Being female in public is a crime
- Thread starter Wol
- Start date
Xylak
New Member
Ahh, righty.
Although sometimes it may be just an example to stress a point.
As was portions my moderated/infraction post - but then maybe I didn't make that clear in the middle of my rage.
Such is the nature of writing
Also, Killer-MK1, I think I see what you were getting at in your previous point - act in self-defence rather than initiate something, yes?
/let's not get hung up this, though. Been enjoying it all since
Taffy
New Member
An interesting point. I agree with some of what you say, and can certainly understand your view, but I also disagree. PCSO's act as a buffer between the police and the public, some of whom feel that they cannot/should not apporach a police officer with an issue. With PCSO's on the street and available to the public, crimes and community issues get reported which otherwise wouldn't be. Further, PCSO's can be deployed to certain situations where a uniformed person needs to be sent, but a police officer maybe isn't necessary, which frees up officers to deal with other situations where they are required.
I'd love to have all PCSO's turned into constables, but realistically that isn't going to happen, so I'd rather have them than not.
Xylak
New Member
Ahhh, the joys of debate
An interesting insight. Although I cannot think of a situation where I, personally, would rather approach a PCSO over a regular PC so perhaps that's why I struggle to appreciate them so much.
I agree that there are times where a Police-employed civilian can fulfil a role but, to my mind, these should be a much more background/supportive role; for example, aiding in domestic disputes, helping identify eye-witnesses to an incident and so on - which I'm sure PCSOs do.
I think I have just realised what it is about PCSOs that bother me, is that they look too much like a regular PC. Yes I know they have "Community Support Officer" written on their back, but at first glance they are easily taken for a PC. This is, obviously, intentional but perhaps they need a different, more muted casual, uniform. Perhaps it's that which makes me feel we are moving towards a more dystopian Police state.
Yep, nope and I understand where you're coming from but think there are better alternatives.
I would still rather see the resources that are spent on PCSOs put into understanding and addressing the real CAUSES of crime instead.
/ I really appreciate your input and point of view here, Taffy, even though I think we are, ultimately, going to remain on opposite sides of this debate
Ashya
Active Member
Chuchurocket
In Cryo Sleep
"I think the word slut is a powerful word to me." They always need to find the crazy one to get a soundbyte from.
They always need to find the crazy one to get a soundbyte from.
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
Huung
Well-Known Member
That would be logical if rape were about sexual gratification with the most attractive woman you can find. Only, that's totally NOT what rape is about. Rape is about CONTROL. The clothing of the woman is totally unimportant, as what the rapist enjoys is the control they have over the victim, that is what gives them the sexual gratification.
The attitude of "she's wearing less clothing so is more likely to get raped" is idiotic and offensive.
While that might be the case, I think that is overcomplicating the matter.
Sex is consensual (i.e. both parties agree to take part). Rape is non-consensual (i.e. one party does not agree to take part).
Acting in violation of consent is irritating when its borrowing your book without asking, unhealthy when it's your toothbrush, illegal when it's your car, and offensive when its your intimacy.
I guess that's about control but the other way around. Rape is a loss of control over oneself through the force of another. Whether the rapist gets off on control, violation, display of power or whatever, the result is still a violation of a basic tenet: you are free to decide what happens to your body.
While I think I see where you're coming from, a rape is completely the fault of the rapist. That he was assisted, overlooked, encouraged, or whatever makes no difference to the fact that the act was his. Those who assisted, overlooked or encouraged should also be held to account in their various degrees of culpability.
In all this, I wonder if there's a largely male fear at play: the fear of the rape game (RAPO game). The fear is that a consenting woman can, at any time, turn around and cry rape and that we men couldn't see that coming (it is, after all, a game perpetrated by the woman in "child" state to get the attention/reinforcement they desire). In a zero-tolerance environment where the male is assumed to be the perpetrator of the crime, I can see that men could feel very exposed to this style of game. This would create a real confusion between "she said she was okay, then cried rape afterwards" and "she looked like she was up for it, so I just went for it". How would anyone else determine the difference? I imagine there are a variety of forensic markers to distinguish but you'd be in a terrible situation by that point.
However, I do believe that this sort of game is a minority issue, unless you're dealing with emotionally damaged/stunted people.
After all, "no" or "stop" are definitive. Sure, thrown down part way through intercourse would be a bit of an upset, but doesn't change the fact that something's now awry and that stopping is the inarguably correct thing to do. No amount of "well, you were up for it before" or "but I'm not satisfied" makes a difference. If that's what you're being dealt and you feel unfairly treated then seek sex elsewhere with an alternative consenting partner.
Honestly, I feel that if someone wants to walk around butt naked, dressed sexily, or even just smart or pretty then that's entirely their business and doesn't create an agreement, tacit or otherwise, to anything at all. Fine, dressing in skimpy clothing might indicate an interest in sex, but does not preclude the basic checks of consensuality. Viewed from the other side, control of chemical urges is what being civilised is about, at one level. Sure, you may feel sexual urges at the sight of a particular person, but you choose not to indulge in them unless the other person agrees to participate.
Consent, consent, consent. First and last word, really.
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
My comment about logic was more about ease of act rather than motivation, afteral why would a rapist attack someone they thought would be difficulty to rape? (And dont tell me rapists are logical or predictable, they know what they want and go for it regardless of what other tell them.)
We can all walk around and cry offensive, 'aaah thats offensive'. I think it is offensive that rape is even a crime. Though ordinarily i dont air this view. Considering that a woman cannot even be guilty of said crime(english law).
I do agree that the predisposition to commit rape is however 'probably' not affected by any factors relating to ease of act, eg darkness, clothing and seclusion.
But to also say "oh yeah its only about control", what a load of bull.
I blame the TV (and nightclubs which I, do not attend) for perpetuating the view that a female can indicate her desire for sex purely by clothing, i have not to my knowledge ever seen a male way of dressing which says "come here and ****".
Indeed I see most media appears to sell (to men) the mental phrase "you may think you want it a lot, but women want it a lot too".
Infact I find myself most confused when walking around, why this view is thrust upon me by almost all media outlets and yet when i talk to people only males arent offended by anything related to sex. And then to compound this, women even like the way this is presented to men (thats right im talking about you music videos!).
EDIT: 5 typos even with prior rereads
Huung
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't attack someone they thought would be difficult, but clothing is not high on the list of "difficulties" to someone who is essentially an opportunist. Other factors, some of which you list below, have a far higher priority (seclusion, for one).
Here I agree, although this is a different matter altogether.
Exactly, the idea is already there, and thus the factors relating to ease of act are moot when it comes to prevention of said crime.
Furthermore, please quote me, if you can, on where I said "it's only about control". What I said was "rape is about CONTROL", and it is.
Ronin expanded upon this, and I would agree, it is more about the removal of control of the victim than the raised control of the rapist. Nevertheless, it is still more of a control issue than a sex issue.
Rapists don't go out to rape because they haven't had sex in a while, they do it because they associate the control they have during the act with sexual gratification. Where this association comes from, as well as to what level it works at, varies with the attacker.
It's the same in nature. Usually only one sex of a species will be brightly coloured, or have something special about them for attracting mates. As humans we've just adapted this and our 'plumage' is our clothing. As the females of our species choose mates more carefully than males (many reasons for this, including the security of their offspring, males 'sowing as many seeds as possible' etc), it is the women who are in control of which male they take as a sexual partner most of the time. This leads to the women being the ones with the 'plumage', and they wear different things to attract different levels of male attention.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is all done consciously, it's just in our nature to behave this way. Women don't go dressing scantily because they're looking to have babies that night, but the subconscious of using their clothing to attract specific males is still there.
Xylak
New Member
Before I completely kick off (again), I want to be sure I understand your statement.
Are you suggesting that rape should not be considered a crime or that rape should not exist?
Also, offensive to whom?
Please explain your statement.
And, no, women generally don't get convicted of rape but it has happened (citation)
[mod]Yeah, so, tread carefully here, people.[/mod]
I think what he may have been suggesting is that one-sided legality (i.e. rape is crime that only men can perpetrate) is offensive. That said, noting that citation, it's not entirely one sided, just overbearingly a male offense, at least in terms of conviction.
I think what he may have been suggesting is that one-sided legality (i.e. rape is crime that only men can perpetrate) is offensive. That said, noting that citation, it's not entirely one sided, just overbearingly a male offense, at least in terms of conviction.
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
So as to avoid an inordinate response from you. I shall not missquote you in the same way you have missquoted me.
1. Oops thought that misquoting me out of context was a personal attack and responded in kind, edited that out.
1.5. I only hope that if you have understood me correctly and you still dont like it you can avoid "kicking off" and instead write to your local PM asking for the law to be changed.
2. Either. Neither. Most likely neither, i am suggesting the law is unfair.
3. To me, and any male that does not consider women to be the weaker gender.
4. I did back up my statement, but i shall post the link here again.
5. This woman did not actually commit* rape, however the intelligent prosecution found a way to charge and convict her for it anyway. [EDIT: for example, rape by proxy eg paying/causing/blackmailing a man to rape a female(or male) mainly based on the guilty womans input.] The law has been written, im not sure how or why, with women as the weaker sex in need of protection, i dont agree. While i can not provide an example which is not fiction i shall give that example anyway:
Under english law, what the character Alma did is not considered rape.
*Like conspiracy to commit murder, where the charged was involved, but not involved in the act.
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
Xylak
New Member
Killer.
No, I didn't misquote you, just asked for clarification on your statement "I think it is offensive that rape is even a crime".
I may have *misunderstood* what you were getting at, which is why I asked, but that's a different thing.
Perhaps it's the way you say things and I had to read it a few times BUT I think what you are saying is that the *technicality* of law is that only a man can commit rape - yes?
If so, yes it's a quirk of law that it is male-centric although I, personally, do not have a massive issue with this - however, I do agree that women *can* commit rape but would, obviously, have to use something else other than a penis and this is where the wording of the law needs to be changed for clarity.
The law may appear to protect women (although not necessarily as a 'weaker sex') because the original definition was of penetration of the vagina by a penis. Yes, this has been changed to penetration of mouth and/or anus but sill by a man against a woman.
Still, this is a very, very minor point as the biggest issue is that of perception (as in "she was asking for it") which is upheld by members both gender groups.
/Also, quite confused as to who is who and/or what in your example - but don't worry about explaining it. I think I see where it is going.
No, I didn't misquote you, just asked for clarification on your statement "I think it is offensive that rape is even a crime".
I may have *misunderstood* what you were getting at, which is why I asked, but that's a different thing.
Perhaps it's the way you say things and I had to read it a few times BUT I think what you are saying is that the *technicality* of law is that only a man can commit rape - yes?
If so, yes it's a quirk of law that it is male-centric although I, personally, do not have a massive issue with this - however, I do agree that women *can* commit rape but would, obviously, have to use something else other than a penis and this is where the wording of the law needs to be changed for clarity.
The law may appear to protect women (although not necessarily as a 'weaker sex') because the original definition was of penetration of the vagina by a penis. Yes, this has been changed to penetration of mouth and/or anus but sill by a man against a woman.
Still, this is a very, very minor point as the biggest issue is that of perception (as in "she was asking for it") which is upheld by members both gender groups.
/Also, quite confused as to who is who and/or what in your example - but don't worry about explaining it. I think I see where it is going.