Trigger Warning: Sexual harassment/assault

[mulan]

what do you think about rape & kill ???

[MothballMilkshake]

what do you think about rape & kill ???

I prefer the option of chemical castration. It lowers the sex drive, production of testosterone, in addition to preventing erections. Preventing erections is one thing, but there are other ways to violate a person. Removing the dominant/violent/sexual urges that are leading the person to it is a step in the right direction.

This is, of course, for planned, knowledgable rapes. Like I said, a lot of non-consent occurs from ignorance.

In ancient Rome they used to crush rapists testicles between two stones.
Now we pardon them and say 'but they're such nice boys'.
Why is ancient Rome more in tune with consent than we are

[mulan]

in my country, a murderer rape & kill 6 &13 years old girl. Thats really terrible.

[AnArtfulDodger]

In ancient Rome they used to crush rapists testicles between two stones.
Now we pardon them and say 'but they're such nice boys'.
Why is ancient Rome more in tune with consent than we are

It is a terrifying thought that ancient Rome might be more in tune with consent than we are, because they had a lot of rather sketchy ideas about consent and sex in general. I'm not sure if I would agree with you that they dealt with rape better than we do today, just because there would have been a great deal of rape that wasn't considered criminal at all, not even by the courts. There was nothing wrong with soldiers assaulting foreign people they'd conquered, and nobody would bat an eye over a noble having sex with a slave, even though a slave cannot really consent because they don't have the right to say no. Remember that women were basically property (unless their husband was off fighting, in which case she would have immense power, but I digress), and rape would be more 'property damage' than 'a horrible assault on a human being'.

I promise that I'm not outright disagreeing with you. I think you make a fabulous point about how society today has this unreasonable sympathy for rapists, particularly if they're young, which baffles and disturbs me. However, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that we are worse than ancient Rome. Worse than, say, certain First Nations peoples? The ancient Celts? Oh, absolutely. Worse than ancient Rome? Well, I might actually argue that a lot of their ideas about sexual dominance and slut-shaming can be found in the modern world, perhaps because of their influence on our culture.

[vipor]

What are your thoughts on rape itself
It damages the victim beyong believe. Those who are not strong enough and/or do not have enough support will try to kill themselfs. Those that do choose to live will most likely suffer mentally for many years up to a point where they believe that they where asking for it and that the other was right doing it to them.
In case of raped females there is always the chance of getting a child which can damage both of them even more. Some can see the child as their kid and love it all the same. Others will hate the child and only see the rapist in the kid. A constant reminder of that horrible thing that happend.

Do you believe people 'ask for it' when they dress provocatively
No. Girls these days think they need to dress a certian way to be attractive. Both by peer pressure and media ignorance. They want people to look at them and think "wow!" But they don't want to be touched that way.

Yes, people will always claim that they wanted it by dressing that way. They have been doing that since the middle ages. The thing is that there is no way not to dress to arrouse someone. Some people are attracted by seeing skin. Others are by people showing no skin.

What is consent to you
Consent is not just saying yes.
If you have a partner and she says yes, but her body says no, it's no. The yes would just be to please you and not loose you, but she would not really be ready or willing.
If she says yes but is drunk, its also no.

Do you believe men can be raped too
Yes. Both by males and females.
We have a defense system. If in believed mortal thread, give the other what he or she wants to increase your chance of survival.

Do you think there's a way to stop rape?
No, we cannot.
I know people would love to see "yes. Do this this and this and no more rape ever." The thing is, as long as there is life, any life, it will happen again and again.

We are born the way we are. Some are bon attracted to the opposite sex. Some to their own sex. Some to both. Others are attracted to young kids and some to old people. Some love the calm motions of making loves, others crave for compleet dominance.
Those who want to rape either become that because they where born that way or made that way. Some victims become rapers in an attempt to remain their power. Others create children who crave the dominance.
Thing is it is not exclusive to humans. It happens in the animal world aswell.
Some sharks are even known to team up to hold a female down so they could all get a go.
Male baboons rape females that arn't even in heat because the ones that are, are to protected by the dominant males and there is even a case of a male grizzely bear raping a female polar.

