Rape victim is coveted status - George Wills

[nehalem256]

So, your position is that he's innocent because women lie?

His position is that her story told 6 weeks after the encounter is filled with kindas and sortas. Which makes it sounds like she has had 6 weeks to obfuscate what really happened.

And, if you take the woman's statements at face value, he is guilty of at least sexual assault.

If you take her words at face value she was "kind of" into him "raping" her.

 

[MrPickins]

It has to come to this when people decide that lack of resistance seems to mean consent.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Matt1970]

..... someone that would rather be raped than go through the hassle of saying no a second time?

I think this is where I will drop out of this. If you people think someone would rather be raped than have to actually have to utter a word a second time, you are out of your fucking minds. You can call me all the names in the world if you want, but that just defies all logic.

 

[shira]

It has to come to this when people decide the word LET doesn't seem to mean consent.

Suppose there were three sentences missing from the story, in which the woman said, "When we were a couple, if I told him I wasn't in the mood he would get angry and verbally abusive, telling me that I was fat and ugly, and that I should be thankful that a man wanted to have sex with me. And whenever that happened, although I eventually gave in to him about the sex, I always felt depressed all the next day. The only way to avoid getting depressed was to basically give in to him whenever he wanted sex."

And after those three sentences she said, "So I let him have sex with me."

Do you think that would change your opinion about whether the ex-boyfriend's actions constituted rape?

 

[michal1980]

Suppose there were a couple of sentences missing from the story, in which the woman said, "When we were a couple, if I told him I wasn't in the mood he would get angry and verbally abusive, telling me that I was fat and ugly, and that I should be thankful that a man wanted to have sex with me. And whenever that happened, although I eventually gave in to him about the sex, I always felt depressed all the next day."

And after those two sentences she said, "So I let him have sex with me."

Do you think that would change your opinion about whether the ex-boyfriend's actions constituted rape?

of course, but why are you continuing on the man is guilty store line? It could just as easily be that she omitted a lot of facts to make it seem that way.

 

[justoh]

Suppose there were a couple of sentences missing from the story, in which the woman said, "When we were a couple, if I told him I wasn't in the mood he would get angry and verbally abusive, telling me that I was fat and ugly, and that I should be thankful that a man wanted to have sex with me. And whenever that happened, although I eventually gave in to him about the sex, I always felt depressed all the next day."

And after those two sentences she said, "So I let him have sex with me."

Do you think that would change your opinion about whether the ex-boyfriend's actions constituted rape?

You don't need to add any facts, as obviously compulsion doesn't require actual violence. The threat is enough. Don't know why you people let them get to you. Doesn't excuse your own biases though, as we don't know whether such a threat existed.

 

[nehalem256]

Suppose there were three sentences missing from the story, in which the woman said, "When we were a couple, if I told him I wasn't in the mood he would get angry and verbally abusive, telling me that I was fat and ugly, and that I should be thankful that a man wanted to have sex with me. And whenever that happened, although I eventually gave in to him about the sex, I always felt depressed all the next day. The only way to avoid getting depressed was to basically give in to him whenever he wanted sex."

And after those three sentences she said, "So I let him have sex with me."

Do you think that would change your opinion about whether the ex-boyfriend's actions constituted rape?

Calling someone fat and ugly isn't rape.

 

[shira]

of course, but why are you continuing on the man is guilty store line? It could just as easily be that she omitted a lot of facts to make it seem that way.

My 7,777th post:

Of course the facts could be otherwise, and the man innocent. But for some reason, all of the right-wingers in this thread are are pretending that the word "let" - obviously provided out of context - means that the woman gave consent. And yet when shown that "let" can have a quite different interpretation from "consent" when a context is provided, you're pretending that we're treating the man unfairly.

 

[justoh]

My 7,777th post:

Of course the facts could be otherwise, and the man innocent. But for some reason, all of the right-wingers in this thread are are pretending that the word "let" - obviously provided out of context - means that the woman gave consent. And yet when shown that "let" can have a quite different interpretation from "consent" when a context is provided, you're pretending that we're treating the man unfairly.

Let without compulsion would suggest consent was present. You assume there was compulsion. They assume there wasn't. Seems like the same shit.

 

[Linflas]

Only comment I have on this entire thread is that when you set up a system where one person is presumed to be telling the absolute truth absent any corroborating evidence be it a child, a woman, a minority solely because they would have no reason to lie you have set up a system where justice is not blind.

