Do prior acts and relations negate the right to claim that one was raped and if yes, how far in the past must the prior acts have taken place? Don’t consider the (il)legality of the act - consider it from a moral perspective (and one not affected by your Muslim beliefs on pre-marital sex).
Rape is Rape full stop. You cant argue it if it is proved beyond doubt.
However when deciding the fate of the parties one must consider the faults in both of them.
Sure the guy did the wrong thing and should be punished, no question but if the woman did not take heed of warnings and made it easier for the guy to take advantage then she too should be punished to some extent.
In the case of alleged rape that turns out to be false then the woman should be punished.
And if the man is indeed guilty then he should suffer a terrible punishment.
The punishments are well known to everyone... but the cannons and articles are not always adhered to.
Looking at the alleged facts in the Assange situation:
Miss A (1st woman):
Aug. 14: The woman, identified by Swedish officials only as Miss A, returns to Stockholm, 24 hours earlier than planned. The two go out for dinner, return to the apartment and have sex during which a condom breaks. She would later tell police that Assange used his body weight to hold her down during sex and that she was a victim of "unlawful coercion."
Miss W (2nd woman):
Aug. 16: The second woman, identified only as Miss W by Swedish officials, calls Assange and they meet in Stockholm. They go by train to her hometown and to her apartment, where they have sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom. Aug. 17: Miss W later tells police that Assange that morning had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep.
Both woman consented to having sex. I know I said I wouldn't go all legal - but was the revocation of consent a reasonable basis for saying that the act was no longer consensual but was forced?
When it comes to the case of Wikileaks I do believe this is a witch hunt. Nothing more. When a man or women consents to intercourse, it can not be considered rape in my opinion. However Monk does have a point. Western European laws heavily favour women when it comes to issues of sexual molestation and rape. A woman can decide after the fact and it will be considered rape.
Just because sex was consensual the first time, doesn't mean it would be consensual the next.
Miss A consented to sex yes, but if her story is true, then during intimacy the line between consent and force was crossed because after the condom broke she did not want to go on with the act. Sounds like rape to me.
Again, same holds true Miss W. Sex the night before was fine because the act was mutual. The following morning she was sleeping and had not consented. Rape.
Just because sex was consensual the first time, doesn't mean it would be consensual the next.
Miss A consented to sex yes, but if her story is true, then during intimacy the line between consent and force was crossed because after the condom broke she did not want to go on with the act. Sounds like rape to me.
Again, same holds true Miss W. Sex the night before was fine because the act was mutual. The following morning she was sleeping and had not consented. Rape.
Read this !
When a girl changes her mind afterwards!
When the guy is really rich/famous.
Just because sex was consensual the first time, doesn't mean it would be consensual the next.
Miss A consented to sex yes, but if her story is true, then during intimacy the line between consent and force was crossed because after the condom broke she did not want to go on with the act. Sounds like rape to me.
Again, same holds true Miss W. Sex the night before was fine because the act was mutual. The following morning she was sleeping and had not consented. Rape.
So the trojan corporation need to be charged with rape not the poor guy.
Seriously enough with spending resources/attention on ***** crying rape.
Seriously!!!!
Miss A consented to sex yes, but if her story is true, then during intimacy the line between consent and force was crossed because after the condom broke she did not want to go on with the act. Sounds like rape to me.
Again, same holds true Miss W. Sex the night before was fine because the act was mutual. The following morning she was sleeping and had not consented. Rape.
did she struggle? did she do anything at the time to prevent him. if she tried to stop him at the time and he forced himself upon her then its rape. I just googled it and on some site its reported that one of the women went early next morning to get something to eat for the guy. clearly she wasn't very peeved off about him 'raping' her.
This case is full of irregularities. Just read up on it on the web.
Just because sex was consensual the first time, doesn't mean it would be consensual the next.
Miss A consented to sex yes, but if her story is true, then during intimacy the line between consent and force was crossed because after the condom broke she did not want to go on with the act. Sounds like rape to me.
If I'm not mistaken - in this incident he was charged with sexual molestation instead of rape. Without harping on the details - the fact the she 1) consented, 2) he wore a condom as per any prior understanding, 3) they were in the middle of the act, when she changed her mind makes it a little difficult to call the act forced. Is there a point of no return for the guy and the girl after which it is no longer fair to call the act rape or molestation?
[quote]
Again, same holds true Miss W. Sex the night before was fine because the act was mutual. The following morning she was sleeping and had not consented. Rape.
[/quote]
In this situation - having initiated sex (maybe even completed the act) with a woman who was sleeping and who had consented mere hours before, did that give him a reasonable basis to assume that her consent from the night before still stood/was valid or is he expected to ask her again? Did he have reason to believe that she would withhold her consent from a subsequent sexual encounter?
Most other crimes of rape are clear-cut - these circumstances are very nuanced and it gives rise to questioning at what point a mutual act becomes a forced act.
What I'm seeking to demonstrate is that an allegation of rape is not the same as actual rape either from a legal or moral standpoint. I think many people could argue that Assange had reason to believe that his partners had consented to the relationship.
Rape is Rape full stop. You cant argue it if it is proved beyond doubt.
However when deciding the fate of the parties one must consider the faults in both of them.
Sure the guy did the wrong thing and should be punished, no question but if the woman did not take heed of warnings and made it easier for the guy to take advantage then she too should be punished to some extent.
In the case of alleged rape that turns out to be false then the woman should be punished.
And if the man is indeed guilty then he should suffer a terrible punishment.
The punishments are well known to everyone... but the cannons and articles are not always adhered to.
So you think that rape doesn't inflict enough suffering on women, that you need to "punish," them? A person doesn't inflict a crime upon themselves, others do it to them. That's the entire point.
I don't get your line of reasoning, other than hating women who don't follow your ethics to the T. And of course, rape apologism which is btw, what rapists do.
Wrong. Clearly you have never sat in on any judicial proceedings concerning rape allegations. Nor have you spoken to, or heard the voices of women who have been raped.
Consent can be revoked at any time, for any reason. If the other person refuses to acknowledge the others' rights to their own body, that is rape, and a grave offense and attack on the other person. The psychological trauma can be devastating, even if it was consensual 5 minutes prior.
It's harder for a woman to rape a man, so you're basically saying women's bodies are owned by men they are perceived to have given consent to. Tsk tsk, what do we have if not control over our own bodies?
