Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TA]

It's the ex-boyfriend that was being discharged, not the patsy.  Patsy works in a radiology department.

[NexAdruin]

I don't know if I have an "argument," other than "this is horrible," which isn't likely to be contested. Either the guy is actually oblivious, or he repressed the knowledge that what he was doing is wrong. He should be punished regardless.

[Norondor]

Oh, i am mistaken. He gets his head cut off twice, then.

[TA]

Why should he be punished for being oblivious?  What purpose could sending him to jail for 5-50 years and mandatory sex offender registration possibly serve?

[NexAdruin]

Why should he be punished for being oblivious?  What purpose could sending him to jail for 5-50 years and mandatory sex offender registration possibly serve?

For the same reason it's a crime to have sex with a 16 year old even if she says she's 18.

[Norondor]

Why should he be punished for being oblivious?  What purpose could sending him to jail for 5-50 years and mandatory sex offender registration possibly serve?

Well. ordinarily showing improper mindfulness is probably not serious enough a charge to merit serious punishment, but in this case, it led to the man inflicting serious harm and trauma on an unwilling victim. There's a point at which mere foolishness becomes criminal, and it's way, way before this.

[Doom]

Why should he be punished for being oblivious?

It doesn't necessarily apply but "Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse" is about as basic as it gets.

The main thing is that the suspension of disbelief falls apart at there being no face-to-face or "safety check." It is phenomenal bad judgement on Rape-Patsy's part to not go over and ask for tea before the night of the Big DateRapeDateRape. It'd be like a story about somebody who kills themselves during a solo Auto-erotic Asphyxia session. Just because you are doing Some Kinky Shit doesn't mean that you can skimp on common sense and a standard of safety.

Also Also: "Hey, I want you to do X, and if I object in the future, ignore me" is such an ancient trick that it is almost comically bad. "NO NO DON'T RAPE ME" HAHAHA YES IN YOUR IM YOU SAID YOU'D SAY THIS HAVE SOME RAPE!

In all honesty I'd say TA raises some valid concerns that are less going to get this guy off the hook and more add some Draconian Double-Checks to sites like Craigslist and maybe Internet Dating Sites in general. This is America, Rape Patsy is getting a Jail Vacation just to make things nice and thorough.

[TA]

This is ignorance of facts, not ignorance of the law.  The "ignorance of the law" thing is completely different.

I'm not sure you're gonna get anyone suggesting that he didn't exercise some bad judgment, but bad judgment is different from unreasonable judgment.  Yeah, from my perspective of someone who's spent years on the internet, he should have been a lot more careful, and yeah, the information he had doesn't really justify blind faith in identity, but given the context of the situation, is it fundamentally unreasonable to take someone at their word?  Belief doesn't preclude doubt, and pushing that doubt aside, while in this case a really dumb thing to do, doesn't negate that belief.

People are not perfect actors.  That's kind of the point of the reasonableness standard.

[Doom]

is it fundamentally unreasonable to take someone at their word?

When the context is "if I read the situation wrong, I'm going to jail for tens of years."

The guy needs rehabilitation but beyond that I'm not really fit to judge how long he should be imprisoned and nothing meaningful is going to come of him being raped there. Color me neutral.

[Norondor]

And he displayed unreasonable stupidity in his actions, and seriously harmed someone else. There is no reason to assume someone stupid enough to rape someone else at knifepoint is not stupid enough to do something similarly foolish and harmful in the future.

I appreciate the need to play devil's advocate, but it's hard to argue that either man accused in this crime should be permitted to have any life from here on, or perhaps even be allowed to live.

[Ted Belmont]

Let's replace rape with kittens.

Actually I was going to make a larger point beyond that, but I think I'll stop right there, because the world would be a much better place if rapists just gave people kittens instead of, you know, raping them.

[Royal☭]

If this man were tricked into buying a shitty time-share condo, making a faulty investment or any other act that put him personally out I'd feel for him in the situation.  But the reality is he raped a woman.  And whether or not he felt like he had permission is irrelevant, as the outcome is still the same.  Yeah, he made bad decisions and was duped, but in this case they get elevated to criminal negligence because of the severity of the actions.  We aren't calling him a rapist and a piece of trash because he wanted to participate in or thought he was fulfilling a rape fantasy.   We're calling him a rapist because he actually raped a woman.  And his ignorance of the situation doesn't change that.

[SCD]

This isn't a matter of draconian laws, though.  This is a matter of a girl being raped.  And it doesn't change that fact just because the rapist thought it was okay for him to do so.

My blurb was more for the lot of you if you find yourself in the same situation   - the message is don't leave anything to chance, as the best case scenario is not pretty at all.  Otherwise I could not agree with you more.  Let the draconian consequences follow these two people.

Both male parties need the book thrown at them hard, and I suspect that's what they will get.  The malicious actions taken by the Ex/service member have no place in western society.  The actions taken by the actual rapist are also inexcusable, as either he raped someone knowingly against her will, or his ignorance to check up in the situation resulted in him willingly rape a lass against her will.

The semantics are twisted, but the result is the same and what needs to be done is based on the result. 

[Kazz]

i don't give a good god-damn what the law says.  the rapist should be tortured to death over a period of years.  he ignored the woman saying "NO NO STOP" end of story.  that's all i need to hear.

[Brentai]

That line of thinking is a good way to send a lot of people up the river on what amounts to an anti-sodomy law.

[Kazz]

no, no

an excellent way

[Catloaf]

When you say anti-sodomy law, do you mean that it won't be enforced, but rather just slapped on in addition to other crimes?  Or do you mean that the legal wording in such a law would almost necessarily word the definition of rape, as sodomy, or that of consensual sex, as not including sodomy?  Or is it because you can't say no with a cock in your mouth?

[NexAdruin]

i don't give a good god-damn what the law says.  the rapist should be tortured to death over a period of years.  he ignored the woman saying "NO NO STOP" end of story.  that's all i need to hear.

So, I guess it sucks for anyone that actually has a rape fantasy, even if they sign contracts saying "when I say 'no,' I'm just playing along." Obviously in this case you'd be right, but what about the thousands (if not millions) of cases of legitimate role-playing?

[Brentai]

Millions is kind of a ridiculous number, but otherwise yeah that.

Anti-sodomy usually means outlawing an act considered obscene by the State, but otherwise kept between consenting adults.  Like, blowjobs used to be (and maybe still are) illegal in some places.  Stuff like that.

I guess at some point I should admit I'm only humoring Kazz here.

[Mongrel]

...

I can't take it anymore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0wmYJ3yj0c