You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 10:07:46 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid  (Read 13337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #75 on: August 24, 2012, 01:35:00 AM »
I consented quite vigorously when I was fifteen. A little peice of paper saying I could not do so did not stop me from doing so.

With gusto.  >:)

You may let peices of paper define reality for you. I do not. Which is the whole point of the discussion about defining rape. Not being afraid to take the blinders off, take a hard look at reality and then let reality have at least a marginal influence in defining what goes on the paper, instead of letting the paper(along with ever-so-convenient political outrage) define reality.

Since the topic at hand is actually whether rape is an 'acceptable' reason for an abortion, I'd be interested in the answer to one question:

If you had gotten pregnant from your encounter, who would you want in charge of deciding what options you had with regards to the outcome of the pregnancy?

Offline TheRedFear

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #76 on: August 24, 2012, 01:59:42 AM »
Actually...no. That's not the topic at hand. It's not even the topic of the title of the thread. That's an abortion topic. One of the topics that's so utterly pointless to debate that I did not want to be bothered with it, as I said in my initial post. Not much in the mood for having the hammer of logic bounce back off the indestructible wall of politically correct sentiment and smack me in the face over and over again. It starts to hurt after a while yanno? Maybe another night, but not tonight.

But as I skimmed the various posts and noted how the issue of the legislative definition of rape kept getting lumped in with the various examples of how everyone who ever had a conservative thought obviously hates their mommies and their sisters, I had a thought.

A fleeting, mad thought.

I thought...moment of optimistic hope...that surely even the most partisan of souls can agree that it is beyond all bounds of reason and logic to say that the woman who rolled over after a crazy night and cringed at what she saw laying beside her is as much a victim of rape as the woman who was violently assaulted in a piss-soaked alleyway. So surely as responsible adults we could reasonably open the floor of legislative debate to an frank and honest discussion about just how we define rape without throwing around the usual "you just hate my uterus!!!" nonsense.

My faint glimmer of hope has been thoroughly quashed. I'll go slink back to the RP threads now, with made up people.

Online TheVillain

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #77 on: August 24, 2012, 02:17:39 AM »
Just a Quick Fun Fact -

Genesis 2:7 - Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living.

Meanwhile the verse most commonly used to justify anti-abortion positions is:

Jeremiah 1:5 - Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the.


This means that the Bible's actual position on Abortion is that people don't count as living things until the first time they draw breath on their own. Before that, unborn are to be considered unliving things similar to dead bodies. Something to be treated with respect - but not a person. Things with unique potential in that they could be people eventually, but even Jesus is referred to as a Thing before he's born and draws his first breath.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #78 on: August 24, 2012, 02:19:55 AM »
You know, if you read the initial post, it would be clear that choice was part of what I intended. Speaking as a person who WAS sexually assaulted at a young age (7) it does have an effect.  The actual event stopped just short of actual sexual acts but I can say that these things DO shape you.

Nearly four decades later, I wonder if keeping quiet was the right move.  Or if the boy who tried to trick me did it yo others.  Just because your first time with an adult has a positive shine to it doesn't mean it's the same for the rest of us.

So, please keep it polite and as non confrontational as possible

Offline Serephino

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #79 on: August 24, 2012, 02:46:02 AM »
Red does make a point....  I know it's dangerous to do anything other than completely agree with the the general female population here when it comes to such topics, but it is an interesting point.  It may say on the law books that someone under 18 can't consent to sex with someone over 18, and that it is statutory rape.  However, that is one law I would very much like to see gotten rid of.  When you're young, you may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but willingly having sex with someone is consent in my book.  It really is so much different than force.

Callie, I'm sorry to hear that you had such a horrible experience.  You were very young.  You weren't a teenager that understood things better, and you weren't in a relationship.  I think what Red was referring to was more like teenagers who date older people.  Ironically, my cop friend is guilty of 'statutory rape'.  There was a 9 year age difference, but they really liked each other.  And, you know, they just celebrated their 15th anniversary in May.  Had they been found out way back when, he'd be on the sex offender list instead of being happy with a wonderful significant other.   