 

[nehalem256]

My 7,777th post:

Of course the facts could be otherwise, and the man innocent. But for some reason, all of the right-wingers in this thread are are pretending that the word "let" - obviously provided out of context - means that the woman gave consent. And yet when shown that "let" can have a quite different interpretation from "consent" when a context is provided, you're pretending that we're treating the man unfairly.

Context is provided though. She says that the reason she "let" him is that she was tired and wanted to sleep.

So in other words. Rather than deal with him continuing to nag her she decided to let him have sex with her. She made a choice.

 

[Daverino]

You are just being dishonest. Find me a definition of the word let that would tend to say it doesn't mean consent.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/let

ctrl+f 'To give permission' Phrase not found!
ctrl+f 'conesnt' Phrase not found!

'Iraqi forces were in retreat today, letting ISIS capture the town of Sammara.'
'I forgot to close my window and let my books get wet from the rain.'
'I had no means of stopping him, so I had to let him go.'
'I could either drop the coffee or the baby, so I let the coffee fall.'
'Halsey let Taffy 3 be attacked when he allowed his forces to be diverted north by the Japanese decoy.'
'Because the store didn't have a metal detector, they let the thief walk right out without raising an alarm.'

Shall we go on?

 

[shira]

Let without compulsion would suggest consent was present. You assume there was compulsion. They assume there wasn't. Seems like the same shit.

I'm not assuming anything. Unlike many other posters in this thread, I don't know if rape was or wasn't committed.

 

[realibrad]

My 7,777th post:

Of course the facts could be otherwise, and the man innocent. But for some reason, all of the right-wingers in this thread are are pretending that the word "let" - obviously provided out of context - means that the woman gave consent. And yet when shown that "let" can have a quite different interpretation from "consent" when a context is provided, you're pretending that we're treating the man unfairly.

Thats because the word let can "sometimes" mean consent. For example.

Guy: hey, I'm horny.
Girl: meh, I'm tired, can we just go to sleep?
Guy: come on, its been a while and you said earlier we could tonight.

Guy then crawls on top, and the girlfriend says nothing, but "let" him finish. Afterward...

Girl: That was kinda fun, I guess I wanted it more than I thought.

There is a context there, that is very likely common, and its that they are a couple. The question is if negations where the woman may not want sex, but consents because she feels obligated, is that rape?

The common belief is that Rape is Rape, as if anything is ever that black and white. There is also the question of is all types of rape just as bad? I don't think the legal definition of rape is really doing anyone any favors.

 

[nehalem256]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/let

ctrl+f 'To give permission' Phrase not found!
ctrl+f 'conesnt' Phrase not found!

'Iraqi forces were in retreat today, letting ISIS capture the town of Sammara.'
'I forgot to close my window and let my books get wet from the rain.'
'I had no means of stopping him, so I had to let him go.'
'I could either drop the coffee or the baby, so I let the coffee fall.'
'Halsey let Taffy 3 be attacked when he allowed his forces to be diverted north by the Japanese decoy.'
'Because the store didn't have a metal detector, they let the thief walk right out without raising an alarm.'

Shall we go on?

Or in this case:

I could either say no, or let him have sex with me.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm not assuming anything. Unlike many other posters in this thread, I don't know if rape was or wasn't committed.

Agreed. I just believe that a dude who has sex with a disinterested woman is an asshole.

 

[Exophase]

Suppose there were three sentences missing from the story, in which the woman said, "When we were a couple, if I told him I wasn't in the mood he would get angry and verbally abusive, telling me that I was fat and ugly, and that I should be thankful that a man wanted to have sex with me. And whenever that happened, although I eventually gave in to him about the sex, I always felt depressed all the next day. The only way to avoid getting depressed was to basically give in to him whenever he wanted sex."

And after those three sentences she said, "So I let him have sex with me."

Do you think that would change your opinion about whether the ex-boyfriend's actions constituted rape?

But she didn't say anything like that.

Had she said that she let him do it because she was afraid of him that would have painted a completely different picture than the one she did. And if that's what happened then she has zero plausible motivation not to say it that way, unless she is protecting this guy - in which case she's probably better suited not saying anything at all.

Once again here is what she actually said:

"I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep."

If you want to argue this was a creep who raped the woman and it was morally acceptable that's fine - I think so too. But if you want to argue that she let him do it because she felt threatened then you're just plain wrong, unless she lied about her story. Not an omission, a lie. Something supported by zero evidence. And if you think this you're not really any better than the people assuming she lied about saying no in the first place.