Any other thoughts?
Castration and sterilisation for rapers and please use one thing of the olden days.
Visible burnmark in the face to show to all what kind of criminal you are.

[GrowlingCupcake]

There is a lot of "If they are not sober, it is not consent". This bothers me a lot. Do we absolve people of things just because they are drunk/high?

I do not believe all cases where someone is drunk should count as non consensual.

If a person is not coerced, whether drunk or not, it isn't rape. If a person is not made drunk/high with the intention of lowering their ability to say no, it is not rape. If a person says yes, does not in any way stop the other person, is given time to stop the other person, it is not rape. If a person did not say beforehand "do not have sex with me even if I want it while drunk", it is not rape. Waking up with regret that you engaged in an activity you said yes to but would not have done otherwise does not make it rape.

To put it another way: if someone rapes while drunk and regrets it the next day, would we say they were drunk and not in their right mind? If someone spends all their money while drunk and again regrets it, are we going to give them back their money? Do drunk drivers get let off because they were drunk? We hold these people responsible. Why can't we hold someone who says yes, who is not forced, who shows no inclination that they do not want sex, etc. responsible for having sex?

People have to be responsible for their own actions. We can do things we regret later but that does not mean we did not do them. If someone who is drunk/high says yes, shows no inclination whatsoever of not wanting sex, is not coerced or forced, then I do not think it is rape. I am sorry if they regret it but I do not think the other person should carry the label of rapist when they honestly believed the other wanted sex and were shown no reason to think they were wrong.

Being not-sober doesn't waive a person's responsibilities.

[Intempestivity]

It's not a case of regret the next day, it's the fact that they are not actually coherent enough to make the decision. In fact, it's against the law in many states to take consent from a drunken person, as they're not in a fit state to provide it.

To quote Cornell University:

"REMINDER: Consent is comprised of words or actions that show a knowing, active and voluntary agreement to engage in mutually agreed upon activity. Consent is never implied and cannot be assumed – the absence of “no” does not mean “yes.” Consent cannot be given if there is coercion (to pressure intimidate or force), violence or the threat of violence. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. So when engaging in mutual or romantic intimacies, be sure your partner is not too intoxicated to know what’s going on and that you are confident they want to be intimate. According to NYS law, a person cannot legally give consent if: a) the person is under the age of 17, b) the person is developmentally disabled, or c) the person is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, including as a result of alcohol or drugs."

The reason why the law says drunkenness or being stoned is not consent is to protect people in a vulnerable state from being taken advantage of by others in a less vulnerable state. Being drunk does not mean you give up the right to knowingly consent to an act. If you are too drunk or to know what is going on, you are in a vulnerable state and that means you cannot knowingly consent.

And this is a pretty widespread law--just google it and you will find many pages, including other university pages and rape support pages--saying the exact same thing.

[vipor]

The reason why I also mentioned if she s drunk it is not consent is for the protection of the other.
If the person is very drunk and consents to sex, but is to drunk to remember and gets pregnant. Than it is very easy to yell you've been raped on that party. Good luck proving it was consent and not just passed out.

[AnArtfulDodger]

There is a lot of "If they are not sober, it is not consent". This bothers me a lot. Do we absolve people of things just because they are drunk/high?

We do not absolve people of crimes that they commit while they are drunk or high. The thing about, say, drunk driving, is that you are a direct danger to society. This means that there must be consequences, because you were putting other people in harm's way. The thing about substances and consent, though, is that the person involved is not a danger to others. If someone is drunk enough to consent to something that they never would consent to while sober, then they are the vulnerable party, and certain members of society may well become a danger to them by taking advantage of this state.

If a drunk person got taken advantage of in a different way, say they were walking home and got mugged, nobody would be saying that it was their fault for being mugged just because they were drunk. The mugger was the one who saw that someone wasn't terribly alert or responsible, and took the opportunity to commit a crime. It is the same with sex. If somebody is drunk enough to make poor decisions about his or her body, then it should be apparent to others. If someone takes advantage of that state, they are harming someone who is not of sound mind to fight back. If the person taking advantage is also drunk, that would be the person we hold accountable, because they have acted to put another person in harm's way.

[mulan]

What is your law about rape in your country ????