Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6398)

Bloggingheads 12-27-2010 01:23 AM

WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 

Olavus 12-27-2010 07:07 AM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Keep pants on while in Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Lindberg

DenvilleSteve 12-27-2010 07:48 AM

left wingers really are different
 
why is the left so interested in this story? Nothing better to do, maybe? There are interesting aspects to this story. Is it true that so many in government had access to these documents? And only 1 person leaked them? Both assertions are hard to believe. Yet the focus of the left is date rape and leg humping.

When the country splits apart, I worry the democrat states will be so dysfunctional they will be a threat to the republican states.

kezboard 12-27-2010 07:51 AM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
A big red flag

Tara Davis 12-27-2010 11:17 AM

Re: left wingers really are different
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 193066)
why is the left so interested in this story? Nothing better to do, maybe? There are interesting aspects to this story. Is it true that so many in government had access to these documents? And only 1 person leaked them? Both assertions are hard to believe. Yet the focus of the left is date rape and leg humping.

When the country splits apart, I worry the democrat states will be so dysfunctional they will be a threat to the republican states.

To be fair, there are plenty of people on the right who would also rather focus on what a sleazy character he might be than any government misbehavior which comes to light as the story develops. It seems only we libertarian crackpots care at all about anything beyond the celebrity gossip angle.

Peter Twieg 12-27-2010 12:32 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
The juxtaposition of Marcotte's assertion that PUA-types are motivated by anger towards women against Tkacik's annoyance at being accused of hating America was amusing.

I actually thought the last minute or so was pretty interesting, however. I've had friends express guilt over "sexually assaulting" their boyfriends with oral sex while they're asleep. Tkacik's apparently not knowing the Proper Sexual Manners here could have easily put her on the on the wrong side of the law. But, of course, this is used as a strawman because Proper Sexual Manners of the kind that Marcotte wants to push does deem it as sexual assault (unless it was explicitly raised and consented to beforehand), but anyone who would actually press that sort of charge would be emasculating himself, and also would inconvenience the millions of guys who would certainly not mind this sort of transgression.

More broadly, taking a purely consent-base approach to resolving sexual disputes seems about as naive as libertarians who want to use contracts to govern the proper scope of all social interactions. This isn't to say that consent isn't important, but that consent only works as a concept insofar as it's mutually-understood, and there's no way that the allowed scope of a sexual interaction will ever be made explicit, and so we have to have social norms and - failing that - common-law principles that adjudicate the grey areas of what each act of consent should have been understood to mean. I think feminists are unwilling to engage this battle because there will be a lot of "no means yes" norms accepted that they'd find frustrating, but the alternative explicit-consent approach is pretty limited, and it'll be extremely problematic if it's at odds with actual sexual mores (such as the "good morning" blowjob being perfectly acceptable and possibly even awesome.) The key, in my opinion, is changing the norms of what's acceptable in a bottom-up manner.

Anyways, it would have been nice to have someone like Cathy Young feature who could make a stronger case regarding the problems with using criminal law to adjudicate these kinds of cases, but.. perhaps another day.

epiphanius 12-27-2010 01:53 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Amanda said that "having sex with an unconscious person is still rape, even if consent is given afterwards"

I can't believe an adult said this. Waking up to lovemaking is a perfectly normal adult behaviour in an atmosphere of mutual trust. To say this is always rape is to devalue the idea of rape completely.

Good discussion though...

db63 12-27-2010 02:36 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Amanda's view of human nature is pretty much right on, while Moe's is a bit naive and odd.

Graybeard 12-27-2010 02:44 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Instead of two radical feminists, one of them a well known loon, why not one serious radical feminist and an interlocutor who will challenge her point of view?

Jay J 12-27-2010 02:53 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Not positive about this, but I thought Amanda Marcotte said that in the U.S., it's deemed rape by the law (without commenting on whether that's good or not). Can you do a dingalink or tell me the point in the diavlog where she said it should be considered rape?

Just askin, cuz my immediate impression is different than yours.

