Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Rape Prevention
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
mfb
it will be a very cold day in a normally warm locale before i'm convinced that lying is the answer to any societal issue.
Kanada Ten
It's not really lying. Society teaches people to behave a certain way. We need to teach society to teach people differently. Calling these people stupid has never been shown effective as a teaching tool in that sense.

[e] Instead, we need to say: It's pretty sad, but no one should go to the bar alone, and should usually bring two friends along. The buddy system we were taught as children is really effective up to a point. Also, casual sex is very dangerous, having a higher incident of rape and STDs than most dating, so we should all really discourage that. You're not at fault (note the precise word) for the rape, but it is really important that we encourage rape victims to report the crime as soon as possible. If you were raped, even by a family member, you need to report an authority because the rapist needs to be stopped - whether to receive treatment or whatever. Tolerating rape is very dangerous and can lead the rapist to believe you consented.
mfb
it's very much lying. it's lying about the nature of the world. am i going to grab a rape victim and call him or her stupid? no, that's not going to help the situation in either the long or short term. but in general, i think it's just as important--maybe more important--that people understand that their consequences have actions, and that they are not ever safe.

because, honestly? the world is never going to be a nice enough place that people can take their safety for granted.
Kanada Ten
Well, I edited. And I'm not going to agree that it's lying. Your "feelings" are not truth. Stupid is an opinion, and society is what is doing a bad job of teaching people cause effect.
mfb
i'm not advocating printing anti-rape brochures that read "DON'T BE A STUPID BINT" or anything. call it "dangerous" instead of "stupid", since it's stupid because it's dangerous. don't be insulting about it. but for chrissake, understand that the only person responsible for your safety is you.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ May 19 2006, 01:20 PM)
Duh buh wha?

The fact that it isn't a justifiable defense doesn't mean it isn't true, people.

~J

Anyone here every watch a any hentai movies? The submissive partner usually says "no" but doesn't mean it. Usually it is female but somethimes the submissive partner is male.

For extremely repressed individuals, especially in extremely repressed societies, it can be easier to feign protest than it is to admit to having sexual desires. This fact is central to the whole mixed signals problem. In the absence of unambiguous communication it is difficult to know someone's actual desires. Of course, it is the responsibility of both parties to make sure that the communication is unambiguous.


Really, "no" can mean yes. But "aardvark" always means no. Everyone, use safe words. Its easy. "If you want me to stop just say aardvark and if I say aardvark I want you to stop." Its unambiguous.

It works in other arenas, too. Acting, skydiving, Roleplaying, mock combat, and team rattlesnake tossing all benefit from safewords. Practically everyhting involving two or more people does.

As for the Love Troll vs Prophylactic Troll arguement, they can be both at the same time. I you don't want sex but your partner does then your Love Troll can act as your stand in.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
but for chrissake, understand that the only person responsible for your safety is you.

Now we just need a catchy meme for that. It has to fight "live in the moment" and a few of the other strong ones, as well. That's why "No Means No" was actually pretty good, simple, strong, and catching (believe it or not, it had a positive impact).

QUOTE
For extreme repressed individuals, especially in extremely repressed societies, can be easier to feign protest than it is to admit to having sexual desires. This fact is central to the whole mixed signals problem. In the absence of unambiguous communication it is difficult to know someone's actual desires. Of course, it is the responsibility of both parties to make sure that the communication is unambiguous.

Totally. Of course, it's meme vs. meme in a death match for these societies.
mfb
"aardvark means no".
Kanada Ten
Hum, I wonder if "Fire!" would work better? That's what you're supposed to yell in abduction and rape to draw people...

Fire means no? Meh, too many other connotations to fight, I think.
hyzmarca
But "fire means no" doesn't let us have a cute fuzzy mascot.
Snow_Fox
Guys, what you are missing, is that you are apologising for "unrest"'s words by adding on to it. Taliknig about teasing naimals etc. That cretin made no such argument. he just said women send out ambiguous signals so rapists are not to blame for what they do. We are back to me with a blade making sure he can't breed.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
He just said women send out ambiguous signals so rapists are not to blame for what they do.

He specifically mentioned intoxication and mixed signals. Whether he's right or not, the question of his balls is: "was he stupid enough to come home with you while both drunk after you had been talking about cutting off balls for the last two hours." You could probably argue that he wanted his balls cut off and that they all say no at fist, but like it later. Congradulations, you got away with cutting off some balls. Best of all, he's not going to tell anyone because you cut off his balls.

1 in 3 rapists is intoxicated during the crime. Alcohol is dangerous. Don't drink and fuck.
mfb
that is not quite what he said. he said women send out ambiguous signals, which can confuse men--especially drunk men. that doesn't lessen the guy's guilt if he does something stupid.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (mfb)
that is not quite what he said. he said women send out ambiguous signals, which can confuse men--especially drunk men. that doesn't lessen the guy's guilt if he does something stupid.

Unrest kinda said it did, but the law sure doesn't.
mfb
eh. he was talking about blame, not guilt (at least, that's the word he used)--ie, who is responsible. i don't view blame and responsibility as something that you break into pieces and assign to different parties; i think everyone involved is seperately to blame for their seperate parts. a girl who says "no" and acts "yes" is to blame for doing so. the guy who doesn't take "no" for an answer--even a passive, ambiguous "no"--is to blame for raping someone.
hyzmarca
Although unrest worded it in a very offensive way I think we can all agree that mistakes can be mde when communication is ambiguous.

I am rememded of an old comic book show called The Antigravity Room. At one point on the show, the host explained why he refered to DC as DC Comics, which is redundant. DC stands for Detective Comics so DC Comics would mean Detective Comics Comics. His justification was that DC also stands for the District of Columbia. He wanted to be clear so that he didn't start a nuclear war by talking about 'the DC launch' and leading Russia or China to believe that United States was launching ICBMs.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that a Canadian comic book show would start a nuclear war, but it does illustrate the point.

Ambiguous communication is why accidental rapes happen. And, quite frankly, that is a problem. Kagatenshi's example of his friend who had an asthma attack during sex makes it clear that accidental rape is quite possible when there is't enough communication. In that case, the problem was that the victim couldn't communicate clearly due to an unexpected medical problem. It certainly couldn't be considered her fault. At the same time, it is rather difficult to find fault with him. He probably should have been more attentive to her needs, but it is hard to say that any of us would have noticed in that situation. If they had anticipated the possibility and worked out a nonverbal safesignal ahead of time it would have provided clear and unambiguous communication.

And that is the point. Unambgious communication is necessary. Acting on ambigous communication is never a good idea and those who commit rape because of ambigious communication are still guilty of a crime. But it does go both ways.


There is also a double standard that needs to be addressed. Intoxication. One of the links that Fangirl gave clearly stated that having sex with someone who is too intoxicated to think rationally is rape. It then goes on to state that being intoxicated is not an excuse for rape. The double standard should be obvious.

If a drunk woman has sex with a man in spite of his protests but he doesn't attempt to fight her off physically then he is a rapist because she was drunk. If the roles are reversed then he is a rapist because being drunk is no excuse. Or, they are both rapists in both situations. If both are intoxicated then the double standard is much more obvious. They should both be rapists in this situations but the drunk female is rarely treated as a perpertrator. Also, even if they both enjoy the sex and are happy about it in the morning they're still both rapists or he is still a rapist at the very least and she is a poor victim with stockholm syndrome. This, of course, goes more to the ability to give informed consent under the law and statutory rape rather than actual rape, but it does support the point. There are grey areas, despite what some people say. It is uncomfortable to think so because of the potential consequences of this fact but denying it won't make it untrue.

The fact that these grey areas exist is why unambiguous communication is so important in both directions. Acting on ambiguous communication is never a good idea. Giving ambiguous communications is never a good idea, either.
Laser
At the beginning of his post, unrest indicated that he was engaging in devil's advocacy. Stop holding it against him.
Cain
Okay, let's put up the hypothetical to give things some perspective.

The stranger in a dark alley thing, that's flat-out wrong. Unfortunately, that's more or less a myth as well. What's more likely to happen is that a rape happens after you've had a few drinks with your friends. You've been flirting on and off with the person for a while now-- maybe you're naturally flirtatious, maybe you've got a mild interest, or who knows what. You invite everyone other to your house for a few drinks. Eventually, your other friends leave, and you keep having drinks. The other person makes a move, which is gently and playfully rebuffed. After a little while, another move is made, which is still gently rebuffed. The other person looks a little frustrated, so suddenly a serious move is made. You're shocked that this could even be happening-- you might have a gun, but it's safed somewhere, since you've been drinking, and beginner martial arts are all geared at the other guy leaving you some distance. You start saying "No" much more frimly, but the other person isn't listening anymore. Things go downhill from there.

Now, granted that no should mean no.... but at what point could all of this been prevented? Being alone in your apartment with someone you're not 100% about is a pretty good start. While being raped is a bad thing, you do need to take some sensible precautions for your own safety.

What's really frightening is that this is probably one of the more common rape scenarios out there.
mfb
a perfect example of why "being alone with a trusted friend" is not safe behavior. that's not to say you should never be alone with a friend. it means you need to be aware of the possible danger there, and be prepared to get yourself out of it if necessary.
Arethusa
The stranger in a dark alley thing does happen, but it is vanishingly rare in comparison.

[edit]

I swear to god, mfb, instapost me again and I'm going to rape you.
Kanada Ten
Simsense might really throw a kink in rape prevention. This is a society that will be raised living experiences; any experiences they desire without fear of rejection, humiliation, or any of the normal baggage. What happens when someone isn't used to a partner saying no, and meaning it? I know I mention this often, but dissociation and detachment from simsense is going to be interesting. But, also, physical sex might become less "first encounter sex", while shared simsense sex (cybersex) will proliferate. That does give a lot more control to the participants, since the disconnect command would be a built in safe word.

QUOTE
The stranger in a dark alley thing, that's flat-out wrong.  Unfortunately, that's more or less a myth as well.

No, not a myth, just much less common. Rape following a home invasion is another real event, but not as common as between familiars. This was somewhat covered in the other thread , and more in the linked statistics. Note that Africa, and elsewhere, is another story.
Laser
Instead of disconnect, I think a kick command would be better. That way if the other party crosses the line, THEY are the ones to reap the headache. Puts an entirely new spin on the term getting 'dumped'...
mfb
QUOTE (Arethusa)
I swear to god, mfb, instapost me again and I'm going to rape you.

next you're going to tell me to stop wearing miniskirts!
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (Laser)
Instead of disconnect, I think a kick command would be better. That way if the other party crosses the line, THEY are the ones to reap the headache. Puts an entirely new spin on the term getting 'dumped'...

eek.gif Man, there was this story I read about a guy who would lead AI on an emotion trip and then into a damaged area of his mind thus frying it's core code (killing it, essentially). This was revenge for an AI taking his job as an accountant.

Imagine a hacker leading people into cybersex and then killing them with positive leathal feedback! "He died with a smile on his face and a mess in his pants."
Shanshu Freeman
QUOTE (James McMurray)


A better justice ssytem would also help. While laws do not always prevent crime, they do prevent some crimes. Better conviction rates of rapists would make some people think twice about raping someone.

dunno if it's all been covered, haven't read it all yet...


if any crimes can be prevented by laws, I suspect rape is at the bottom of the list. a serial rapist is compulsed to act out... in his frenzy, he won't stop and think, "Wait a tick, if I do this, I'll get 25 to life."

the best prevention is education and mental health services.

serial rape is often a result of an irresistable compulsion, mental illness, it's an act of agression, and it's a violent misdirection of sexual impulses.

<insert Adam Carolla rant about it being an act of violence vs sexuality>


the kind of rape cain was discussing, however is much more common... date rape, etc... tougher to anticipate and prevent... plus anticipating and preventing it raises certain ethical concerns.


to make this more shadowrunny, the run could deal with a corp's plan to prevent rapes (or to manipulate rapists for their own gain) through psych profiles, testing, etc through surveys of young people, correlating known data with those likely to offend. it's perfect for shadowrun, moral ambiguity about civil rights, self determination, etc.

super well thought out posting by alot of people here, especially hyzmarca



mfb
QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
"He died with a smile on his face and a mess in his pants."

+1 karma for making the table laugh.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Shanshu Freeman @ May 19 2006, 11:35 PM)

to make this more shadowrunny, the run could deal with a corp's plan to prevent rapes (or to manipulate rapists for their own gain) through psych profiles, testing, etc through surveys of young people, correlating known data with those likely to offend.  it's perfect for shadowrun, moral ambiguity about civil rights, self determination, etc.

According to some there is an evolutionary basis for rape. Although, this applies more to stranger rape than to date rape as the crux of the concept is that kidnaping and raping people as a tactic in inter-tribal warfare is a great way to spread one's genes and to introduce new genetic material into the tribe. It is also related to stockholm syndrome in that individuals who more readily integrated into their new tribe were far more likely to survive and reproduce than those who continued to fighted agains ttheir kidnappers.

It this is be true it could be possible to isolate a gene or series of genes that correlates to stranger-rape. Megacorps and other governments can then force men who have this "rape gene" to undergo sex reasignment surgery for the public good.


mfb, you should never stop wearing miniskirts but you might consider mixing it up a little and trying hotpants every now and then.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
According to some there is an evolutionary basis for rape. Although, this applies more to stranger rape than to date rape

Not really. Think about it: she doesn't really want to help you propagate your genes? Fuck that!

~J
Shanshu Freeman
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ May 20 2006, 05:04 AM)
QUOTE (Shanshu Freeman @ May 19 2006, 11:35 PM)

to make this more shadowrunny, the run could deal with a corp's plan to prevent rapes (or to manipulate rapists for their own gain) through psych profiles, testing, etc through surveys of young people, correlating known data with those likely to offend.  it's perfect for shadowrun, moral ambiguity about civil rights, self determination, etc.

According to some there is an evolutionary basis for rape. Although, this applies more to stranger rape than to date rape as the crux of the concept is that kidnaping and raping people as a tactic in inter-tribal warfare is a great way to spread one's genes and to introduce new genetic material into the tribe. It is also related to stockholm syndrome in that individuals who more readily integrated into their new tribe were far more likely to survive and reproduce than those who continued to fighted agains ttheir kidnappers.

It this is be true it could be possible to isolate a gene or series of genes that correlates to stranger-rape. Megacorps and other governments can then force men who have this "rape gene" to undergo sex reasignment surgery for the public good.


mfb, you never stop waring miniskirts but you might consider mixing it up a little and trying hotpants every now and then.

as an addendum, research indicates that primates submit and revere those with the ability to exert power over them (usually kill them) ... this provides some insight into the origins of more complex behavior in humans, such as stockholm syndrome.

bonus points for using the term "sex reassignment" rather than "gender reassignment" btw: anybody seen Subrosa lately?? ( Don't worry Kagetenshi, I'll save you the trouble: "With all due respect, Shanshu, Shut up!" <3 )

the sex reassignment you are thinking of; are you thinking of something cosmetic, along the lines of what we do now, but using SR tech? or are you thinking of something on a genetic level? if we're thinking on the genetic level, we might "fix" the "rape gene," rather than change the sex. changing the sex by replumbing may result in an individual who cannot commit the offense of penile vaginal rape, but it wouldn't solve the underlying aggressive behavioral impulse.

so then a "Does DNA = Destiny?" arguement arises. Further, what are the rights of an individual found to have a "rape gene?" Do they recieve treatment willingly or not? Does the good done for society outweigh the bad of denying them free will or self determination? Also, what happend to innocent until proven guilty, a la Minority Report?

Further, simply because we can tinker with genes, should we? I'm speaking on a practical rather than moral matter. Remember the "Hot Coffee" mod to GTA: San Andreas? They didn't want to muck with the code too close to the release date, so rather than remove objectionable material, a process which might have cascading and unforseen consequences on other code elsewhere in the program, they just prevented access to that portion of the data. What if tinkering with human DNA in a similar manner has unforseen results?






<hears the Gattaca theme in his head>
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
What if tinkering with human DNA in a similar manner has unforseen results?

Well, we could just prevent the activation of that gene, as well, but in SR they are well beyond "tinkering" with genes.
Shanshu Freeman
QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
QUOTE
What if tinkering with human DNA in a similar manner has unforseen results?

Well, we could just prevent the activation of that gene, as well, but in SR they are well beyond "tinkering" with genes.

indeed. megacorps have the will and the way.
hyzmarca
Primary sex traits are determined almost entirely by hormone levels during gestation. Secondary traits are determined entirely by hormones during puberty.
With SR cloning only the gonads would have to be geneticly altered. All the other parts grow in response to hormone levels so it would be rather trivial to clone a female reproductive system (sans ovaries) from male DNA if you had the technology to clone specific tissues and regulate the homone that influance those tissues during the cloning process. The ovaries would require some tinkering to make sure they work right so they would have to be bioware.

So, I imagine the process would involve a clone uterus, bioware ovaries, and surgically sculpted everything else. Cyberware or bioware can be used to regulate hormone levels. There is no need for full-scale genetic tampering since the genes don't do much after everything has been made and full-scale gene alteration has the potential to induce cancer if even one cell is left half-finished.

Of course, this draconian measure wouldn't stop anything because most of the victims wouldn't have raped in the first place. There is some evidence that gender identity is linked to minor differences in certain brain structures that are set during gestation according to prenatal hormone levels. The vast majority of men subjected to this procedure would still identify themselves as men and would live lives of abject misery. They would be prone to drug abuse and sexual assualt as outlets for their frustration and the number of female-on-female rapes would skyrocket.
It is the very definition of ill-concieved, which is why I can see some corporations and plenty of government jumping on the bandwagon.
Personafixes would help the adjustment of these unfortunate souls, but that wouldn't be half as fun as having it fail miserably amid an irrestable wave of nonconsensual girl-on-girl BDSM.
Arethusa
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ May 20 2006, 12:04 AM)
According to some there is an evolutionary basis for rape. Although, this applies more to stranger rape than to date rape

There's an evolutionary basis for anything if you're even a little creative. It's enormously convenient, but it's unrepentantly lazy science. Take it with more than a bit of salt.
hyzmarca
If fanpro gave out us a nickle for every bit of lazy science in SR then we'd all be richer than Bill Gates. A little more won't hurt.
James McMurray
QUOTE
In the absence of unambiguous communication it is difficult to know someone's actual desires...  Really, "no" can mean yes.


"No" is not an ambiguous word. If you look it up in the dictionary, it means exactly what you think it means. The ambiguity comes in when the person being told no really wants the other person to mean yes. You can accompany it with winking, alcohol, or even a little scrotum tickling and the word itself means the same exact thing that it always does.

Maybe they really do want to have sex and are being coy about it. It doesn't matter. The moment they say no, they've said no. If you think they're kidding or teasing, you'd better serious yourself up and ask point blank. If they say no again you stop. If they then say yes you call them a horrible tease and proceed to roll around naked for as long as you can.

Life ain't hentai.

QUOTE
They should both be rapists in this situations but the drunk female is rarely treated as a perpertrator.


That doesn't mean she isn't.

QUOTE
if any crimes can be prevented by laws, I suspect rape is at the bottom of the list. a serial rapist is compulsed to act out... in his frenzy, he won't stop and think, "Wait a tick, if I do this, I'll get 25 to life."


Right, which is why it would only prevent some rapes. How many we can't tell. But if 90% of accused rapists went to jail instead of 5%, a lot of men would start taking the phrase "no means no" more seriously. It wouldn't stop people driven to it by psychological damage, but very little will stop them. Even issuing every woman a gun and vagina dentata wouldn't stop them, it would just make them plan more or get shot with half a penis.

QUOTE
changing the sex by replumbing may result in an individual who cannot commit the offense of penile vaginal rape, but it wouldn't solve the underlying aggressive behavioral impulse.


It would almost assuredly exascerbate it, leading to other violent crimes instead.

QUOTE
Primary sex traits are determined almost entirely by hormone levels during gestation. Secondary traits are determined entirely by hormones during puberty.


You're sounding incredibly confident when laying out "facts" about something you can't get 20 randomly chosen scientists in a room to agree about. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you may not be right.

QUOTE
As for the Love Troll vs Prophylactic Troll arguement, they can be both at the same time. I you don't want sex but your partner does then your Love Troll can act as your stand in.


I love it! Much more effective, but it would probably cost double.
mfb
QUOTE (James McMurray)
The ambiguity comes in when the person being told no really wants the other person to mean yes. You can accompany it with winking, alcohol, or even a little scrotum tickling and the word itself means the same exact thing that it always does.

that is, indeed, the best policy, and it's one a clear-thinking person will probably always follow. however, if you're already three sheets to the wind and there's a cute chick rubbing against you, you're probably not thinking clearly. doesn't make you less guilty, but it does mean that she's doing something stupid dangerous.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
But if 90% of accused rapists went to jail instead of 5%, a lot of men would start taking the phrase "no means no" more seriously.

well, yes, but it would also mean that a lot of innocent men would be going to jail. witch hunts have never made anything better.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (James McMurray @ May 20 2006, 06:08 AM)
QUOTE
In the absence of unambiguous communication it is difficult to know someone's actual desires...  Really, "no" can mean yes.


"No" is not an unambiguous word. If you look it up in the dictionary, it means exactly what you think it means. The ambiguity comes in when the person being told no really wants the other person to mean yes. You can accompany it with winking, alcohol, or even a little scrotum tickling and the word itself means the same exact thing that it always does.


I believe that you need an unremover in that first sentence. It is accurate as is but, taken in context it does not support your claim. Obviously, you mean the opposite of what you wrote. See, context is important.

US Air Force basic training takes place at Lackland a base in Texas in the middle of the frickin' desert. It is so hot people there go to Hell for a vacation. Trainees spend a great deal of time marching, on hot roads, in the middle of the frikkin' desert. They march and march and march and march and do push ups and occasionally they march. Of course, since all this marching is being done on hot roads in the middle of the frikkin' desert they sweat quite a bit. For this reason, regulations require that trainees drink a certain amount of water every hour. The only problem is that this is impossible. It is extremely difficult to drink water while marching without losing pace and losing pace is a bad thing when your marching. It is a very bad thing. There aren't enough breaks to indulge in a large amount of drinking. There aren't enough places to refill a canteen. There are enough scalding hot and rancid outdoor toilets to accommodate that amount of flow and there certainly isn't enough time to use them regularly.
However, at the end of the day the TIs ask their trainees how much water they drank that day. The TIs make it very clear that they want an honest and accurate answer. This, of course, is a motherfucking lie. They want the right answer. They don't care how much you've drank that day so long as you're not dying. They're just going through the motions required by regulations. It doesn't matter if the number given is true just so long as it falls within the correct range. Lying is best for all involved. It saves them paper work and it save the trainees the trouble of keeping (and falsifying) hydration charts. They can't say this, of course. But it is implicit. You report the the correct water intake so the officers won't go Apocalypse Now batshit insano on your TI's ass and, in turn, your TI won't go Apocalypse Now batshit insano on your ass. They are (officially) anal retentive about hydration because people have died due to underhydration and others have died due to overhydration. Going through the motions while still drinking the appropriate amount for you keeps everyone happy.

Now, this story has nothing to do with rape but the principal is the same. People do just go through the motions sometimes. And when they are playing out this scenario that they feel obliged to play out they say things that they do not mean. The ambiguity comes when one is not sure if a reluctant partner is truly reluctant or just going through the motions to fulfill social or personal expectations.

QUOTE

If you think they're kidding or teasing, you'd better serious yourself up and ask point blank. If they say no again you stop. If they then say yes you call them a horrible tease and proceed to roll around naked for as long as you can.


This does agree with my point, you should never act on ambiguous communication and instead ask for clarification. But going about it that way can really kill the mood. When it does it kills the mood like Tulsa Doom's heat seeking arrow killed Conan's girlfriend. The mood dies a lingering but inevitable death and everyone mourns for it but not even giant horned gods can bring it back.

This is why safewords are so nice. Setting safewords beforehand allows a partner to go through the motions of reluctance while actually communicating enthusiasm. It allows the scenario to play out without any ambiguity and it allows real protest to be made without ambiguity.

QUOTE
Life ain't hentai.


Tell that to the tentacle monster.
Shanshu Freeman
to add another wrinkle to the topic at hand, in some jurisdictions saying "no" might be more than what is required for it to be a rape. let me put that another way; if the person doesn't explicitly consent, it becomes rape. further, if the person is not able to legally consent, it is rape, which means if the person is intoxicated, voluntarily or otherwise, their consent is null. if the person is a minor, they are not able to consent, and so on.... I expect that might be something some mega corps might not adopt... they could have underage doxies, etc...
eidolon
rotfl.gif

Thanks for the story about how "hard" AF basic is.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

wink.gif
James McMurray
QUOTE
well, yes, but it would also mean that a lot of innocent men would be going to jail. witch hunts have never made anything better.


Really? So you know that 95% of accused rapists aren't all guilty? It must be nice to have knowledge that nobody else does. Even if it isn't 95%, more than what's happening now couldn't hurt.

QUOTE
I believe that you need an unremover in that first sentence.


Oops! Too many negatives rolling around in my brain. smile.gif

QUOTE
See, context is important.


It most certainly is when reading a paragraph in a discussion. The implied followup to that is not true. Context means nothing when discussing whether someone wants to have sex or not. If nothing else, you should protect yourself by being straight about the answer before proceeding.

QUOTE
The ambiguity comes when one is not sure if a reluctant partner is truly reluctant or just going through the motions to fulfill social or personal expectations.


A cute story, but irrelevant. One, it's argument by analogy, which is a fallacy. Two, it's wrong. You're still trying to inject ambiguity into a word that has only one clearly defined meaning. Is it possible they really do want to have sex? It sure is. Does that matter in the slightest once they've said no? Not at all.

QUOTE
This does agree with my point, you should never act on ambiguous communication and instead ask for clarification. But going about it that way can really kill the mood. When it does it kills the mood like Tulsa Doom's heat seeking arrow killed Conan's girlfriend. The mood dies a lingering but inevitable death and everyone mourns for it but not even giant horned gods can bring it back.


Who cares? If you go to prison for rape or get raped, you'll wish the mood had been killed. If you really mean it there are tons of ways to get that mood going again. Insisting on safe words when "no" is the English language's universal safe word is stupid. It would definitely work, but it isn't something that two people who just met do, and shouldn't have to do.

Do you really expect people to meet someone at a club, hang out with them, and at some point say "I'm going to tell you no when you make your advances, but don't really stop until I say aardvark?" Maybe in hyzmarca world.

QUOTE
Tell that to the tentacle monster.


Tell that to the guy dispensing your antihallucinogens. smile.gif
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Even if it isn't 95%, more than what's happening now couldn't hurt.

Yes, yes it could.

~J
James McMurray
Yes, it could hurt if the innocent are getting convicted. Obviously my intention is not that we convict more innocent people.

QUOTE (me)
Do you really expect people to meet someone at a club, hang out with them, and at some point say "I'm going to tell you no when you make your advances, but don't really stop until I say aardvark?"


I should add a second part to that. FI you're the type of person that likes to play those games then by all means tell your partner. But if nobody ever mentions safe words then no is an unambiguous word no matter what body language or other signals you think you're receiving.

And people keep mentioning alcohol as a contributing factor. It doesn't matter. Alcohol's removal of inhibitions is frequently an excuse for doing things you want to do but shouldn't. It's why kids given soda and told it's scotch and soda start doing stupid stuff: they think they can get away with it or want to impress people with their drunkenness.

Anyone trying to say "but I was drunk" has just admitted to rape and should go straight to jail. Or worse, depending on the circumstances of the rape.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Yes, it could hurt if the innocent are getting convicted. Obviously my intention is not that we convict more innocent people.

Certainly, but that one difference changes the problem from easy (reduce false negatives) to very difficult (reduce false negatives without increasing false positives). Leaving it unstated paints a very misleading picture about the complexity of the solution.
QUOTE
And people keep mentioning alcohol as a contributing factor. It doesn't matter. Alcohol's removal of inhibitions is frequently an excuse for doing things you want to do but shouldn't. It's why kids given soda and told it's scotch and soda start doing stupid stuff: they think they can get away with it or want to impress people with their drunkenness.

That's… an incredibly misleading oversimplification of a potent psychological mechanism.

~J
James McMurray
All through this thread I've been talking about increasing convictions without increasing false convistions. That it's a hard problem doesn't matter. It still needs to be done. Taht I didn't mention it in that one post doesn't matter. anyone following the discussion from the start (including the other thread) knows my stance. Someone dense enough, forgetful enough, or stupid enough to not realize otherwise should probably practice their memory and reading comprehension skills.

You may consider it an oversimplification, but the fact of the matter is that alcohol's effects on inhibitions are not as strong as some would have you believe. They exist, but not always because of the alcohol, sometimes because of the excusability factor of being drunk.

And besides, drunk or not doesn't matter. If they say no and you still do it, it's rape. You'll have plenty of time to think about whether you should be drinking or not while you're in jail.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (James McMurray)
the fact of the matter is that alcohol's effects on inhibitions are not as strong as some would have you believe.

This is correct.
QUOTE
They exist

This is actually debatable.
QUOTE
sometimes because of the excusability factor of being drunk.

This is complete and utter bullshit. "Excusability factor"? Unless you've done a study so groundbreaking it hasn't reached publication yet, you are making shit up. Alcohol expectancy works in the absence of any opportunity to break cultural mores. They are not, by all considerable evidence, "deciding" to act belligerent, they are doing it for the same reason that polysaccharide-coated glucose can relieve real, physically-based pain.

~J
Witness
Maybe James McM was drunk when he wrote that?

(God knows I am now!)
James McMurray
I don't have to do a study. I myself have done things when drunk that I shouldn't have done but knew I could just say "I was drunk." Since I'm pretty certain that I'm not unique in the morass of humanity, it is safe to assume that I'm not the only one. Even if I am, it only takes one person to make that statement true.

It doesn't matter anyway. This thread will likely be shut down in a few posts anyway. I somehow doubt the 8 posts that are partially on the Shadowrun topic will make up for the huge majoirity that aren't.

And just so I can be one of the partially on topic folks:

Which corps do you think might have some weird rape laws? I can see Aztechnology allowing rape as part of a compnay approved ritual. Any others?
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Which corps do you think might have some weird rape laws? I can see Aztechnology allowing rape as part of a compnay approved ritual. Any others?

I doubt it, aside from the whole "sex between a willing manager and a subordinate is always consensual" unstated policy.

~J
James McMurray
I don't think that would even be an unstated policy in a lot of companies. Just because you're a corporation doesn't mean you're an amoral bastard in every aspect of life. It's very easy to say "no raping subordinates" and still make money. In fact, disallowing relationships between managers and underlings is usually better for business.
Shanshu Freeman
QUOTE (James McMurray)


Which corps do you think might have some weird rape laws? I can see Aztechnology allowing rape as part of a compnay approved ritual. Any others?

some might employ it as a means to an end
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012