Nonvita wrote...
There have been well-publicized cases where women accuse men of rape, when they in fact either simply regretted having sex with him or are flat out lying. I think that always viewing the woman as a victim and villainizing the man is a dangerous thing to do. It takes the focus away from cases that are indeed true rape and can quickly and irreparably ruin the lives of innocent people. There are women out there who will willingly use men to their advantage, and it is made easy by the fact that someone accused of rape will always automatically be considered guilty.
Note, the following pertains to the US, I'm not familiar with the legal landscape of other countries:
Actually, cases like what you have described have caused it to be extremely difficult to get a rape conviction on a man unless the woman goes to the police before showering, has DNA collected, and signs of... actually, I'm going to not go into describing everything rape kits find because I don't want to disturb anyone.
Regardless, even then if the rapist used 'aid' in entering her it often comes down to a he said she said which can ruin a man's reputation, but just as often results with guilty men being released as innocent men going to jail--unless there are multiple victims testifying against him.
Getting rape convictions is much more difficult than you seem to think.
Further, I don't think that broadening the definition of rape from "A knife is at my throat" to "I was afraid for my life/job/children/whatever other thing and consented not out of a want to have sex but out of fear" is harmful in the least. I'm willing to accept a few men going to jail if it stops an entire subsect of rapists from going free just because they didn't forcibly hold their victims down.
However, don't expect further responses from me on this point, as this is far too hefty a subject to be getting into on a videogame board. Though I suppose its eventual inclusion into this debate was a foregone conclusion, or should have been.
Nonvita wrote...
It is assuming he is guilty, rather than innocent until proven guilty. It is wrong in the real world, and wrong in this case as well.
Well I'm not suggesting he go to jail for it. Maybe counseling, but that's what the PC is there for, eh?
Anyway, you can't have a defense lawyer or a judge or an innocent until proven guilty stance until you have a prosecuter doing their best to prove guilt, now can you?
EccentricSage wrote...
Ah, see, with THAT clear, yes, you make good points. The only problem is defining 'great duress'. I have a fealing people spent half their time in 'Great duress' in Antiva, and one could argue that Zevran has spent most of his life in a state of 'great duress'... perhaps even every waking moment of it. His situation and the society he lives in are nothing like what we are used to. The only thing that could compare are some very extream cases of chaotic and harsh social situations brought about in times of war in third world and developing countries. And under circumstances such as that, concepts of criminality and justice tend to go out the window.
I don't agree that the concept of Justice goes out the window at any time. It may be forgotten, it may be put aside, but one should not allow to justify any actions they wish like this.
ME 2 SPOILER FOLLOWING:
See: Jacob Taylor's Father, ME 2
ME2 Spoiler over
For example, many of the lower ranking ****s were indoctrinated and threatened into service from childhood, and even if they saw what they were doing was horific and wrong, to NOT play along would mean certain torture and death. Sometimes even the victimisers were victims, unable to escape their fate, and secretly tormented by the hell they were living, and helping create. I remember an acount of a **** soldier who was in such a situation... and had to watch people he knew and cared about... old family friends, be put to death. He had no choice, because he feared being made an example of by the SS if he disobeyed.
There were even prisoners of the ****s who did horible and cruel things to fellow prisoners in order to try to proove that they were not like the other prisoners, in order to escape torture.
But neither of them were a victim of war at that time, and Zevran was only forced to murder his victims, not have sex with them.
I don't think this line of thinking truly excuses him.
David Gaider wrote...
Monica21 wrote..
I think you're missing the point. Why did she initiate sex? Was it because he was charming or because she wanted to save herself? If it's the latter, then that consitutes rape no matter where you are. She didn't have a "game" until her life was at stake, so his consent is meaningless.
She initiated sex because she thought she could manipulate him with it. She knew she was in trouble, and she knew he was the assassin sent after her. She was using the weapon she had at her disposal. She was also quite successful, as it turns out.
All sex that occurs outside of a pleasant exchange of phone numbers is not rape. Rape is an act of violence, whether it is physical or not. Zevran did not force himself on her. You may not think he's the most upstanding guy for agreeing to have sex with her instead of gutting her like he was supposed to, but a rapist? Sorry, I won't accept that. Even in a modern court, the circumstances absolutely do matter.
And I will take that to mean that she WAS thinking calmly and rationally about what she was doing. That the duress was not so great as to call it rape.
Though one kinda has to wonder what kind of crappy mage she was that this was all she had to turn to.
Edit: Man, I hate how formatting gets screwed up when you copy paste on these forums.
Modifié par krylo, 28 février 2010 - 02:48 .
Retour en haut
Right now it's just a lock your doors and windows and keep and eye on your neighbors kind of thing. I just wanted to offer an explanation of why this would bother me eight hours after it was posted, even though the conversation had moved on.