AemJeff 12-27-2010 02:54 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Graybeard (Post 193084)
Instead of two radical feminists, one of them a well known loon, why not one serious radical feminist and an interlocutor who will challenge her point of view?

A "loon?" Because she still believes a woman was raped by the Duke lacrosse team? I doubt that that counts as a diagnosis.

(And, btw, when does feminism become "radical?" Is there some particular aspect of belief in inequality that crosses the line from plain old feminism to radical feminism, or does anybody who believes that women deserve the same treatment as men qualify?)

Jay J 12-27-2010 03:17 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Hey Jeff,

It's been too long since we've mixed it up, so here goes:

I'm not sure why Maureen Tkacik counts, but in Amanda Marcotte's case, we have a good example of someone who can illustrate the difference between plain old feminism and radical feminism.

Marcotte had no qualms about referring to God giving Mary his "hot, white, sticky, holy spirit." In order to be a feminist, one need not hold the idea that religion and ideas like the Virgin Birth have primarily served to reinforce the patriarchy.

As for the Duke Lacrosse case, she was cocksure that the accused were guilty, and she didn't mind using very emotionally charged ways of characterizing the state of affairs as she saw it.

In the diavlog, she said we should have a conversation about possibly making "condom slips" illegal (this isn't that big a deal, it just seems like if you listen to her for very long, her concerns seems to be manifested in a way that leans in one direction).

Now, perhaps some of what you're pushing back against is the implication that anyone who can rightly be called a "radical" should be dismissed. I don't think that. But I don't see how anyone familiar with Marcotte's views and style would object to someone seeing her as radical, at least at first glance. I don't know exactly where she resides on the political spectrum (although I know it's left of center) so maybe at the end of the day she's not actually radical. But her underlying view of the world motivates her to downgrade concerns about how some might actually get some emotional comfort out of the figure of Mary in favor of highly charged rhetoric, and downgrade concerns about how we should speak about the accused in cases where the facts seem very fuzzy, in favor of asserting with cocksure confidence that they held her down and "f*cked her against her will."

EDIT. Incidentally, the stuff about the 'hot white sticky holy spirit' goes back to Marcotte being removed from some sort of communications position for the John Edwards campaign (he caught a lot of flack from the Feminist Law Professors blog for removing her). I'm not sure how common that knowledge is, or if I have to link to it. For now, I'll leave it here.

epiphanius 12-27-2010 03:21 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Well, it's here http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/331...6:14&out=16:27,
but this is the section you refer to.

I got a lot out of this diavlog, though it was a little chaotic, and I had some criticisms as well. I posted that before I had heard the whole thing, and I might not have posted if I had waited to hear the whole thing.

In fact these two have convinced me that it is unlikely that a conspiracy involving these women existed prior to Cablegate. Amanda also presented a plausible chain of events regarding how the two women decided to proceed with a police complaint. Julian's reaction to the Guardian article has not persuaded me otherwise.

I learned quite a bit about rape from the diavlog, and my thinking about the subject has been changed by watching it. Amanda put the remarks she made in better context by the end of it.

Peter Twieg 12-27-2010 03:43 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
I actually thought Marcotte was the more reasonable of this pair. Yes, she might be a "radical feminist", but she's a radical feminist who managed to present her views in a straight-forward, nonsanctimonious manner with minimal references to false consciousness, The Patriarchy, Fox News, and other lefty bogeymen. I'd like to see her back in the future, paired with someone who'll challenge her more.

Jay J 12-27-2010 03:54 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
I'm not sure if Maureen Tkacik saw herself as challenging Marcotte as much as having a conversation with her. But, maybe it would be interesting to see someone try to contradict Marcotte in a future discussion. As for this one, I thought it was a pretty reasonable exchange as well.

