[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[LadyForCamus]

So you don’t actually care if he raped someone. As long as he can’t be held accountable by the legal system you’re good with it?

There's nothing wrong with defending the statute of limitations. In one of my classes on human memory we studied a phenomenon that occurred sometime mid-1900s in which people were being accused of rape because of false childhood memories suggested under hypnosis, and later by the media

Such limitations protect all parties involved. There's no reason why someone who brings this up should be in danger of excommunication from the forum.

I’m not arguing against a statute of limitations. That’s an entirely different discussion. I’m asking Huggy if 58 accusers against one man is reason enough to conclude he’s likely a rapist. Huggy is the one who brought statute of limitations into the conversation. And no, I’m not trying to “trap” anyone into getting in trouble with the rules.

[Pat Mustard]

It's unclear how my comments (which stem from feminist legal scholars) unequivocally promote sexual assault, downplay sexual assault, or victim-blame. Clearly, the "not limited to" clause is insidious in nature.

Moderator Notice
Insulting language removed.

[Rev. Rye]

@Huggy Bear

What are your excuses for the other 58 women?

Statute of limitations.

A point which only means they can't legally file charges against him, and does not speak to whether or not he actually did it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Because you are lyingly claiming that rape isn't a violent act, you useless sack of shit.

Are you aware that feminist legal scholars argue that use of fraud to procure sex ought to be covered under rape laws? This includes taking off your condom without her knowledge, lying about sexually transmitted diseases, and even claiming to be single when you are actually married.

Individuals such as yourself, tend to not view such acts as rape, precisely because of outdated views on consent and violence. Take a look at this article and it's accompanying psychological studies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/opini...gin-google

[Rev. Rye]

A couple of you are really hung up on the concept that people just falsely accuse others of rape on the regular.

I once was falsely accused of rape. When i went to a lawer he told me: "I am doing this for over 20y now, and so far i think two of my clients were innocent. You are the second".

For the record, the largest study on the subject I've seen suggests that the rate of false accusations of rape is 5.5%. Nowhere near enough to treat this as a default assumption, but, in my eyes, too prevalent to just write this off as something rare.

To put this into perspective, if the stats from RAINN and the study I linked to are any indication, for every false rape accusation, 60 actual rapes happen (and 40 aren't reported to the cops).

[The Architect Of Fate]

Are you aware that feminist legal scholars argue that use of fraud to procure sex ought to be covered under rape laws? This includes taking off your condom without her knowledge, lying about sexually transmitted diseases, and even claiming to be single when you are actually married.

Individuals such as yourself, tend to not view such acts as rape, precisely because of outdated views on consent and violence. Take a look at this article and it's accompanying psychological studies:

All of those can be regarded as acts of violence

---

There's nothing wrong with defending the statute of limitations. In one of my classes on human memory we studied a phenomenon that occurred sometime mid-1900s in which people were being accused of rape because of false childhood memories suggested under hypnosis, and later by the media

Such limitations protect all parties involved. There's no reason why someone who brings this up should be in danger of excommunication from the forum.

It had nothing to do with the statutes of limitation. Huggy was celebrating the fact a rapist went free.

[John 6IX Breezy]

All of those can be regarded as acts of violence

Perhaps within your personal philosophy. But calling anything you don't like an act of violence is cognitively and linguistically impoverished; it also dilutes the meaning of the word beyond utility. As it stands, power can be exercised without violence, fraud can deceive without violence, and force can exist without violence (see Hazel v State, 1960).

[Ranjr]

Perhaps within your personal philosophy. But calling anything you don't like an act of violence is cognitively and linguistically impoverished; it also dilutes the meaning of the word beyond utility. As it stands, power can be exercised without violence, fraud can deceive without violence, and force can exist without violence (see Hazel v State, 1960).

Is nonviolent rape less abhorrent than violent rape?

[Mermaid]

This fascinates me, this pointless hair-splitting.

[Pat Mustard]

Perhaps within your personal philosophy. But calling anything you don't like an act of violence is cognitively and linguistically impoverished; it also dilutes the meaning of the word beyond utility. As it stands, power can be exercised without violence, fraud can deceive without violence, and force can exist without violence (see Hazel v State, 1960).

Is nonviolent rape less abhorrent than violent rape?

I would imagine that an imaginary act is less abhorrent than a real one.