Puppy play gone wrong... (78)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

4 Apr 07, 3:08 PM
ThedaVamp
UK, 4 yrs
Ahhhh! I understand Manniq and Mkane now! hoorah! They're societal reaction functionalism theorists!
There is no such thing as a crime until someone is caught and labelled as such.
There is no such thing as a rape, until the victim doesn't take a bath, goes straight to police after the rape and in a calm recitation of the events, over approximately 10 times to different police officers, but only after initially stating this to one over the counter whilst standing in a police reception filled with strangers, pausing to make sure that he/she is understood clearly, keeps still to ensure that all DNA evidence is still there and can be collected through an internal examination, analysed in addition to the victim's testimony, then wait for an arrest, further questioning, hopeful court date...etc etc etc...only THEN has a rape been committed!
Thank god I cleared that up! Damn my poor fluffy female brain for getting all in a tizz! Honestly, i don't know what I'd do without you logical men to instruct me on what rape is I really don't.
http://imafeministand.blogspot.com/
Edited 4 Apr 07, 3:11 PM by ThedaVamp

4 Apr 07, 3:15 PM
x_Red_x
4 yrs
ThedaVamp wrote:
Ahhhh! I understand Manniq and Mkane now! hoorah! They're societal reaction functionalism theorists!
There is no such thing as a crime until someone is caught and labelled as such.
There is no such thing as a rape, until the victim doesn't take a bath, goes straight to police after the rape and in a calm recitation of the events, over approximately 10 times to different police officers, but only after initially stating this to one over the counter whilst standing in a police reception filled with strangers, pausing to make sure that he/she is understood clearly, keeps still to ensure that all DNA evidence is still there and can be collected through an internal examination, analysed in addition to the victim's testimony, then wait for an arrest, further questioning, hopeful court date...etc etc etc...only THEN has a rape been committed!
Thank god I cleared that up! Damn my poor fluffy female brain for getting all in a tizz! Honestly, i don't know what I'd do without you logical men to instruct me on what rape is I really don't.
Now you're getting the hang of it, but we can't discuss it because our fluffy minds are full of kittens and we don't want to fill them with horrible images of rape and anyway they'll overheat if we learn to read, write AND think. Not to mention that we're simply not capable of dealing with these topics. Isn't it wonderful that we've got such wonderful, intelligent, strong men to look after us? I'm glad I'm not a hard line feminist complainist who goes around accusing men all the time and instead I just stay home and bake cakes and knit socks for my beloved...
*vomits*
Red
www.fallenangeldesign.co.uk
Happily ensconced with my true Master

4 Apr 07, 3:37 PM
x_maude_x
UK, 9 yrs

Manniq wrote:
Basically, a woman can accurately and honestly believe one thing, whilst the perpetrator might believe something different. In which case, the asymmetry of the Law means that no actual rape took place.

Actually, that's incorrect.
It is not sufficient that the Defendant subjectively but honestly believed that she consented.
The test of "reasonably believed" is an objective test, i.e. the jury have to decide whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have believed that the complainant had consented.
In other words, the test deviates a little but not a lot from whether the jury believe that the complainant did not, in fact, consent.

Manniq wrote:
The absolute bottom line is that as a crime, rape is defined in terms of the perpetrator's beliefs - NOT the beliefs of the victim. Since rape has tended to be taken up as a "women's issue" - and too often debated as that, I do think that a fundamental misapprehension has crept into the deabte - which is that rape occurs "when a woman says no".
It doesn't - and I would say that it is a tragedy for the debate that people believe that.
Not such a tragedy. They are pretty much right.
You continually object to people introducing their experience in support of a claim to a special status in the debate, which I agree with. However, you do it all the time yourself. You claim expert status on the basis that you have been involved in this, that or the other, rather than letting the quality of your argument stand on its own merits (or lack of, as the case may be).

4 Apr 07, 3:52 PM
Evil_Black_Alice
UK, 3 yrs

ThedaVamp wrote:
Ahhhh! I understand Manniq and Mkane now! hoorah! They're societal reaction functionalism theorists!
There is no such thing as a crime until someone is caught and labelled as such.
There is no such thing as a rape, until the victim doesn't take a bath, goes straight to police after the rape and in a calm recitation of the events, over approximately 10 times to different police officers, but only after initially stating this to one over the counter whilst standing in a police reception filled with strangers, pausing to make sure that he/she is understood clearly, keeps still to ensure that all DNA evidence is still there and can be collected through an internal examination, analysed in addition to the victim's testimony, then wait for an arrest, further questioning, hopeful court date...etc etc etc...only THEN has a rape been committed!
Thank god I cleared that up! Damn my poor fluffy female brain for getting all in a tizz! Honestly, i don't know what I'd do without you logical men to instruct me on what rape is I really don't.
Actually you are wrong, it seems for them to believe a rape has been committed the rapist must also admit to the crime.
Sheeesh! I am a woman and even I guessed THAT!!!

