Consensual Sex and the definition of Rape

[jacee]

By the definition seemingly held by some, if that extends to sex, it constitutes rape.

Well if that's the full depth of your ability to discriminate, perhaps you'd best abstain.

[TimG]

An interesting diversion from comments you've made in the past that said, "not guilty does not mean innocent." Why does that logic suddenly not apply here?

The prior conversation was about what changes could be made because the court system only has two possible verdicts. This conversation is about the court system that actually exists and in this court system there is no room for "shared responsibility". You are either guilty or you are not.

No matter what legal criteria are set out there will always be hypothetical scenarios where reasonable people would agree that an injustice occurred but the justice system is not equipped to deal with these. It needs simple, objective criteria to judge whether a crime has occurred and the "no means no" rule is a simple objective criteria. The "silence does not necessarily mean yes" criteria is a nonsensical subjective criteria that has no place in the criminal courts.

Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Really? Name one, and maybe we can get into how utterly, utterly confused you are yet again.

Oh sure. Let me do that when you've already reached your conclusion and are more interested in standing on your soapbox whining about lefties than actually rubbing the brain cells together in your head on this one.

[jacee]

Absent force, inebriation or coercion, if she decides to have sex then it's NOT rape.

Until she decides she doesn't want to.

Keep in mind old man that this discussion started on campus trying to educate YOUNG horny drunk college students so they don't rape your daughters and granddaughters.

Capice?

.

Edited March 6, 2014 by jacee

[Bryan]

Until she decides she doesn't want to.

.

Next day regret does not mean lack of consent the previous night.

[jacee]

Next day regret does not mean lack of consent the previous night.

Ya rapists like to frame it that way.

But who gives a sh!t what they say.

.

Edited March 6, 2014 by jacee

[Bryan]

Ya rapists like to frame it that way.

But who gives a sh!t what they say.

.

Your attitude is precisely the problem. It's not rape if you change your mind later. Take some responsibility for your own actions.

[bleeding heart]

The point wasn't about next day regrets, it was about a person changing her mind during the sexual activity, presumably as things start to get, say, a bit too "rough" for her liking.

In other words, consent has to be ongoing, not just in the initiation of sexual activity.

And to clear things up, because there is obviously some concern here about false allegations of rape (which, according to police, is rare): the fact is that, for men who are not knuckledragging morons, consent or lack thereof DOES tend to be very clear. The advice and suggestions being offered are for the sake of the knuckledragging morons, who can't read body language, who can't read (clear) signals, who think drunkenness or mild flirtation is itself a "yes."

Judging from the tenor of the responses here, I suspect there's a misbegotten belief that false allegations of rape are common, and that these "guidelines" will increase the problem.

Edited March 6, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

The advice and suggestions being offered are for the sake of the...

Sorry. The campaign is not about "advice" or "suggestions". This campaign is about changing the criteria for which a criminal charge can be laid - criteria which a jury is expected to used to determine if someone is "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt". Creating criteria which allows someone to be convicted when they honestly believed that consent had been given is a complete perversion of the justice system.

Judging from the tenor of the responses here, I suspect there's a misbegotten belief that false allegations of rape are common, and that these "guidelines" will increase the problem.

No. It is people who understand the nature of the justice system and how it is designed to minimize the number of innocent people convicted even at the cost of letting guilty people go because, as a society, we have decided that keeping innocent people out of jail is a higher priority. Nonsensical subjective criteria for a criminal charge would destroy that balance and greatly increase the likelihood of innocent people being convicted. Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

as a society, we have decided that keeping innocent people out of jail is a higher priority.

I'm not sure that we have decided that. There are certainly lots of examples where the 'law and order' attitude has vaulted some politicians into favour by exploiting "the" public's misperceptions. Things such as 3 strikes laws, and right-to-carry appear to exploit such attitudes, don't you think ?

[TimG]

Things such as 3 strikes laws, and right-to-carry appear to exploit such attitudes, don't you think ?

Minimum sentencing laws are about the sentence after the verdict is obtained. They do not change how easy it is to get a verdict in the first place. "right to carry" has nothing to do with this topic. Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

But Tim, if "the campaign is about changing the criteria for which a criminal charge can be laid"--and including your subsequent remarks about juries, "reasonable doubt," and so on....from where are you getting this?

I was responding to remarks and responses on this thread...and as generated by the article in the OP.

There's nothing there about "criminal charges."

[Michael Hardner]

Minimum sentencing laws are about the sentence after the verdict is obtained. They do not change how easy it is to get a verdict in the first place. "right to carry" has nothing to do with this topic.

I'm speaking to perceptions around crime here. Of course these things are relevant.

[TimG]

There's nothing there about "criminal charges."

The op is about the "definition of rape" (read the thread title). Rape (aka sexual assault) is a criminal charge and changing the definition means changing the criteria for which a criminal charge can be laid. Anyone arguing against this proposition is simply assuming that this connection is self evident. If you can't see that then you obviously did not think very carefully before you posted. Perhaps you would like to revise it now that you know what the people you are criticizing are actually complaining about? Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

I'm speaking to perceptions around crime here. Of course these things are relevant.

