Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lilithmorrigan
Here's an interesting bit of info - men get erect when they're scared. Point a gun at a man? Erection. Use erection. Rape.
There ya go.
Ummmmm? No.
The normal reaction for emotions such as fear, terror, and rage is for the musculature and tendons to withdraw the penis and testes into the body. The withdrawl is to protect them from damage. Thats is a mammalian reflx that predates walking upright.
I experienced this once in Iraq. After a car bomb attack.
Now as far as a male raped by a woman? That is in my opinion a case by case where as the opposite is not.
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Good point Jenny. Criminal law tends to "officially" classify rape as a crime against persons, or a violent crime in layspeak. But if you look at the underlying pathology it really is more like a property crime, like a theft. Rapists don't tend to see their victims as people, so classifying it as a crime against persons is really a square peg in a round hole.
Siber
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArmySGT.
Ummmmm? No.
The normal reaction for emotions such as fear, terror, and rage is for the musculature and tendons to withdraw the penis and testes into the body. The withdrawl is to protect them from damage. Thats is a mammalian reflx that predates walking upright.
I experienced this once in Iraq. After a car bomb attack.
Now as far as a male raped by a woman? That is in my opinion a case by case where as the opposite is not.
Ummmm yes. It can happen. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it never happens.
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
absolutbliss
Not to switch the subject around or get off topic, but is it really possible for a woman to rape a man? I'm on the fence with this one.....
I would have to say yes, it is possible for a woman to rape a man. Just because a man is physically aroused does not mean he has consented to having sex. If a man has become physically aroused and says no, then that still means no, regardless of if the woman is able to overpower him.
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
absolutbliss
Not to switch the subject around or get off topic, but is it really possible for a woman to rape a man? I'm on the fence with this one.....
I don't believe a guy has to have an erection in order to be raped. If a woman held a gun to guy's head and said "Lick me", that'd be rape too wouldn't it?
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jaizaine
About 4 years ago in Melbourne. The main thing that my essay was about (which is why I have read up on it) is the fact that defence lawyers are using counselling records of victims to show that the victim blames herself. I swear this stuff makes me furious. So now victims not only dont want to report rapes, they are scared to get counselling because they can get a court ordered release of the records.
:'(
Yes I agree this is very unfair.
If people are interested, I can dig up some court transcripts that I've saved from doing research on this topic, and you'd see some of the horrific things that women are subject to, either to discredit them or to provide some doubt that she was in fact consenting.
with regards to the OP, here's what the law in one state of Australia says:
lack of consent if "victim is asleep or drugged or drunk as to be incapable of freely agreeing" - 36(d) Crimes Act Vic
so there is NO presumption that being drunk = incapable. it is "drunk as to be incapable". So that would have to be basically approaching being comatose. The courts have said the victim has to be "unable" (Saibu) to resist/consent to satisfy this provision. That's a fairly high standard.
I've thought about how the law should respond to rape in depth. While I can see the potential for administrative abuse in terms of plea bargaining, etc. I think that the consent element for rape proper should be set very high (ACTUAL knowledge that the woman is NOT or ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT consenting + penetration),
and then we have an intermediate offense of "negligent penetration" or some other name where the prosecution would be required to prove an objective standard that requires penetration + "in circumstances where a REASONABLE PERSON IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES would know that the woman is PROBABLY not consenting", that carries a much lesser penalty. Say 3 years maximum, and no minimum sentence. Subject to the defense of "good faith payment for sexual services" and "woman was actually consenting"
This offense is totally objective, so there is no need for the woman's actual state of mind to be examined, and in this way we can shield the woman from the unfair treatment in court. It would be up to the defense to produce evidence to raise a reasonable doubt because the woman's consent is now a defense.
My rationale is that we've really got account for even the honest but dumb shits for a charge that carries such a big penalty AND social stigma, that the only way to resolve the tension between being too careful, and not careful enough, is an intermediate offense. Kind of like what's been done with Manslaughter.
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Army Sgt. is correct......the natural male reaction to fear (or the fight or flight response) includes retraction of muscles controlling the penis, and the testicles make a run for it too.
That's just the natural physical response....I've never heard of a man becoming erect while in fear; but I'm not denying it couldn't happen. It'd be at odds with physiology, that's all. Men with a predilection toward masochism are a whole other ball-game, certainly fear (particularly controlled fear) could cause that reaction. But that's simply not the norm. Unless there's a marked psychological dysfunction (as defined by the DSM-IV, not by me) fear for one's life does not cause sexual arousal.
LM- If you've got a source that I can check out that you got your info from, I'd like to read it. I'm always game for learning something new.
That's sort of a pointless argument anywho....rape has jack-shit nothing to do with arousal; it's about competent consent. Developmentally disabled adults that actually have sex by choice are considered "raped" by the law......because if you cannot give consent freely and uncoerced, you cannot consent. That's where statuatory rape comes into play as well. Consent cannot be given by a 15 year old whose partner is 20.....why? The 15 year old isn't fully informed, developed psychologically; and is almost certainly coerced by the older partner (subtly or otherwise). Those that are Drunk or High....perception is altered, as is ability to make decisions, thus informed consent goes out the window......so if someone is stumbling, barfing drunk, the likelihood of them making the same decisions while sober is almost nil (as the joke goes "No means No....or get me drunk and try again").
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
salsa4ever
I've thought about how the law should respond to rape in depth. While I can see the potential for administrative abuse in terms of plea bargaining, etc. I think that the consent element for rape proper should be set very high (ACTUAL knowledge that the woman is NOT or ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT consenting + penetration),
and then we have an intermediate offense of "negligent penetration" or some other name where the prosecution would be required to prove an objective standard that requires penetration + "in circumstances where a REASONABLE PERSON IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES would know that the woman is PROBABLY not consenting", that carries a much lesser penalty. Say 3 years maximum, and no minimum sentence. Subject to the defense of "good faith payment for sexual services" and "woman was actually consenting"
Actual knowledge is problematic because it leaves too much room for defences that are already used. I think if someone is reckless as to consent it should be enough.
Keep in mind that the maximum penalty for rape is 25 years imprisonment with the average sentence being about 2-3 years. As far as I am concerned the court are already far too lenient.
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Just a couple of fun tidbits since I don't normally get to toss them out:
The laws may have changed since then, but when I was in college I learned that it is legally impossible for a man to rape his wife in 19 US states. Meaning, if a man and wife have sex, consent is assumed.
In another 13 states, physical injury must be proved in addition to rape--evidence of striking, beating, etc.
Makes you go, "hmmmm."
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
^^^ Wild shit there, Dottie.
Also, in some states (I remember California being this way when I was there), if your arms & legs are bound (ala BDSM), penetration while bound = rape, consent or not. It made it so cam wenches on ifriends couldn't be tied up AND done at the same time.