        Locking somebody up in a dungeon seems to me as kidnapping now and in sane times. It’s not comparable to a bunch of idiots willingly relinquishing their liberties because their genes are a disaster exactly because of horrible genetic decline caused by women becoming sluts and choosing scum. Read about this here http://thatincelblogger.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/the-story-of-your-incel-an-inconvenient-truth/

        On the other hand, people who are accused of a crime of raping today’s sluts would be commended for raping such women in sane times. They would enjoy no legal protection whatsoever. Of course, basically no sane woman would act like a slut in that case.

      • In other words, today’s people are as enslaved as those in the dungeons. Such a comparison is silly.

        On the other hand, almost all of today’s women are exactly the kind of women who would enjoy no legal protection in sane times and rightly so.

  19. Liz says:

    “You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, eh?”

    Says the person who advocates raping all women on the world wide web.

  20. “Says the person who advocates raping all women on the world wide web.”

    Umm, where in these comments am I doing this? Where did I say that I recommend “raping all women”?

    I just said that its very difficult to rape a woman and for it to be considered a crime today BY SANE SOCIETIES (not the current femifascist nightmare that are the society and legal system) because almost all women lack criteria that would even make it a crime in sane societies.

    To this your only argument is to strawman me in a single short sentence.

    So, after a one horrible comparison and one strawman all I can do is to ask one more time – You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, eh?

  21. Another important thing to know about the act of rape itself is that it is currently de facto legal. Most rapes are committed by thug omegas who don’t even have the brain capacity to know what consent is – and women love them for it !

    Women are turned on when such men rape them and that is no surprise, since women always go for the most reproductively successful type of a man and since we’re mammals, much of whose mating closely resembles rape.

    Most acts reported as rapes are just women having sex with beta/coalpha guys they later regretted or betas or coalphas being desperate enough for sex that they commit rape, which insults the woman as she wasn’t raped by a guy who was sufficiently immoral and stupid.

    For context please read http://thatincelblogger.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/the-story-of-your-incel-an-inconvenient-truth/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s