Peter Twieg 12-27-2010 04:04 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Oh, and this reminds me of a question that maybe someone could take a shot at:

What's the (third-wave) feminist position on whether women should be able to contract to provide sex on some terms, with some penalty attached for non-performance? This isn't merely asking "should prostitution be legal?", it's about asking questions such as whether it's okay for a woman to, say, take gifts in the explicit expectations that she'll provide sexual favors... and then refuse to do so. This isn't merely a legal question, I'm wondering if feminists would say that it's morally wrong to change one's mind in this situation. It strikes me that if the answer is "yes", then you're tip-toeing up to the point to saying that women shouldn't be able to revoke consent once a contract has been entered into (what about implicit contracts..?) If the answer is "no", then you're basically saying that women should not be able to credibly promise to provide sex, which I'd say is infantilizing and - yes - disempowering.

A somewhat-related topic which is fun but not touched on here is whether rape can occur by fraud - that if one, say, makes a promise that induces a woman to have sex with you, but then you break the promise... then a lot of people feel that that's wrong, but that the law shouldn't intervene. Even more surprising is that it seems that most feminist thinkers agree with this. But in most contexts we care whether consent has been obtained under fraudulent terms or not - why should sexual relationships be different? We do recognize that some cases are out of bounds - such as pretending to be a person's spouse in order to obtain sexual access - but how is this different from other cases of obtaining sex by fraud?

popcorn_karate 12-27-2010 04:16 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 193086)
btw, when does feminism become "radical?"

when they say waking your partner with a morning BJ is "wrong" (and implies that it is rape).

db63 12-27-2010 04:29 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Has Marcotte every responded to the criticisms rightly leveled at the remarks she made about the Duke lacrosse case? Does anyone know?

Graybeard 12-27-2010 04:54 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay J (Post 193088)

Now, perhaps some of what you're pushing back against is the implication that anyone who can rightly be called a "radical" should be dismissed.

What a straw man.

Not only did I imply no such thing, I explicitly supported a radical feminist viewpoint being represented.

I'm a fairly hardcore libertarian, and I would describe myself as 'radical'. I don't think the word itself is at all pejorative.

Graybeard 12-27-2010 05:10 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by db63 (Post 193094)
Has Marcotte ever responded to the criticisms rightly leveled at the remarks she made about the Duke lacrosse case?

In a Salon article, "Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign".

Graybeard 12-27-2010 05:26 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 193086)
A "loon?" Because she still believes a woman was raped by the Duke lacrosse team?

Did you follow the link I posted? That might answer your question. That's what it's there for.

You could skip the commentary and just read the quotes attributed to Marcotte. (Normally I would link to originals, but Marcotte is said to have deleted them. You'll notice the post I linked to has links that are now dead.)

EDIT: Btw, I don't think anyone believes Crystal Mangum was raped by the entire Duke lacrosse team, or even all of those present at the party, even though Mangum may have implied the latter in one of the many versions of her story.

Jay J 12-27-2010 05:37 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Fair enough. My bad. What I should have said was the "perceived" implication. I think, based on his response, and getting to know Jeff's concerns over the years, that Jeff is sensitive to certain world-views being de-legitimized based on giving them certain labels (in this case, then, perhaps the argument is over whether someone is unserious, and how much mileage that label should get). I think that's part of Jeff's concern here, though I may be wrong and I'll let him speak for himself. In any case, that's what I was trying to get at, and I should have been more careful to avoid characterizing your post; I was really just trying to pinpoint Jeff's concern.

JonIrenicus 12-27-2010 07:37 PM

Anyone else get a headache listening to this?
 
RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE


So many things are called rape it RAPES the meaning of the word to uselessness. I was glad for one brief moment later on there was some acknowledgement that they are not all the same, but the practice of calling something like having sex with a women who is drunk "RAPE" is too damn far.

It's almost as if they want written documents under oath with a camera recording to make sure consent was in its purest form. And even THEN who knows, what if it was regretted, what if the pretense for sex was false, was the woman raped then too?


What do you call it when a woman strings some guy along, flirting, attracting attention with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what he wants (some sort of relationship) and ZERO intention of every going there with the guy? Unethical right? Should we call that female RAPE? How about we just call it wrong, or unsavory or bad form, and leave terms like rape for physical coercion or close to it.

Ocean 12-27-2010 08:44 PM

Re: Anyone else get a headache listening to this?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 193105)
RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE


So many things are called rape it RAPES the meaning of the word to uselessness. I was glad for one brief moment later on there was some acknowledgement that they are not all the same, but the practice of calling something like having sex with a women who is drunk "RAPE" is too damn far.

It's almost as if they want written documents under oath with a camera recording to make sure consent was in its purest form. And even THEN who knows, what if it was regretted, what if the pretense for sex was false, was the woman raped then too?


What do you call it when a woman strings some guy along, flirting, attracting attention with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what he wants (some sort of relationship) and ZERO intention of every going there with the guy? Unethical right? Should we call that female RAPE? How about we just call it wrong, or unsavory or bad form, and leave terms like rape for physical coercion or close to it.

Jon,

I didn't like this diavlog and found it difficult to relate to some parts of it, but for different reasons than you.

If you're not a woman and can't relate to the topic of rape, or if you can't bridge the gap from a man's psychology to a woman's, or don't have much motivation to do it, there's nothing that these women or anybody else can say that will reach you.

It's really simple. Having sex with a woman that hasn't given her consent, or waiting until she's unconscious or in an altered state of consciousness to have sex in a way that the woman hasn't given consent to, is considered rape. There's probably different "degrees" of violence or forceful action depending on the circumstances. But it isn't really all that hard to understand. Men who are unconcerned with women's well-being may be oblivious to their response to such actions. Otherwise, I would say it's understandable if you can't, as a man, relate to the way they feel, but you should at least be able to respect those feelings.

The example you gave at the end of your post of a woman flirting with a man even when she has no intention of having a relationship with him, has nothing to do with rape. Those kinds of flirting games can go both ways and belong to a different category of topics.

rcocean 12-27-2010 09:22 PM

Why? Because BHTV is a Liberaltarian - left-wing echo chamber
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Graybeard (Post 193084)
Instead of two radical feminists, one of them a well known loon, why not one serious radical feminist and an interlocutor who will challenge her point of view?

C'mon. Haven't you been paying attention? At BHTV, Ann Althouse is a "Right Wing Extremist" and Moderate Democrat Micky Kaus is a "Racist hate-monger". And if you question Evolution - you get banned for six months - ask John McWhorter.

Even assuming Bob would like a more balanced site, he still has to throw Red Meat to his closed-minded Atlantic-New York Times Base. The kind that thinks Kieth Olbermann is a 21st Century Ed Murrow.

basman 12-27-2010 10:24 PM

Re: Is It Just Me?
 
So much time wasting blah blah blah here. I could not listen to more than few minutes of this. Nice ladies, not unclever, but nothing for me worth devoting even a fraction of +/- 82 minutes to, I'm sorry to say.

Itzik Basman

AemJeff 12-27-2010 10:37 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay J (Post 193088)
Hey Jeff,

It's been too long since we've mixed it up, so here goes:

I'm not sure why Maureen Tkacik counts, but in Amanda Marcotte's case, we have a good example of someone who can illustrate the difference between plain old feminism and radical feminism.

Marcotte had no qualms about referring to God giving Mary his "hot, white, sticky, holy spirit." In order to be a feminist, one need not hold the idea that religion and ideas like the Virgin Birth have primarily served to reinforce the patriarchy.

As for the Duke Lacrosse case, she was cocksure that the accused were guilty, and she didn't mind using very emotionally charged ways of characterizing the state of affairs as she saw it.

In the diavlog, she said we should have a conversation about possibly making "condom slips" illegal (this isn't that big a deal, it just seems like if you listen to her for very long, her concerns seems to be manifested in a way that leans in one direction).

Now, perhaps some of what you're pushing back against is the implication that anyone who can rightly be called a "radical" should be dismissed. I don't think that. But I don't see how anyone familiar with Marcotte's views and style would object to someone seeing her as radical, at least at first glance. I don't know exactly where she resides on the political spectrum (although I know it's left of center) so maybe at the end of the day she's not actually radical. But her underlying view of the world motivates her to downgrade concerns about how some might actually get some emotional comfort out of the figure of Mary in favor of highly charged rhetoric, and downgrade concerns about how we should speak about the accused in cases where the facts seem very fuzzy, in favor of asserting with cocksure confidence that they held her down and "f*cked her against her will."

EDIT. Incidentally, the stuff about the 'hot white sticky holy spirit' goes back to Marcotte being removed from some sort of communications position for the John Edwards campaign (he caught a lot of flack from the Feminist Law Professors blog for removing her). I'm not sure how common that knowledge is, or if I have to link to it. For now, I'll leave it here.

Hey, Jay! I probably don't really disagree with you that much here. I can think of some "feminists" I've known whose lack of of humor, or single-mindedness, was seriously off-putting and even ridiculous. I've also known some terribly damaged women who seemed to me to have justifiable reasons for feeling something like that. My real complaint here was just irritation with the idea that all somebody really needs to do is insert an adjective as shorthand for some (I think) hackneyed, stereotypical caricature in lieu of an argument and expect to be treated as if they've made an argument worthy of consideration. (Argumentum ad adjectivum :)) I have no problem with "radical" as a modifier, and I'm pretty sure there are feminists who deserve to be called that; but I think that Marcotte presents a more nuanced target than that, and I really don't think Tkacik deserves any such label.

badhatharry 12-27-2010 10:47 PM

Re: left wingers really are different
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tara Davis (Post 193070)
To be fair, there are plenty of people on the right who would also rather focus on what a sleazy character he might be than any government misbehavior which comes to light as the story develops.

We could be talking about Bill Clinton, here.

badhatharry 12-27-2010 10:51 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Twieg (Post 193073)
The key, in my opinion, is changing the norms of what's acceptable in a bottom-up manner.


hmmmm...

...and Cathy Young is a good read.

T.G.G.P 12-28-2010 12:59 AM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
At the remark about defining rape as non-consensual sex the first thought that popped in my head was "What the hell have we been defining as instead?".

The point about police questioning scaring offenders makes some sense and may be true for the archetypical frat boy who thinks it's no big deal, but I'd be wary: Mark Kleiman reported in "When Brute Force Fails" that arrest often EMBOLDENS offenders by letting them know the consequences aren't that bad. It's also the case that the bad equilibrium with most crimes going unpunished (and those few being punished rather severely) is a troublesome dynamic which Kleiman spends most of his time trying to solve. Just something to keep in mind I guess.

Is it actually the case that 95% of the time there are no fights over child custody? It was my impression that it occurred in a higher percentages of divorces, although often the children function as props in a squabble between parents.

Judith Harris would argue that people who get divorced tend to be disagreeable in the first place.

The Onion would beg to disagree with Marcotte's parting joke.

I feel stupid responding to DenvilleSteve, but if you don't care, fine. Watch another diavlog. Watch some tv, read a book, take a nap, whatever. People are interested in different things for a variety of reasons and when they are discussing it one doesn't normally butt in to ask why anyone cares. Have that conversation with other people who aren't already discussing the topic at hand.

Graybeard 12-28-2010 01:54 AM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 193113)
My real complaint here was just irritation with the idea that all somebody really needs to do is insert an adjective as shorthand for some (I think) hackneyed, stereotypical caricature in lieu of an argument and expect to be treated as if they've made an argument worthy of consideration. (Argumentum ad adjectivum :))

You and your adjectives again.

I reiterate my conviction that all parts of speech can contribute to effective communication.

AemJeff 12-28-2010 09:32 AM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Graybeard (Post 193126)
You and your adjectives again.

I reiterate my conviction that all parts of speech can contribute to effective communication.

Adjectives are great, beautiful, useful things - you can't get along without them; but they're not a substitute for argument, and they can conceal more than they illuminate.

jimM47 12-28-2010 04:13 PM

Definitions of Rape
 
I haven't watched this diavlog yet, because I am visiting the land of slow internet connections for the holidays, and given the comments so far I may not ever watch it. But in the comments I see a lot of talk and disagreement about what "rape" means, and I thought I might be able to add some historical context that some might find useful. In the United States, the law of rape is a messy topic, and it varies considerably between jurisdictions and over time. In many places, it operates differently than any other crime, probably owing to its history.

At early common law, sex outside of marriage (fornication) was always a crime for both male and female. The rapist and the seducer were on relatively equal ground. So it is almost more appropriate to think of there being a defense of rape than there being a crime of rape. A woman accused of fornication could plead that it had been rape, and she would be asked to negative the elements of her offense, showing that she had not committed the culpable act, and showing she had no culpable mind state. Such proof generally required showing actual resistance.

(Common law also made rape an important legal fiction. Lords could exercise some veto power over marriage by their subjects, but the law of ravagement provided an out. The couple would have sex, the woman would acuse the man of rape, he would not contest it, and the law would give the woman the choice of either condemning the man or marrying him.)

Even as fornication became legal and rape was solely a crime, not a defense, the same legal elements were kept. Rape was sex accomplished despite of physical resistance by the woman. Subsequent developments lessened the victim's burden and changed this to sex accomplished by force or sex against the the will of the woman. With these developments, rape law became idiosyncratic in its focus on the actions and mental state of the victim rather than the perpetrator. If I kill you in mistaken self-defense, the question at trial will be whether my actions were reasonable, not whether your actions were. If I rape you, under the laws just described, the question at trial will be whether your actions constituted reasonably resistance, not whether my actions reflected reasonable mistake.

In some, but not all, jurisdictions, statutes have been changed or caselaw has evolved, so that the legal definition of rape is sex in absence of consent by the woman. In some jurisdictions there has also been a move to require a culpable mental state by the rapist. One way to think about current law, though, is not that sex in the absence of consent is rape per se, but that the absence of explicit consent creates culpability for rape per se. That is, if you have sex with someone against her will, without knowing it was against her will, you can't claim you made an innocent mistake unless you had explicit consent. (Some caselaw validates this way of thinking, some doesn't.)

BornAgainDemocrat 12-29-2010 01:58 AM

Anna Ardin's 7 Steps to Legal Revenge
 
Is this just another Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Or not?

basman 12-29-2010 06:17 AM

Re: Definitions of Rape
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 193152)
...I thought I might be able to add some historical context that some might find useful. In the United States, the law of rape is a messy topic, and it varies considerably between jurisdictions and over time. In many places, it operates differently than any other crime, probably owing to its history....

In Canada criminal law is a federal matter codified in the Criminal Code. Here are some notes on the law of sexual assault (rape is not a term of art) in Canada:

...Sexual assault is defined as any form of sexual contact without both parties’ voluntary consent. Contrary to what most people think, sexual assault is not limited to non-consensual intercourse, it can also include non-consensual fondling, touching, or kissing.

Section 265 of the Criminal Code outlines the offences of assault and sexual assault as follows:

A person commits an "assault" when:

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

(3) Where the accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

Consent

A common issue in sexual assault cases is whether the sexual activity was consensual. Consent is the voluntary agreement of the accuser to have engaged in the sexual activity in question. According to s. 273.1(1) of the Criminal Code, consent for sexual assault purposes is defined as the following:

273(1) Aggravated sexual assault - Every one commits an aggravated sexual assault who, in committing a sexual assault, wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

273.1(1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), "consent" means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;

(a) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;

(b) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;

(c) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or

(d) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the conduct.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as limiting the circumstances in which no consent is obtained.

273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where:

(a) the accused's belief in consent arose from the accused's:

(i) self-induced intoxication, or

(ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or

(b)the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

Was Consent Given?

In order to determine consent, the Court looks at the parties’ words, conduct, and reasonable steps. Words and conduct are important to establish consent, as the Court won't accept an accuser’s silence or passivity as a form of consent. Implied consent is not a defence to criminal sexual assault. Thus, if the Court finds that the accused continued sexual conduct after the accuser indicated "No" through words or conduct, the accused’s actions can be considered reckless, and he or she can be convicted under the Criminal Code. This is grey. Parties’ perceptions of events vary. Courts look at consent from the accuser’s point of view.

Furthermore, according to s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code, the accused must show that under the circumstances, he or she took reasonable steps in order to ascertain consent. Courts say that s.273.2(b) doesn't require that all reasonable steps to ascertain consent be taken; but that taking some reasonable steps suffices. Of course, just taking “some reasonable steps” alone will not prove consent, but even if the accused thought consent was given, and it turns out that it was not, taking some reasonable steps does provide the defence with some credibility. It shows the judge or jury the accused thought what a reasonable person would have thought under similar circumstance, i.e. that consent was given.

However, ia defence will come under tremendous scrutiny if the Court feels the accused was reckless, willfully blind or willfully intoxicated while taking reasonable steps to attain consent. According to s.273.2 (a), the Court will not allow consent to be used an excuse for not recognizing that a person did not consent if the accused was reckless, willfully blind or willfully intoxicated. For example, the Court is more prone to consider a defence, if for example the accused became drunk at a party because somebody spiked the accused’s drink without his or her knowledge...

Itzik Basman

Ocean 12-29-2010 08:09 AM

Re: Definitions of Rape
 
Non-consensual kissing? O-M-G! Aren't we all victims then? ;)

basman 12-29-2010 12:35 PM

Re: Definitions of Rape
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 193181)
Non-consensual kissing? O-M-G! Aren't we all victims then? ;)

In Quebec, that has been interpreted by the courts as non-consensual French kissing.

All I got.

Itzik Basman

thouartgob 12-30-2010 11:54 AM

Re: left wingers really are different
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 193066)
Yet the focus of the left is date rape and leg humping.

Well there was some valuable discourse on the probabilities of the accusers being part of a conspiracy and such but yeah most of the diavlog was around sexual assault and it's cultural context. What these women, who have some firsthand knowledge of the subject, think about an issue that concerns only 1/2 the population of the world and a hopefully large portion of the other 1/2 is of great value to me. I found the diavlog quite interesting and would suggest it be seen/heard by a larger audience ( it was a bit rambling and repetitive at times but that is the price one pays for an authentic conversation )


Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 193066)
When the country splits apart, I worry the democrat states will be so dysfunctional they will be a threat to the republican states.

Ah we might be rats but we are a diverse group of rodents. Better a broad swath of breeds that flourish in rat-states as opposed the the old white shrew-states that require constant pruning of the population and obsessive consumption of it's resources. ;-)

thouartgob 12-30-2010 04:20 PM

Re: Anyone else get a headache listening to this?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 193105)
RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE


So many things are called rape it RAPES the meaning of the word to uselessness.

I still find the word valuable although it seems sexual assault is often used as opposed to the Woopi "Rape Rape" line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 193105)
but the practice of calling something like having sex with a women who is drunk "RAPE" is too damn far.

Well as has been said before it probably isn't to difficult to discern when to stop. Eyes unfocused, slurred speech, inability to walk unaided. If this is too much of a problem then I guess inability for your "partner" to move, let alone declare Yes or No, will have to do.


Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 193105)
What do you call it when a woman strings some guy along, flirting, attracting attention with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what he wants (some sort of relationship) and ZERO intention of every going there with the guy? Unethical right? Should we call that female RAPE? How about we just call it wrong, or unsavory or bad form, and leave terms like rape for physical coercion or close to it.

This is more of a cry for help than a properly thought out retort. A 15 year old might bang his head against the high-school locker in response to the unrequited "love" you are railing against here but seriously

thouartgob 12-30-2010 04:35 PM

Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by epiphanius (Post 193089)
I learned quite a bit about rape from the diavlog, and my thinking about the subject has been changed by watching it. Amanda put the remarks she made in better context by the end of it.

First let me pat myself on the back for not selectively quoting here. More importantly what was one or two of the things where your thinking changed ?

I found the diavlog fascinating and while it didn't change my thinking per se it did make me think more deeply about the issue. The candid nature of their discussion was great, had this discussion happened a decade ago it would have been accompanied by a melancholy soundtrack and little nuance. It was actually a bit disconcerting for me at first even though I do know and are friends with women who have had similar histories. I tend not to bring up the subject or ask questions about it. I mean it really isn't my business to begin with so...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.