I have been following this thread with interest.. and have posted on here earlier on. This is taking me a lot to put this.. but I feel I have to.
When I was it wasn't by just one man... I had been set up. And they deliberately got me drunk. I can't remember much, and don't particularly want to either, but I kept saying no. I wasn't dressed in revealing clothes, and didn't put across to this person I wanted to end up in his house. As I previously stated, I felt I couldn't go to the police as I knew then that it would be my word against theirs, and because I couldn't remember exactly what happened, it would go against me.
As a result, I don't put myself in any situation where I think I might have trouble, and am vary wary and careful when I go out. I never drink alcohol when out on my own, and only in the company of someone I trust when I am out as a couple.
It is a VERY gray area... and something that the law needs to look at. I honestly feel sorry for those who have been falsely accused.. we recently had a case locally where a man was accused of , and it turned out the woman who accused him was late home, and told her husband she had been .. to make an excuse for her lateness. Luckily this man was vindicated, but it completely trashed his life....
Unless you have actually been through something like this, as I have, it is difficult to make assumptions.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Helen Mirren … right or wrong?
Sex God
Quote by Calista
I've highlighted the bit in red that I found pertinent. How far down the line do you take responsibility?
Does it lie with the man/woman who can see that the other person is so drunk and incoherent that it's impossible for them to comprehend the situation?
Does it lie with the person who is in the situation of facing being for not being in full possession of their faculties?
Does it lie with the bar staff who keep serving someone despite them being extremely drunk?
Dies it lie with the female who, being attractive and having a nice figure, choses to dress in a particular way?
Does it lie with the male who thinks the female as dressed above "deserves it"?
Or does it really lie with the person who just wants to go out for a good night, but gets *xxxxx* added to their drink?
You can trace responsibility right back to the "victim", because if they hadn't gone out etc.
There is no "inadvertently contributed to the situation", ultimately the responsibility lies with the person commiting the vile act of !
Sorry but I have to take issue with you here. We all do things that can sometimes be misinterpreted, which can catch us unawares, so to say that " … responsibility lies with the person commiting the vile act of …" inadvertently subscribes to the notion that all women are victims and all men are rapists. Both Helen MIrren and Anne Widdecombe would strongly disagree with you there.
It is a highly complicated issue in my view and one that probably requires a re-evaluation. If really is , then what is ? Is a violation in it's own right? Or is a feminist issue? And how we properly define it?
So rather than address my point you pick out the instance where I focused on the female? All the way through that post I said person to get away from all rapists are men, apart from the bit about clothing?
I'm not familiar with any cases that deal with a man wearing too short a skirt or showing too much cleavage, I wasn't aware that your average Joe had those specific problems? (although granted I am excluding TV/CD/TS from this aspect).
I agree that we misinterpret ourselves, but is never a misinterpretation, it is a violation. The person cannot be excused because of a misinterpretation.
And where I stand on it .. never will be a feminist issue! It's a societal issue.
I'm not familiar with any cases that deal with a man wearing too short a skirt or showing too much cleavage, I wasn't aware that your average Joe had those specific problems? (although granted I am excluding TV/CD/TS from this aspect).
I agree that we misinterpret ourselves, but is never a misinterpretation, it is a violation. The person cannot be excused because of a misinterpretation.
And where I stand on it .. never will be a feminist issue! It's a societal issue.
Sex God
Quote by Calista
So rather than address my point you pick out the instance where I focused on the female? All the way through that post I said person to get away from all rapists are men, apart from the bit about clothing?
I'm not familiar with any cases that deal with a man wearing too short a skirt or showing too much cleavage, I wasn't aware that your average Joe had those specific problems? (although granted I am excluding TV/CD/TS from this aspect).
I agree that we misinterpret ourselves, but is never a misinterpretation, it is a violation. The person cannot be excused because of a misinterpretation.
And where I stand on it .. never will be a feminist issue! It's a societal issue.
Sorry, but the main thrust of your argument strongly implied female. However I agree with you that it is a societal issue, and that is why I'd suggested a re-evaluation.
Quote by bbw_lover
It is a highly complicated issue in my view and one that probably requires a re-evaluation. If really is , then what is ? Is a violation in it's own right? Or is a feminist issue? And how we properly define it?