Also, what about parents?  If a girl is underage, should they be allowed to make that decision?  I knew a guy who got his underage girlfriend pregnant.  They wanted to keep it, but her parents made her get an abortion.  It was her body, and her life.  I don't think that was right.  It may have made her life a lot more complicated, but that was what she wanted.  You all talk about how emotionally traumatic such a thing can be; well, that girl's parents forced that trauma on her.     

Offline TheRedFear

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #80 on: August 24, 2012, 03:16:00 AM »
And if you read my first post I was pretty clear that that part of the discussion was one I wasn't going to get into tonight.

I'm really not sure in what way I have failed to be clear on that.   ???

I too was sexually assaulted as a child. About the same age as you actually. Emphasis on assaulted. I most decidedly did NOT consent in that case. Guess what? That does not grant me any kind of unique authority on the topic. Eventually I dealt with it. Moved on. It took me a long time, granted. But it happened. Wounds do heal over time if you don't ignore them or pick at them. If you're not there yet you have my genuine sympathies and best wishes. Give it time.

But did it change who I am? I don't think so. I don't think my opinion on this topic would be the slightest bit different if it had never happened. I might have been a lot less homophobic in my teen years(Don't worry, I dealt with that too), but overall I don't think i'd be a different person.

But how is any of that even relevant? I'm certainly not talking about having sex with children. I'm talking about...not sure what the right word here would be actually. Maybe "young adults"? There's a pretty damn big difference between helpless and innocent children and young adults or teens.

I won't pretend to be some wisened authority on what the magic number is that seperates a child from a teen, or when a teen stops being a teen and becomes a "young adult". Personally I tend to consider 14-17 perfectly capable of consenting.

Mind you just because I don't think it's the end of life as we know it if such a teen has sex with an adult, that doesn't mean I think it's particularly wise or healthy. For either member of that relationship. But it's certainly not grounds to send the adult off to sit alongside murderers, and real rapists for any length of time, let alone the rather lengthy mandatory minimum sentences that exist in most states.

Fines? Sure. Probation? A bit much, but okay. Community Service? Sure why not. But sending someone off to stab-me-in-the-showers and rape(real rape!)-me-in-the-ass prison for having a sexual encounter with someone who was both perfectly capable of consenting, and vigorously did so is roughly about as stupid as doing the same to someone else for dealing pot when it isn't even half as harmful as common beer.

Is the number range i'm comfortable with the same as the number range you'd be comfortable with? Probably not. So why not let our political representatives sit down, debate the issue, and agree on a number range they're comfortable with? I probably won't agree with their number range either, but if they followed the proper procedures I'd at least respect it and abide by it. That's part of being in society afterall. You do your best to follow and abide by all the laws, even if you don't necessarily agree with them. And ones you don't agree with you try to change via the proper legislative channels.

And if it seems like i'm all over the place on this issue...drunk women with a case of the morning-after woes...teens engaging in consentual relations with adults...and all the various other hypothetical examples i've referred to it's because those are all examples which current laws all around the world lump in with oh-god-somebody-save-me rape. It's an absolute insult to real rape victims to equate these acts with rape in my opinion. I see nothing inherently evil or misogynist about drawing a crystal clear legislative distinction between rape/child predation and 'stupidity/poor judgement'. 
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 03:26:16 AM by TheRedFear »

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #81 on: August 24, 2012, 06:16:35 AM »
I won't pretend to be some wisened authority on what the magic number is that seperates a child from a teen, or when a teen stops being a teen and becomes a "young adult". Personally I tend to consider 14-17 perfectly capable of consenting.

Age of consent laws in the US vary from 16-18, depending upon the state, and many states grant exceptions for minors who engage in sex with a legal adult provided that adult is within a specified age rage of the minor, usually four years but often as many as ten years. These "exception laws" can also vary wildly from state to state, such as Connecticut which allows a 12 year old to consent to sexual activity with a 13 year old (but not a 14 year old), to California, whose AOC is 18 with no exceptions for minors.

Quote
Is the number range i'm comfortable with the same as the number range you'd be comfortable with? Probably not. So why not let our political representatives sit down, debate the issue, and agree on a number range they're comfortable with?

Your political representatives have already done so. The age of consent in Indiana is 16, with a "close in age exception" for minors aged 14-15 to consent to sexual activity with a partner who is below the age of 18.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #82 on: August 24, 2012, 12:03:27 PM »
It may say on the law books that someone under 18 can't consent to sex with someone over 18, and that it is statutory rape.  However, that is one law I would very much like to see gotten rid of.  When you're young, you may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but willingly having sex with someone is consent in my book.  It really is so much different than force.

Essentially, at some point, it constitutes coercion. Two fourteen year olds, that's not particularly coercion and that's why there are "close in age" exceptions (usually). But a fourteen year old and, say, a twenty year old, and yeah, for most fourteen year olds that's coercive. That's an adult putting them in a sexual situation and the law says it's wrong. It should be wrong. It's so much different than force, but it can be just as destructive and just as traumatic. It is also my experience that most fourteen year olds who think they are ready for sex... really aren't. That's why the adults in their lives are supposed to guide and protect them still, even though they are big bad teenagers.

Also, what about parents?  If a girl is underage, should they be allowed to make that decision?  I knew a guy who got his underage girlfriend pregnant.  They wanted to keep it, but her parents made her get an abortion.  It was her body, and her life.  I don't think that was right.  It may have made her life a lot more complicated, but that was what she wanted.  You all talk about how emotionally traumatic such a thing can be; well, that girl's parents forced that trauma on her.     

And if she had been diagnosed with cancer and wanted to forgo chemotherapy, they could have forced that on her. Medical decisions are traumatic, and they're even more difficult for parents going against the stated wishes of their underage child. But the parents' right to determine their child's medical care is sacrosanct, save in the case of demonstrable negligence.

The difference is that Santorum, Akin, Ryan, etc, are not my parents, I'm not underage, and there is absolutely no reason why they should be making significant life decisions for me. That's the difference - I don't want Uncle Sam to turn into Daddy Dearest.

Offline TheRedFear

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #83 on: August 24, 2012, 12:18:33 PM »
It's so much different than force, but it can be just as destructive and just as traumatic.

I can agree with the vast majority of what you said. This is where we diverge.

No. It can't. It can't be half as destructive or traumatic as forcible violent rape. I absolutely unequivocably garuntee you beyond every shred and every iota of a doubt, that it can't. If you never beleive another word I say, beleive this.

Oh i ain't saying it's good or healthy. But the "damage" from having been in an inappropriate relationship with an adult can't even begin to equate to damage of being born down against your will, screaming, crying, hurting, begging, choking, aching and spending the following years of your life trying to figure out what the hell you did to deserve that or how you could have prevented it.

I'm sorry but these traumas simply are not even in the same hemisphere.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 12:20:05 PM by TheRedFear »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #84 on: August 24, 2012, 12:44:21 PM »
You might want to re-read some of the stories of childhood sex abuse survivors, both men and women, and how it affected their lives.  How it affected their views of a healthy relationship.  How they were convinced that reporting the person who had done this to them would make them (the child) a bad person.  How they were convinced that the other grownups wouldn't believe them, or would think they were 'dirty'.  How they were convinced that they'd 'really wanted this', when they actually didn't have a clue what was going on.  How they felt used by this trusted adult, who only wanted to get his or her rocks off.

Most childhood sex abuse is coercive, not forceful (not that the forceful type doesn't occur).

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #85 on: August 24, 2012, 12:51:56 PM »
You might want to re-read some of the stories of childhood sex abuse survivors, both men and women, and how it affected their lives.  How it affected their views of a healthy relationship.  How they were convinced that reporting the person who had done this to them would make them (the child) a bad person.  How they were convinced that the other grownups wouldn't believe them, or would think they were 'dirty'.  How they were convinced that they'd 'really wanted this', when they actually didn't have a clue what was going on.  How they felt used by this trusted adult, who only wanted to get his or her rocks off.

Most childhood sex abuse is coercive, not forceful (not that the forceful type doesn't occur).

That was what happened to me. Only nearly two decades later, ironically counciling a worker on an abusive relationship she was having, did I realize that I had done the wrong thing. Of course by then 'Bobby' was long gone..and odds were given his situation he was dead. I have wondered for YEARS though.. did I harm others by keeping quiet?

Now, this is DEFINITELY a topic for a different thread.. this is about the assault on Rape and reproductive rights by the legal authorities. I apologize for my part of side tracking this discussion.

How does my experiences (or others) effect the debate on how certain elements seem intent on rolling back the rights of women more than 80 years.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #86 on: August 24, 2012, 12:53:00 PM »
Tangentially related, I just came across this article on CNN. Since this topic started out on the matter of choice and rape, it brings another facet to that debate - should an accused rapist have any access to parental rights? The idea of a rape victim of any sort being forced to bring her child to visit her rapist (I recognize that men can be raped, too, but in this case using 'her' is painfully the only appropriate pronoun) is a horrifying idea. On the other hand, we have an innocent-until-proven-guilty system, and if he hasn't been proven guilty of rape, does she really have the right to rescind his parental rights? The majority of states apparently say she doesn't.

So in addition to weighing whether they want to raise a child from their rape, women apparently also need to weigh whether they want their rapist to continue to have power over them. I know that if I were to find myself pregnant after a rape, there would be no hesitation - it would be morning-after pill and clinic visits all the way. But if a woman is wavering, if she's considering keeping it and then she learns that he will have visitation rights, I think that the fear of that would push her more toward terminating the pregnancy. And is that reason enough to limit the parental rights of alleged rapists?

It's an interesting question.

Offline Vekseid

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #87 on: August 24, 2012, 02:24:01 PM »
As much as I believe a woman has a right to choose the father of her child, I don't think anything short of a conviction should strip someone of their rights. If the guy was lucky, the woman would have made some public commentary that the act was fully consensual (e.g. Assange's 'victims' post-coital tweets), but elsewhere, it reduces the charge of rape to conviction by hearsay.

An ideal process of law is one in which the innocent do not suffer undue burden under its weight. We may not have that at the moment, but it's not a condition to be ignored in my opinion.

I think you also argued that a woman should be able to sign away all rights to a child, however, so that is a third way out in such a case.

Offline Serephino

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #88 on: August 24, 2012, 02:26:14 PM »
That's wrong on so many levels.  She's right though, the victim is often the one put on trial.  When my mom's boyfriend groped me I was encouraged to let him plead to a lesser charge, which he was willing to do, rather than go for jail time.  Both the prosecutor and my own mother pointed out that in a trial the defense would grill the hell out me.  My mother did resent me because her 'boob man' boyfriend went after mine.  My own mother was of the opinion I asked for it.  Had I actually wanted that, I wouldn't have slammed the asshole into a wall...

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #89 on: August 24, 2012, 04:13:19 PM »
Amusing and relevant Failblog pic:
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #90 on: August 25, 2012, 01:21:14 PM »
The idea of a rape victim of any sort being forced to bring her child to visit her rapist (I recognize that men can be raped, too, but in this case using 'her' is painfully the only appropriate pronoun) is a horrifying idea. On the other hand, we have an innocent-until-proven-guilty system, and if he hasn't been proven guilty of rape, does she really have the right to rescind his parental rights? The majority of states apparently say she doesn't.

As much as I believe a woman has a right to choose the father of her child, I don't think anything short of a conviction should strip someone of their rights.

     I can't disagree more.  It comes across as if you have some doctrine that women perhaps should bear?? (since the question was originally concerned with abortion too) and definitely must share custody of a child with some male, unless she bothers to go through rape proceedings. 

    Whatever entitles the guy to that?  He doesn't have to bear the child, and he often won't be forced to do most of the direct care work of raising it either.  He dropped a few sperm (by choice or accident), so now he owns her body and labor for how many years?  What a quaint 19th century/antiquated idea. 

    Is this the woman's equivalent of Selective Service for guys in your book?  Or what sort of "right" is that?  The state can say up and down yes, yes we have certain rights that our neighbors have to provide for, but if that's going to be taken seriously then I'll volunteer to help all the women who flee to Canada or wherever.  More probably...  Try to enforce it, and watch resistance and disruption brew all around you.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #91 on: August 25, 2012, 01:25:38 PM »
Kylie, the question is more about parental rights - what rights an alleged rapist has regarding a child produced from said alleged rape. Leaving hyperbole of "my child is my flesh and blood!" aside, it's more about how much access the alleged - but not convicted - rapist should have to the child.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #92 on: August 25, 2012, 02:21:00 PM »
Kylie, the question is more about parental rights - what rights an alleged rapist has regarding a child produced from said alleged rape. Leaving hyperbole of "my child is my flesh and blood!" aside, it's more about how much access the alleged - but not convicted - rapist should have to the child.

As someone who has actually given birth to two children (with the father of my choice), I have to agree with Veks. Unless parental rights are voluntarily signed away or they are removed by the court system, a man has right of access to his child, no different than a woman. Yes, morally it is reprehensible. But legally, there isn't much question.

It is the price we pay for acknowledging that fathers are important and can be capable and responsible parents, rather than simply reducing them to the status of sperm donor, also an antiquated/19th century idea. By diminishing a father's importance in the child rearing process, it would be very easy to declare his mere presence unnecessary for a variety of reasons, legal or not.

Does the thought that an alleged rapist can force his victim to share parenting duties thrill me? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. But the alternative, that women could arbitrarily decide whether or not the father of their child has rights thrills me even less.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #93 on: August 25, 2012, 04:12:44 PM »
As someone who has actually given birth to two children (with the father of my choice), I have to agree with Veks. Unless parental rights are voluntarily signed away or they are removed by the court system, a man has right of access to his child, no different than a woman. Yes, morally it is reprehensible. But legally, there isn't much question.
     I wasn't debating the letter of the law.  In the context I saw, Veks' answer came across to me as a claim that people should do something on principle rather than on the merits of the situation.  Lots of things are "legal" -- and lots of local laws are left over from heaven knows when that make no sense, too.  Just because someone hasn't gotten around to enacting a better regulation that deals with more the culture we have now, doesn't mean that people should go out of their way to actively adhere to the letter of a law that doesn't fit the situation. 

     This isn't the same sort of "failure of presumed innocence" as say, NYC police searching protestor backpacks with no reason beyond slogans on a t-shirt.  I don't have evidence that women falsely report rapes with great frequency.  Moreover,  arguments above suggest to me that where there are false reports, those are particularly likely to originate in areas where other laws and policies make rape and abuse relatively likely/deniable.  So deal with that. 

Quote
It is the price we pay for acknowledging that fathers are important and can be capable and responsible parents, rather than simply reducing them to the status of sperm donor, also an antiquated/19th century idea. By diminishing a father's importance in the child rearing process, it would be very easy to declare his mere presence unnecessary for a variety of reasons, legal or not.

    People "can" be capable (optimistically)...  For that matter the rightists might wish to say any set of man and woman, rapist or otherwise, "will" do better than a single parent or two of either sex.  Or, kids can be traumatized by having parents in a confrontation, in a case where someone wants to challenge the other formally or informally on and on.  Personally, I think it's more likely that many of these scenarios will go badly for the woman and/or the kids, than that women in general will use rape as a false excuse to displace fathers out of the blue.  How likely is it that so many women are going to mount false charges....  And for those who might, why would they do so?  I think that makes a huge difference. 

     I'm not only trying to escape the 19th century.  I'm trying to deal a bit with the present one, which by contrast does have certain principles of consent enshrined.  It sounds to me like you're saying we take some guy's claims of fatherhood to be a given or provable merely through a DNA test, but for allegations of rape we requiring women to produce funds, face, and attorneys to prove rape and meanwhile the guy has visitation rights by default.  That's a grossly unequal situation too.  He can prove bio parenthood in a jiffy, while she needs huge resources and a great deal of time and social scrutiny, all with him hovering around, to deal with rape. 

     In my point of view, the problem is not so much that just anyone "could" or "does" make a spurious rape charge, but that some women in certain areas might have an incentive to when they are denied other options.  If we deal with the denial of other options -- and this shoots back to discarding ridiculous claims such as "legitimate" rapes do not impregnate -- then a lot of your problem (where it does exist, which I imagine are a small minority of cases) might disappear.  There might still be occasional false claims, but many fewer.  And given that men on the whole seem to be able to shrug off parenting with few penalties -- it's more often men than women disappearing if I'm not mistaken -- I think maybe it's less disruptive overall to risk fewer innocent men having to mount a defense -- than to risk harming many actual rape victims in order to protect men in the abstract from a scant few women who might wish to make a false claim in court and have the social and financial standing to manage that. 


Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #94 on: August 25, 2012, 04:37:32 PM »
     I wasn't debating the letter of the law.  In the context I saw, Veks' answer came across to me as a claim that people should do something on principle rather than on the merits of the situation. 

I saw his answer as a reflection of the law, no more and no less. So, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 
Quote
It sounds to me like you're saying we take some guy's claims of fatherhood to be a given or provable merely through a DNA test, but for allegations of rape we requiring women to produce funds, face, and attorneys to prove rape and meanwhile the guy has visitation rights by default.  That's a grossly unequal situation too.

It may be unequal, but legally, that's exactly what I'm saying. We still have a presumption of innocence in this country, if I'm not mistaken. An accusation of a crime is insufficient grounds to deny someone parental rights, whereas conviction of said crime is sufficient grounds. That's the way our legal system works.

Mind you, morally, you are correct and you get no argument from me.


Quote
I think maybe it's less disruptive overall to risk fewer innocent men having to mount a defense -- than to risk harming many actual rape victims in order to protect men in the abstract from a scant few women who might wish to make a false claim in court and have the social and financial standing to manage that.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Offline Serephino

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #95 on: August 30, 2012, 02:49:27 AM »
And it gets better....

Quote
What is it about Republican Senate candidates and rape?  First, Missouri Rep. Todd Akin said that “legitimate rape” doesn’t lead to pregnancy because a woman’s body would “shut down.” 
Now Pennsylvania’s GOP U.S. Senate candidate Tom Smith said that rape is similar to “having a baby out of wedlock.”
Smith made these comments on Monday to Mark Scolforo, an Associated Press reporter.  Here’s what he said:
SCOLFORO: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will?  Do you have a way to explain that?
SMITH: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views.  But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.  She chose they way I thought. No. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.
SCOLFORO: Similar how?
SMITH: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.
SCOLFORO: That’s similar to rape?
SMITH: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar.
Don’t take my word for it.  You can hear it for yourself here.
I’m the father of a wonderful daughter.  I can tell you that there is no relationship whatsoever between the way I would feel if she had gotten pregnant before she was married and if she had been raped.  That’s because, like most people, I understand the difference between sex and rape.
I’ve had enough of these medieval Republican views of sexuality, women, and rape.   That’s why I’m writing to Tom Smith to tell him what I think of his sexist views that diminish the devastating impact of rape.
I’m also going to demand that he withdraw from the race for Senate, because I don’t want someone with these views representing my Pennsylvania.


That was an email I got from Keystone Progress. 

https://secure3.convio.net/pn/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=2831&AddInterest=2181
There is a link to a petition, and a recording of the interview.  It just gets crazier and crazier.  There is a huge difference between getting pregnant from a rape and having a child out of wedlock. 
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 02:50:51 AM by Serephino »

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #96 on: September 02, 2012, 10:23:53 AM »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/31/karl-rove-jokes-dont-look-for-my-whereabouts-if-todd-akins-found-mysteriously-murdered-report-says/

Apparently Rep Akin isn't the only guy suffering from foot-in-mouth disease. Isn't this the sort of thing that Roves minions flay their rivals over? Honestly, you'd think THIS guy would know better than to say this in a public forum.

Of course when you can violate the secrets act with impunity why not?

Offline Stattick

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #97 on: September 17, 2012, 01:21:39 PM »
Todd Akin's Wife Compares GOP Abandonment to Rape, Tyranny
Quote
Rep. Todd Akin’s wife, Lulli Akin, says the Republican Party’s attempts to push her husband out of the Missouri Senate race — over his false assertion that women who are raped rarely get pregnant — are like rape itself.
RELATED: Akin TV Ad Buy Canceled — For Failure To Pay Station

She also believes the GOP’s abandonment is on par with the tyranny that launched the American Revolution.

Akin’s wife isn’t the first one to compare Akin’s explosive rape comments, and the ensuing fallout, to rape: Bryan Fischer said the party’s treatment of the embattled candidate had made Akin “a victim of forcible assault.”

Lulli Akin made the charge in a new National Journal profile, which reveals a family affair of a campaign — Akin’s campaign manager is his son, and Lulli is also a key player.

Lulli Akin says in the profile that she is not turned off by the refusal of national Republicans to contribute money to the race. She says small donations — and God’s will — will help her husband win:

    “God can increase,” she said, citing the “Feeding of the 5,000” — a Gospel miracle in which Jesus uses five small barley loaves and two small fish to feed a multitude. The campaign will take small contributions, “respect them, and say ‘God, multiply it. Make it pay,’ ” Lulli Akin said. “It brought us through the primary, same way. We’re gonna see it again, because God wants to be honored.”

Lulli Akin echoed her husband’s disdain for Republican leaders:

    Lulli Akin said that efforts to push her husband out of the race threaten to replace elections “by the people and for the people” with “tyranny, a top-down approach.” She added, “Party bosses dictating who is allowed to advance through the party and make all the decisions—it’s just like 1776 in that way.”

    She cited colonists who “rose up and said, ‘Not in my home, you don’t come and rape my daughters and my … wife. But that is where we are again. There has been a freedom of elections, not tyranny of selections since way back. Why are we going to roll over and let them steamroll us, be it Democrats or Republicans or whomever?”

Todd Akin said his wife’s comparisons to 1776 were “a little more grandiose than the way I would say it” — but he did say that there is a “this tremendous sense of uprising I feel among the people I talk to.”

So, she didn't answer the question of the day. Is the GOP's abandonment of Todd Akin like a legitimate rape, or one of those annoying little illegitimate rapes that might get you pregnant? Were the Akins able to secrete a secretion to keep his campaign from being impregnated with sensibility?

One the other hand, Rape. She used that word again, that word that got Akin in so much trouble before. Yet Akin doesn't have a problem with that. His only quibble was that his wife made an analogy to the founding fathers in 1776. He wasn't bothered by her using the word rape to describe how the GOP abandoned his campaign and stopped feeding it the elixir of life that all campaigns need, money.

So, he's still blinded by what rape is, and still doesn't have a problem using it inappropriately.


Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #98 on: September 19, 2012, 02:19:32 PM »
for people who likely would ban divorce they have divorced themselves from reality soundly.

Sometimes I think there is an undercurrent of republicans who are decent, sane, normal people who hold honest concervitive views who move their desks in unison when someone in their party goes on a loony spree. (I also notice many jumping ship the crazier the party gets)

It's kinda like if a democrat had said in a political adress "I admire, and believe we should have switched to the soviet Collectivist system 120 years ago, afterall, the little people just don't understand how to run a country." everyone around him would just go wide eyed and move their chairs away from the crazy guy.

Offline Stattick

« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 03:10:53 PM by Stattick »