4 Apr 07, 3:52 PM
mq1965
UK(DA), 6 yrs
an awful lot of heat on this thread, though I'm not sure how much light it has cast over the whole issue.
I'm not going to enter into any of the specific arguments, I gave up reading them all in detail a couple of pages ago, but I hope I can shed a little light on what are extremely difficult issues.
There are never going to be any easy answers to rape, even in the unlikely event that we were to invent a perfect lie detector. By its very nature it will be one of the most difficult crimes to proescute because it so often takes place in private with no independent witnesses. The emotional effects on the victim are like no other crime, and the devastating effects of conviction are greater than for most others. The stakes are incredibly high for everyone involved.
"Stranger rape" is relatively easy - a matter of medical evidence and identification. Convictions rates for those types of offences are much higher, and though never an easy experience for a victim giving evidence it is likely to be easier because her credibility and personal history is not usually in issue.
The difficult area is those where the victim and suspect are known to each other, broadly categorised as "date rape". Many people see these as less serious, especially where they involve people already in some form of relationship, but actually the breach of trust involved can make them emotionally more devastating than an attack by a stranger. These are the ones where consent is usually the issue, and unless there has been an obvious degree of violence there is usually virtually no indepndent evidence which can help with decision making at all.
This creates all sorts of problems in dealing with them, and while the nature of these difficulties is obvious what can be done about it is more of a problem.
Bearing in mind the extremely serious consequences for anyone convicted of rape it must be right that they are entitled to a trail on the same basis as anyone accused of any other crime, and to the same presumption of innocence. This is not to say that a victim shouldn't be believed for all other purposes, but when it comes to a trial an accused person has to ahve the right to test and challenge the evidence against them.
Within those limitations huge steps have been made to make it easier for victims to report rape. That is not to say it is easy, just easier. I posted a link earlier in the thread to The Havens, which are the cutting edge of rape suites. Admittedly not everywhere yet ahs access to such facilities, but it is the way forward. Medical facilities are available, as well as trained support workers. They operate now on the initial principle that they will accept any rape claimant as telling the truth and take their account from them on that basis - investigation follows at a later stage - so at the initial stage victims should receive a sympathetic reception. There are also facilities to take an initial account on video, and occasionally this can be used as evidence, something which should become more frequent in future.
When people actually get to courts there are restrictions in the nature of questions that can be asked about people's sexual histories. Unfortunately of course dfenec barristers do try to get round those as far as possible and paint people in the light their client's want them to, and if someone is to get a fair trial sometimes that can't be avoided, but there are more restrictions there than for any other type of offence. The support mechanisms in palce for witnesses have improved hugely. In terms of how police and CPS approach rape there more rules in place for rape than any other offence - requirements of reviews by specialists, requirments that two people must review and decide not to proceed etc. It is an offence that is taken more seriously than any other, even murder.
All of this, though, can never completely get round the problems of prosecuting. Firstly that there are some malicious false accusations, for a number of reasons. I won't get into the argument over how many, it isn't really relevant. The fact that there are some makes it very hard for investigators, courts and juries to be sure about any given case.
A second difficulty (one of Manniq's pet points!) is that even if a woman doesn't consent to sex no crime has been connected if the man reasonably believed that she did. Note that word reasonably, because that is an improvement on the past, when any genuine belief in consent, even if totally unreasonable, was a defence. However there are cases where a woman may feel pressured into something, may not feel consent and may emotionally feel that they ahve been raped, and yet the man believes she was consenting, in which case he has not committed a crime.
Finally there is the standard of proof required. "Beyond reasonable doubt". How can you prove something beyond reasonable doubt if one person says one thing happened, and another says something different, and (as is often the case with 'date rape' cases) there is no other evidence? Imagine a jury faced in court with two people, both seeming plausible, giving a different account of events. It's not just a matter of who they think is probably telling the truth, but can they be sure that the victim is telling the truth. Knowing that if they are wrond they will condemn an innocent man to years in prison and destroy his life?
A terrible crime, and I understand fully how badly it hurts the victims. But how can we deal with it? Unless we really want to change the standards of proof and risk condemning innocent men to prison I don't think there are any easy answers. Education and civilisation seems to be the best way forward, but whether our culture is going the right way at the moment I don't know. All I can say is that I think the 'system' is doing all that it can to make it easier for victims, but trhere is no way it will ever be anything other than a difficult and traumatic process.

4 Apr 07, 3:56 PM
CookieMonster
UK(RH), 4 yrs

Maudie wrote:
You continually object to people introducing their experience in support of a claim to a special status in the debate, which I agree with. However, you do it all the time yourself. You claim expert status on the basis that you have been involved in this, that or the other, rather than letting the quality of your argument stand on its own merits (or lack of, as the case may be).
The difference I think manniq would say is professional experiance other than personal.
This I think is relevant as this thread reflects a gulf of misundrstanding.
It may appear that Manniq and Mkane and others are being anul over the law and statistics to those who through their personal experinces lack enough detachment. MKane at least could be said to lacking sensitivity considering many on this site have said they have suffered from sexual abuse.
Conversly someone trying to establish facts is just that and does not imply a hidden agenda towards women.
Because it was personal to some its wrong to say its personal to others and conversly if you can be dispationate about it it takes a realisation that others cannot or find it hard because of their experiance.
My reading of it and having spoken to people who have suffered from sexual abuse is there is a lot that can be done to help rape victims etc before the law even needs changing, or the principles of.
And it is best left to mainstream sources for statistics rather than pressure groups who tend to have agendas.

4 Apr 07, 4:01 PM
mini_velvet
UK(EH), 4 yrs
because courts never get things wrong do they?
so if the law says you haven't been raped then you haven't?
Good-o. Forget those nightmares and flashbacks, a lawyer says it didn't happen in the first place.

There are worse things to eat on a train than a British Rail sandwich.
La Douleur Exquise
last of the international slut girls
Life is like the Tango... sad, sensual, sexy, violent and quiet.

4 Apr 07, 4:11 PM
Backdooruk
UK(BA), 10 yrs

Manniq wrote:
Nope. Merely that rape is NOT defined by the belief of the victim, but by what a court determines were the beliefs of the
But that's not true is it. It's not just a case that the accused can convince a jury that they believed consent was present; this belief must be reasonable taking into account circumstances and if the accused had tried to find out if the victim consented.
This test is intended to be objective, not just based on the beliefs of the accused.
- Chris

"I have made this letter longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter." - Blaise Pascal


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent