[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[The Architect Of Fate]

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).

It has nothing to do with "liking " the act. Any attempt to sexually taking advantage of someone against their will is an act of violence this includes deception and fruad. You can quote all you like this statement is sound and your words ring hollow.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Moderator Notice
As a reminder, this is a ‘Serious’ thread. I get that this is a touchy topic, but insults of any kind are disallowed.

Boru

[vulcanlogician]

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.

Claiming to be single doesn't seem violent. Dishonest, absolutely. Only for rhetorical purposes would one lump that into the same sentence with the other two.

The other two ARE arguably acts of violence, and certainly represent unwanted sexual contact. I don't think that's controversial.

As for lying about marital status, you really have to strain your intellect to frame it as unwanted sexual contact. If you squint your eyes, it can appear so. But I think the case can be made that it doesn't count as violence.

If there is any "violation" of another person going on, it is only because lies in general can be said to "violate" people. In the end, I say, the first two items certainly count as unwelcome sexual contact... but lying about marital status... not so much.

[John 6IX Breezy]

In the end, I say, the first two items certainly count as unwelcome sexual contact... but lying about marital status... not so much.

Right; I think that is the default intuition that many people have, and which feminist legal scholars have attempted to argue against. Perhaps a less trivial example than marital status would be trans issues—should a trans person be required to disclose that information before having sex? In both cases, nothing about the actual sexual contact is changed by that information, only the meta-knowledge about their identity (e.g. married, not married, trans, not trans). And yet, knowing that the person you are sleeping with is trans, would more often than not change the person's consent.

Look through the link below. It's very long (and I myself have not read all of it), but you'll find the studies about marital status and consent there.

Article: Commonsense Consent

[Huggy Bear]

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.

But one is assumed innocent till proven guilty, correct?

[The Grand Nudger]

In a court, sure- but for obvious reasons you yourself point out..he was never going to be tried for that.

Just like you’re not in a court trying a case or being tried. Cosby is a rapist. None of the defenses you had for him then or now panned out. He ended up being aqcuited for reasons neither you ( nor his council at the time, so don’t feel bad) realized. Instead, you engaged in page after page of rape apologism, racism, and flights of fancy about the illegality of a recording.

You can’t let it go now, in this thread, which is a literal psa on rape apologism and the rules.

[Rev. Rye]

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.

But one is assumed innocent till proven guilty, correct?

In a court of law, yes, but this isn't really the case for the court of public opinion. And while I'm fully aware that sometimes, they can be disastrously wrong, when the evidence provided by the other 59 women who couldn't go to trial due to SoL issues is so fucking strong, it's not hard for me to see where they have a point.

[vulcanlogician]

In the end, I say, the first two items certainly count as unwelcome sexual contact... but lying about marital status... not so much.

Right; I think that is the default intuition that many people have, and which feminist legal scholars have attempted to argue against. Perhaps a less trivial example than marital status would be trans issues—should a trans person be required to disclose that information before having sex? In both cases, nothing about the actual sexual contact is changed by that information, only the meta-knowledge about their identity (e.g. married, not married, trans, not trans). And yet, knowing that the person you are sleeping with is trans, would more often than not change the person's consent.

Look through the link below. It's very long (and I myself have not read all of it), but you'll find the studies about marital status and consent there.

Article: Commonsense Consent

That's interesting. I feel like I should give it a read to see if it convinces me that my "folk intuitions" are inadequate.

[Huggy Bear]

Statute of limitations.

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?

It's not that I don't care, it just becomes a moot point, one is innocent till proven guilty.

Who is the onus on to press charges?

[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?

It's not that I don't care, it just becomes a moot point, one is innocent till proven guilty.

Who is the onus on to press charges?

Who said anything about pressing charges? I just want to know if you believe Bill Cosby is a rapist.