, as a definition is actually very simple. Non-consentual sex. When Person A has sex with Person B when it's clear that Person B does not give permission (either implied or explicit).
It's the circumstances that make it complex. Most cases of are pretty clear cut, but in certain, rare situations the 'rapee' has to take some (from a little to a lot depending on the circumstances) contributory responsibility. For example, a girl is picked up in a bar and agrees to go back to the hotel with a guy. At this point, although it isn't black and white yet, any reasonable adult of either sex would know that there is some likelihood of sex occurring. Said woman carries on up to the guy's room. They have a drink and some clothing is removed (voluntarily). again any adult would know that sex is highly likely to happen. They lay down and cuddle and have a diddle. At which point the woman says no. The guy carries on and has sex with her.
Yes, this is unequivocally and the guy should be punished. But due to the sequence of events and tacit agreement that woman has to take some responsibility for the ensuing .
So yes, is emotive, nasty and complex, but the victim isn't always blame free.
As is usual in these things I'm not saying anything to make light of a nasty crime, but sometimes things aren't always clear cut.
Sex God
Quote by Peanut
It is a highly complicated issue in my view and one that probably requires a re-evaluation. If really is , then what is ? Is a violation in it's own right? Or is a feminist issue? And how we properly define it?
, as a definition is actually very simple. Non-consentual sex. When Person A has sex with Person B when it's clear that Person B does not give permission (either implied or explicit).
It's the circumstances that make it complex. Most cases of are pretty clear cut, but in certain, rare situations the 'rapee' has to take some (from a little to a lot depending on the circumstances) contributory responsibility. For example, a girl is picked up in a bar and agrees to go back to the hotel with a guy. At this point, although it isn't black and white yet, any reasonable adult of either sex would know that there is some likelihood of sex occurring. Said woman carries on up to the guy's room. They have a drink and some clothing is removed (voluntarily). again any adult would know that sex is highly likely to happen. They lay down and cuddle and have a diddle. At which point the woman says no. The guy carries on and has sex with her.
Yes, this is unequivocally and the guy should be punished. But due to the sequence of events and tacit agreement that woman has to take some responsibility for the ensuing .
So yes, is emotive, nasty and complex, but the victim isn't always blame free.
As is usual in these things I'm not saying anything to make light of a nasty crime, but sometimes things aren't always clear cut.
:thumbup:
Thanks Peanut for a point well made. This highlights the precise difficulty with the subject, and it is further muddy by false accusations and on occasions peoples loss of memory due to excess alcohol etc. is , with that there is no doubt, but the circumstances that surround it are many and varied.
Sex God
Quote by Deviants
Back to the OP's question
In the scenario that Helen Mirren mentioned and commented on we both think she may have a point, and that it would be hard to prosecute in those circumstances.
:thumbup:
Thanks for your comment Deviants, and a well observed opinion.
Quote by Peanut
Yes, this is unequivocally and the guy should be punished. But due to the sequence of events and tacit agreement that woman has to take some responsibility for the ensuing .
So yes, is emotive, nasty and complex, but the victim isn't always blame free.
I absolutely disagree.
If someone got mugged walking down a dimly lit street, would we say that the victim person has to "take some responsiblity" for being mugged?
Was that person, by dint of putting themselves in a risk situation, giving tacit agreement to be mugged?
Would we be saying the mugging victim "isn't always blame free"?
Quote by Cherrytree
Yes, this is unequivocally and the guy should be punished. But due to the sequence of events and tacit agreement that woman has to take some responsibility for the ensuing .
So yes, is emotive, nasty and complex, but the victim isn't always blame free.
I absolutely disagree.
If someone got mugged walking down a dimly lit street, would we say that the victim person has to "take some responsiblity" for being mugged?
Was that person, by dint of putting themselves in a risk situation, giving tacit agreement to be mugged?
Would we be saying the mugging victim "isn't always blame free"?
Sorry, but you misread what I said about tacit agreement. The event I described was one where there was a tacit agreement that sex was about to take place. I did not mean that sex was about to take place regardless of any other consideration.
As for your mugging analogy, no, merely walking down a dimly lit street is not an agreement to be mugged, but walking down a dimly lit street in an area of town that is well known by the walker to be an area in which there is a high incidence of mugging is a different matter entirely.
ah yeah, ghettos of rapists that is what we should have. If any person happens to be walking in a certain area then they give up their rights to their own body.
I can see how it would be marketed too so that tourists know the places to go/avoid. A national handbook could be produced, key rings, postcards. It could really boost local economies.
I can see how it would be marketed too so that tourists know the places to go/avoid. A national handbook could be produced, key rings, postcards. It could really boost local economies.
Quote by splendid_
ah yeah, ghettos of rapists that is what we should have. If any person happens to be walking in a certain area then they give up their rights to their own body.
I can see how it would be marketed too so that tourists know the places to go/avoid. A national handbook could be produced, key rings, postcards. It could really boost local economies.
Yes, it's really unfair, but shit happens... mostly in the bad parts of town you think shouldn't exist.
Sexpert
<offtopic>
All very well suggesting people read the AUP when they infringe it, and Peanut may well know what it is....but (as someone who runs several forums)...it may be prudent to to the AUP when suggesting people read it, even if you don't explain what it is short for (many people won't have a scooby).
Fwiw, I was going to link to it above, but couldn't even find it.......
</offtopic>
All very well suggesting people read the AUP when they infringe it, and Peanut may well know what it is....but (as someone who runs several forums)...it may be prudent to to the AUP when suggesting people read it, even if you don't explain what it is short for (many people won't have a scooby).
Fwiw, I was going to link to it above, but couldn't even find it.......
</offtopic>
Sex God
AUP / ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
Found at the very bottom of the page
terms and policies/ parents block this site / webmasters
Found at the very bottom of the page
terms and policies/ parents block this site / webmasters
Quote by SteveClarke
<offtopic>
All very well suggesting people read the AUP when they infringe it, and Peanut may well know what it is....but (as someone who runs several forums)...it may be prudent to link to the AUP when suggesting people read it, even if you don't explain what it is short for (many people won't have a scooby).
Fwiw, I was going to link to it above, but couldn't even find it.......
</offtopic>
I'm confused, who mentioned the AUP and why did I get mentioned?
And yes I do know where and what it is and what it contains.
Sex God
Quote by Peanut
I'm confused,
Me to
Quote by Misskitty_2008
Keeno, I'm wondering why no-one has responded to my previous comment... this has actually happened to me.. yet no responses.....
I'm sorry if I offended you but I don't think arguing over if someone knows where the AUP helps.
I read your post and I really didn't know what to say. Sorry.
Keeno, I think you misunderstood me.... I didn't mean about the AUP, I meant about the fact that I HAD been , and had posted a comment about it, yet no one responded to it...
I totally understand what you mean about not knowing what to say... I guess that is why no one has responded.
I think it is all very well people making comments about the situation, but as I have previously stated.. you have NO IDEA what its like until you have gone through it.....
I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy......
I'm sorry if I offended you but I don't think arguing over if someone knows where the AUP helps.
I read your post and I really didn't know what to say. Sorry.
I totally understand what you mean about not knowing what to say... I guess that is why no one has responded.
I think it is all very well people making comments about the situation, but as I have previously stated.. you have NO IDEA what its like until you have gone through it.....
I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy......
Quote by keeno
Keeno, I'm wondering why no-one has responded to my previous comment... this has actually happened to me.. yet no responses.....
I'm sorry if I offended you but I don't think arguing over if someone knows where the AUP helps.
I read your post and I really didn't know what to say. Sorry.
I can only talk about this as me and I have no experience of .
Crimes against people are very different from crimes against property. Compensation can be calculated if a car is destroyed. You have an insurance value on your possessions.
But , assualt are personal and cannot be given a monetary value. But our legal system is based on money. What can you do?
Sorry MissKItty I think I just rambled round the subject again
Crimes against people are very different from crimes against property. Compensation can be calculated if a car is destroyed. You have an insurance value on your possessions.
But , assualt are personal and cannot be given a monetary value. But our legal system is based on money. What can you do?
Sorry MissKItty I think I just rambled round the subject again
Funnily enough, when I spoke to a crisis worker, they said I could claim from the criminal injuries for emotional distress... but I would have to go to court first. I have in my own way come to terms with it, and it has made me the strong person I am today.
And keeno, my friend.. no apologies needed ok?
And keeno, my friend.. no apologies needed ok?
Quote by keeno
I can only talk about this as me and I have no experience of .
Crimes against people are very different from crimes against property. Compensation can be calculated if a car is destroyed. You have an insurance value on your possessions.
But , assualt are personal and cannot be given a monetary value. But our legal system is based on money. What can you do?
Sorry MissKItty I think I just rambled round the subject again
Quote by Deviants
No must mean no, its the only way that can distinguish between whats wrong or right and the law must be clear about that.
What is worth considering is the element of people who would cry when its not so. For most people this idea would seem anathema but we all know it can and does happen i'm sure. How do you then limit the damage caused to the recipient of such an allegation?
Just throwing this in to the arena and in no way decrying the severity of the crime of and the effect on the victims.
In fairness though, she was talking about a woman actualy having consentual sex, then saying no at the end, yes no means no and we all agree on that.
Take this scenario:
Two couples visit a swinging club, have a chat and a drink then all decide to go into a playroom, they get down to the nitty gritty with their own partners and after 10 minutes or so they swap partners, five minutes later while in the throws of passion one of the females says NO, the male is too busy going full pelt to notice and carries on but the female then screams NO then pushes him off.
Is this ?
No I dont think you can call this , I have had this happen to me ( only cos it was a bit too big) I had to say stop twice but I didnt for one minute think the guy hadnt stopped because he chose to ignore me.
Quote by Misskitty_2008
This is why.....
If no means yes then what's the bloody point in xxxxxxx?
:twisted:
Mods Edit: I have edited the name of the drug from your post. Please read the AUP.
Well that's bollocks as far as I'm concerned. If they want to censor me then fine that's their choice but I'm fucked if I'm going to do it on their behalf.
In any case if some jobsworth mod wants to be pernickety then this whole thread is against the AUP.
I fucking hate adult censorship, especially when there's hypocrisy thrown in.
Sex God
Quote by Cherrytree
Yes, this is unequivocally and the guy should be punished. But due to the sequence of events and tacit agreement that woman has to take some responsibility for the ensuing .
So yes, is emotive, nasty and complex, but the victim isn't always blame free.
I absolutely disagree.
If someone got mugged walking down a dimly lit street, would we say that the victim person has to "take some responsiblity" for being mugged?
Was that person, by dint of putting themselves in a risk situation, giving tacit agreement to be mugged?
Would we be saying the mugging victim "isn't always blame free"?
Actually the law does take that into account. If the 'victim' knowingly puts themselves in a dangerous or risky situation, they are generally seen as being culpable.
Quote by bbw_lover
Actually the law does take that into account. If the 'victim' knowingly puts themselves in a dangerous or risky situation, they are generally seen as being culpable.
Pah! All that means is if I wear a short skirt and go out for a drink then 'mea culpa', not the person taking advantage of that?
Sex God
Quote by Calista
Actually the law does take that into account. If the 'victim' knowingly puts themselves in a dangerous or risky situation, they are generally seen as being culpable.
Pah! All that means is if I wear a short skirt and go out for a drink then 'mea culpa', not the person taking advantage of that?
Sadly that used to be the case! Most legal professionals try not to make such crass judgments anymore, but I suspect it probably still happens more than it should.
Just for those who commented about the AUP.. this is what it says....
Anything illegal and contrary to the laws of England and Wales, including (but not limited to!) the promotion, suggestion or allusion to , or any non consensual acts, drugs (including the misuse of prescribed medicines or the mention of Viagra and Poppers) or any other kind of illegal activity.
Please correct me if I am wrong.. but is the OP thread about what someone has said about and is not promoting etc etc.. ?
Anything illegal and contrary to the laws of England and Wales, including (but not limited to!) the promotion, suggestion or allusion to , or any non consensual acts, drugs (including the misuse of prescribed medicines or the mention of Viagra and Poppers) or any other kind of illegal activity.
Please correct me if I am wrong.. but is the OP thread about what someone has said about and is not promoting etc etc.. ?