Why? This discussion is about expanding the grounds for which a criminal charge can be laid. These examples have nothing to do with that. They also do not apply to Canada. Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

YOU said that the "campaign is about changing the criteria for which a criminal charge can be laid."

A point never made in the OP--to which I was responding.

And a point which I wasn't addressing in any case.

Whatever changes should--or should not--be made in terms of criminal charges, I certainly would not advocate that they be based on one of the continual and numerous "campaigns" which are made in terms of campus culture generally, and which are separate from criminal matters in any case.

That is, I agree that criminal charges in rape cases must be done with care, with a robust determination to ensure justice is done--with the accused's rights central.

And since nothing of the sort appears anywhere in the linked article...I commit the heresy of not commenting on something that is not existing, and which I wouldn't agree with if it did exist.

[TimG]

A point never made in the OP--to which I was responding.

Sorry, simply asserting you never actually read the OP which you claim to be responding to is not a defense. Trying actually reading it. Here is a quote:

Nova Scotia student groups have launched a new advocacy campaign, called More Than Yes, to spread the word. “Sex without enthusiastic consent is not sex at all. It’s sexual assault or rape,” proclaims its website.

If you do not understand that calling for an expansion of the definition of "sexual assault or rape" is calling for an expansion of the basis for criminal charge then you do not understand the English language. Even if you insist on being obtuse about this point you should at least understand that the people objecting are objecting because they see the campaign as a call to expand the basis for the criminal charge and you should interpret those responses accordingly.

That is, I agree that criminal charges in rape cases must be done with care, with a robust determination to ensure justice is done--with the accused's rights central.

Which is the argument being made here. If the campaigners had choose different words. i.e. "sex without enthusiastic consent is disrespectful and demeaning" then I doubt anybody would have disagreed. The disagreement is entirely due to the connection to criminal charge implied by the used of the word "rape". Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Student groups composing an advocacy campaign, no matter what language they use, is not a call for "an expansion of the basis for criminal charge."

It isn't, because it cannot be. There's no connection, no legal basis, no legal power.

And if you're going to be suggesting that I don't understand the English language, then "trying actually reading it" is almost too good to be true, isn't it?

Edited March 6, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

Student groups composing an advocacy campaign, no matter what language they use, is not a call for "an expansion of the basis for criminal charge."

You are going to hurt yourself twisting in contortions like that. If someone says X is rape they mean if someone does X they should be charged with rape. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise unless you are inventing the category of "non-criminal rape". Are you channeling Whoopi Goldberg and her 'it was not "rape rape"' comment? Seems to me the people behind this campaign would not support Whoopi's attempts to define 'non-criminal rape' as a category.

Your obtuseness is incredible. Even if you insist on pretending this is not about expanding the criminal charge that does not change the fact that everyone arguing against this campaign is doing so because they believe this is about expanding the criminal definition of rape.

Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

For god's sake, it is a campus educational campaign--whatever one thinks of it, that is exactly and only what it is. Just as they have "Awareness campaigns" for the plight of impoverished women in developing countries; or the "Men's groups" campaign (which I personally witnessed) which said "Masculinity is undergoing a type of Genocide."

As preposterous as the last one might be, it uses language very much a part of criminal and international law. But it is not advocating in any way for changes to the criminal code.

Nor is this one.

And it's fascinating that, given your stated concerns here, you'd imply even jokingly that I don't take rape seriously.

Edited March 6, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

And it's fascinating that, given your stated concerns here, you'd imply even jokingly that I don't take rape seriously.

Actually I don't think you do. Because if you did take it seriously you would not be supporting the creation of a "non-criminal rape" category. I never realized that Whoppi Goldberg had so much support for her "not rape-rape" comments.

I mean, do you agree with Todd Aiken's remarks on "legitimate rape"?

I think my point is you are saying that rape is not always "criminal rape" therefore you are supporting Todd Aiken's notion that different categories of rape exist. I take the position that rape is rape and the word should not be debased by expanding its definition to include things which are not grounds for a criminal charge. Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[g_bambino]

Well if that's the full depth of your ability to discriminate, perhaps you'd best abstain.

Humourless and sexist. Charming.

[bleeding heart]

Well, TimG, your opinion of me, which is self-evidently petty, ugly, and objectively incorrect, is of little consequence.

[g_bambino]

Your attitude is precisely the problem.

No kidding. Only men force women to have sex they don't "enthusiastically" want. A woman can validly say she was raped if she decides later she wasn't actually as enthusiastic as she let on or the enthusiasm she had at the time has latterly dissipated. A sexist, mean-spirited attitude.

[TimG]

Well, TimG, your opinion of me, which is self-evidently petty, ugly, and objectively incorrect, is of little consequence.

Well, you are free to join Whoopi and Todd Aiken in a campaign to convince the world that rape is not always a criminal act. But I am pretty sure the people behind the "more than yes" campaign agree with me that rape is always criminal act and we only disagree on what should be included in that definition. Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG