Can't we all just get along?

[Magenta]

Well threads move on from the OP and so it is very difficult to say at this stage what the point of this one is now.

My purpose at the beginning was to try to sort out myth from reality in the hope that we would understand each other better: and perhaps be able to discuss this without the anger and distrust I saw in other threads. It was never going to be easy. So where are we now?

[...]

I do not know how we can organise social expectations to achieve the world I would like to see: that is what we need to discuss once we have made some progress in separating myth from reality. We have apparently thrown out some good rules in ditching some of the old mores: and we need to be open to that too. But I honestly do not think this is utopian: I do not think we need to say "oh it is hopeless: lets go back to what we used to know". And I do not think men and women are so very different: though we are very strongly influenced by our upbringing and it leads to many misunderstandings, as others have said.

Excellent post, nominated.

I think threads like this do help, preferably if it can be discussed dispassionately. On the wider scene, it is encouraging that more men are working in this field of research now, eg Michael Flood in Australia. It used to be unusual to hear men having anything to say on the topic, but not so much now.

 

[gumboot]

Personally I don't buy that a woman's fear of sexual assault is any more justified than a man's. Women are not, by and large, attacked by random strangers while walking along the street at night. They are attacked in familiar settings, by people they know and trust.

The "threat" of the male predator is just as much a social myth as anything else that has been discussed.

The overwhelming majority of rapes are not violent attacks, they're cases of miscommunication and misunderstanding, just as Fiona described. You want to know how to reduce cases of rape? People need to be far more open and up front about sex. We're still stuck under the shadow of the Victorian Era when sexuality was violently repressed by society. That's what breeds sexual deviance.

If we take Fiona's story in the OP, I feel pretty confident that had Fiona outright stated to her guest that there was nothing intimate or sexual on for the evening, the rape (and yes, I think it was rape) would not have happened. I may be wrong, maybe there was something wrong with this guy and he was going to get what he wanted regardless, but from the account Fiona gave I doubt it.

If people treated sex as a basic normal thing, completely acceptable to discuss in an open and frank manner, I am sure we wouldn't see a fraction of the sexual attacks we currently have to deal with in society.

 

[Morrigan]

Would you feel uncomfortable murdering someone? Subconscious fear, perhaps?

??? This is illogical and irrelevant. A complete non-sequitur.

You assume too much. The "you" was a general "you" and wasn't addressed to you.

It was a fairly reasonable assumption to make in the context of the conversation. Next time, you may want to express yourself more clearly, then.

 

[gumboot]

??? This is illogical and irrelevant. A complete non-sequitur.

No it isn't. When I expressed a reluctance to engage in what can be perceived as morally unacceptable behaviour, you and others assumed, without justification, that it was somehow fear that motivated my reluctance, rather the the more obvious and logical desire to adhere to perceived social norms.

The same applies for any morally unacceptable behaviour - people do not stop themselves behaving in that way due to some sort of vague fear - they do it because they wish to comply with a social moral imperative to behave in a particular way.

 

[MattusMaximus]

To the OP:

No, we'll never all just get along. Now let's move on.

 

[Delvo]

Women are not, by and large, attacked by random strangers while walking along the street at night. They are attacked in familiar settings, by people they know and trust...

The overwhelming majority of rapes are not violent attacks, they're cases of miscommunication and misunderstanding, just as Fiona described.

These are two different issues. One is whether the rapist is a stranger or not, and the other is whether or not force is used. There's no reason force couldn't be used by someone who's not a stranger, and I can't say whether or not it's possible for a stranger to do it without using force.

Also, a minority of cases is not necessarily the same as a teeny tiny negligible minority. What are the numbers?

 

[gumboot]

These are two different issues. One is whether the rapist is a stranger or not, and the other is whether or not force is used. There's no reason force couldn't be used by someone who's not a stranger, and I can't say whether or not it's possible for a stranger to do it without using force.

Also, a minority of cases is not necessarily the same as a teeny tiny negligible minority. What are the numbers?

The point Fiona was making is that women alter their behaviour (not going out alone, etc) due to a fear of being attacked, and that this fear is justified where as any action a man might take to avoid, say, a false rape allegation, is not justified because there is no real danger, and they are instead acting on a myth.

I was merely pointing out that the position is inherently flawed because women alter the behaviour based on a myth also. If women were to alter their behaviour in a rational logical way to the threat of rape, they would stop having intimate relationships with men.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Assuming Fiona's story is accurate, there was no context during the evening leading up to the event to suggest she wanted to have sex with this man. No flirting, no kissing, no suggestive body language.

Why would any decent man assume she was waiting in her bedroom with the door closed for him to come in and have sex with her? Why would any decent man continue in his behaviour when the woman is lying there motionless and unresponsive?

Who said "motionless and unresponsive"?

Anything I say at this point would break one of the forum's rules.

Someone tell me when Matteo has left the thread, please.

Back from a three-day suspension..

 

[Matteo Martini]

But presumably the man would be lying through his teeth to the police about what happened after they got to Fiona's place.

Hopefully Fiona's friends could testify as to the context of the evening before that though, and the man's story could be repeatedly checked for consistency/plausibility.

I still think it would be very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt (unless the jury already believed he had a 98% chance of being guilty).

Dear Ivor,
even if the guy agreed 100% with the version of the woman, still that would not be rape

 

[Matteo Martini]

Nope. She was even according to your own quote.



No consent = rape.

Nope.
Re-read my quote.

In any allegation of rape, the absence of consent to sexual intercourse on the part of the victim is critical. Consent need not be express, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties, but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.

Duress, in which the victim may be subject to or threatened by overwhelming force or violence, and which may result in absence of objection to intercourse, leads to the presumption of lack of consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

 

[PhantomWolf]

Dear Ivor,
even if the guy agreed 100% with the version of the woman, still that would not be rape

Assuming you are meaning Fiona's story in the OP, it was rape. The lack of a refusal does not equal consent.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I talked about Fiona's experience, you didn't want to do so out of respect for Fiona.

As Matteo and DanishDynamite have worked their hardest to disrespect Fiona, and I see what they're doing, I recognize even more that you were right.

??

 

[PhantomWolf]

Nope.
Re-read my quote.

In any allegation of rape, the absence of consent to sexual intercourse on the part of the victim is critical. Consent need not be express, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties, but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.

Duress, in which the victim may be subject to or threatened by overwhelming force or violence, and which may result in absence of objection to intercourse, leads to the presumption of lack of consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Note the underlined part. No consent = rape. It doesn't have to be under duress, it just has to be without consent.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Assuming you are meaning Fiona's story in the OP, it was rape. The lack of a refusal does not equal consent.

I can only invite you to re-read my post.
The lack of a refusal does not equal consent automatically, the exception being duress
That`s wikipedia.

If in your specific opinion, it was rape, OK, but according to the law, it was not.

In order for duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:[1]

Threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
Harm threatened must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
Threat must be immediate and inescapable
The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own

 

[PhantomWolf]

I can only invite you to re-read my post.
The lack of a refusal does not equal consent automatically, the exception being duress
That`s wikipedia.

If in your specific opinion, it was rape, OK, but according to the law, it was not.

In order for duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:[1]

Threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
Harm threatened must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
Threat must be immediate and inescapable
The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own

Matteo I seriously think you have gotten the wrong end of a stick here. Rape does not need to be under duress, it is just sex without consent. I really don't understand why you keep bring duress into it. Duress has nothing to do with consent other than it automatically means that consent is void. Just because consent is void under duress, doesn't mean that absence of consent without duress is consent, it isn't and the quote you quote says that. With or without duress, legally, no consent = rape, it's that simple, what part can't you understand?

 

[PhantomWolf]

The only time that no objection can equal consent is when there is a relationship (may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties). In this context there was no relationship, and no context that would allow for an assumption of consent, so it is invaild and that returns to "the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent." No Consent = Rape.

 

[Lonewulf]

??

If you don't get it, you never will.

 

[MattC]

I came into the embers of what seems to be a wicked flamewar late, so I beg pardon if I'm stating the obvious.

However, I'm very confused by several statements Matteo has made and the responses they're getting. For example, Matteo says:

.. the absence of objection does not in itself constitute consent.

and then PhantomWolf responds:

Note the underlined part. No consent = rape. It doesn't have to be under duress, it just has to be without consent.

This seems to be stating the exact same thing - if you don't have consent, you have rape. If this is true, I fail to see what the Matteo-bashing is about. Both sides seem to be agreeing, quite frankly, I'm not honestly sure what the fighting is over.

~ Matt

(EDIT: Here's the literal definition of consent as given by the Florida state statutes:

(a) "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

Please let me know through any of the various channels available if there are any questions.)

 

[Lonewulf]

This seems to be stating the exact same thing - if you don't have consent, you have rape. If this is true, I fail to see what the Matteo-bashing is about. Both sides seem to be agreeing, quite frankly, I'm not honestly sure what the fighting is over.

How about the part where he says Fiona wasn't raped, even though she didn't consent to sex?

I'm sure you would like to be told you weren't raped, when someone had sex with you without your consent.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This seems to be stating the exact same thing - if you don't have consent, you have rape. If this is true, I fail to see what the Matteo-bashing is about. Both sides seem to be agreeing, quite frankly, I'm not honestly sure what the fighting is over.

~ Matt

The problem is that the bit you quote from Matteo is the part he is quoting from Wikipedia and he doesn't actually get it because he keeps saying:

even if the guy agreed 100% with the version of the woman, still that would not be rape

In other words, you and I agree with what he is quoting from Wikipedia, but even though he keeps quoting it, he doesn't seem to understand it, and doesn't actually agree with it because somehow in his mind there has to be duress.