 

[shira]

Context is provided though. She says that the reason she "let" him is that she was tired and wanted to sleep.

So in other words. Rather than deal with him continuing to nag her she decided to let him have sex with her. She made a choice.

It's great that you know the full context of the interaction between the woman and her ex-boyfriend. All I've seen is the scanty information provided in the OP. Can you provide the rest of us with a link to your source for the un-edited statements from all relevant parties in this case?

 

[shira]

But she didn't say anything like that.

Had she said that she let him do it because she was afraid of him that would have painted a completely different picture than the one she did. And she had zero reason not to say this. She said:

"I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep."

If you want to argue this was a creep who raped the woman and it was morally acceptable that's fine - I think so too. But if you want to argue that she let him do it because she felt threatened then you're just plain wrong, unless she lied about her story. Not an omission, a lie. And you have zero reason to believe that. And if you think this you're not really any better than the people assuming she lied about saying no in the first place.

Please read my previous post. You seem to have access to all of the testimony that will be made in this case rather than the three sentences quoted in the OP.

 

[fskimospy]

only difference is that you aren't serving on a jury currently. If you were, you'd be more considered? Why not get into the habit of always holding reasoned opinions, even when a man's life isn't on the line.

That's definitely not the only difference, as the standard of guilt and innocence for jury action are different than the standards of evidence I hold for things in life. Preponderance of the evidence vs beyond reasonable doubt, for example. I feel perfectly comfortable thinking that OJ is a murderer, but if I were on the jury perhaps I would not have convicted.

I would suggest that you try to hold a more reasoned opinion on how people consider evidence available to them.

 

[justoh]

That's definitely not the only difference, as the standard of guilt and innocence for jury action are different than the standards of evidence I hold for things in life. Preponderance of the evidence vs beyond reasonable doubt, for example. I feel perfectly comfortable thinking that OJ is a murderer, but if I were on the jury perhaps I would not have convicted.

I would suggest that you try to hold a more reasoned opinion on how people consider evidence available to them.

Yeah because rhetorically asking "how is this not sexual assault?" demonstrates your preponderance standard of more likely than not used for "things in life."

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah because rhetorically asking "how is this not sexual assault?" demonstrates your preponderance standard of more likely than not used for "things in life."

My view of the discussion was based entirely around the depiction given in the article. This was not a fact finding discussion for me in terms of "did this happen the way she described?" It was a discussion of "given this set of circumstances is this sexual assault?" I think it is. Hopefully you understand that conceptual discussions use given facts in order to clearly examine the issues present.

You appear desperate to turn this into a guilt or innocence issue for this guy despite me telling you repeatedly that I have no position on that and no interest in discussing it. It is unclear to me why you are so intent on arguing this with me, considering that.

Are you arguing just to argue? Are you mad about something else that you would like to discuss?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Please read my previous post. You seem to have access to all of the testimony that will be made in this case rather than the three sentences quoted in the OP.

The three sentences is all the information we have to go on and that's enough to make a reasonable person raise an eyebrow in my opinion. However, to make definitive judgements based on such limited information is folly.

 

[justoh]

My view of the discussion was based entirely around the depiction given in the article. This was not a fact finding discussion for me in terms of "did this happen the way she described?" It was a discussion of "given this set of circumstances is this sexual assault?" I think it is. Hopefully you understand that conceptual discussions use given facts in order to clearly examine the issues present.

You appear desperate to turn this into a guilt or innocence issue for this guy despite me telling you repeatedly that I have no position on that and no interest in discussing it. It is unclear to me why you are so intent on arguing this with me, considering that.

Are you arguing just to argue? Are you mad about something else that you would like to discuss?

Was that around or on/upon the article? And what else could it have been based on, mr fatuous? From the start you've indicated that you think this person is guilty, by any standard of evidence, including the normal one used in criminal law that your ilk is trying to abrogate for sexual assault, as referenced in the article.

 

[fskimospy]

Was that around or on/upon the article? And what else could it have been based on, mr fatuous? From the start you've indicated that you think this person is guilty, by any standard of evidence, including the normal one used in criminal law that your ilk is trying to abrogate for sexual assault, as referenced in the article.

I'm not sure why you're continuing to try and argue my intent or state of mind on the issue other than to argue for its own sake. I told you my perspective on the issue, you are welcome to take it or leave it.

I guess this is one of those cases where if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, huh?