group sex, is it rape?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Asguard, May 14, 2009.

?

is this rape

  1. Yes

    7.3%
  2. No

    75.6%
  3. Other

    14.6%
  4. Want to vote

    2.4%
  1. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    You know..there are a lot of people who do..."stupid" things and regret it years later and start to interpret the whole deal differently such as...changing opinions on whether it was consensual or not, coming up with awkward theories of how this could have escalated into such an "unchaste" scenario.
    I admit, I'm probably not a good judge, and I wasn't there and have no definite idea of what was going on, for all I know...everyone could be lying. But I know a lot of people, especially women, whose first impulse is to say yes, and agree but days later they say they regret it, and come up with all sorts of theories that maybe it's everybody else's fault for having made her participate but just not hers. They really can put themselves into it till it becomes a fact for them.

    Other than that, my vote was "no", but it was in reference to the last bit in the OP.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I think that in this case, the men were guilty, at the very least, of coercing the girl into sex. Their best argument is that she had the capacity to say no but she didn't. Their worst mistake up to this point seems to be that they belittled by apparently calling her a prude for not taking off her clothes. How they got her to go through with the rest, I really don't know; did she ever do a play by play of what happened? Did any of the guys?

    The fact that atleast some of the guys felt that this would come back to haunt them is, in my view, indicative of guilt. The fact that even then, one guy finally said "alrigtht guys, she's had enough", sounds like a man who finally decided to listen to his conscience. At the very least, I have a feeling that these guys should probably all apologize to her. I personally think they should also try to explain why they did what they did and how they have learned what they did was wrong; some may think that confessions aren't worth anything, but I do believe that heartfelt ones are good. And if it's public, then other people, whether a sports team, or a fraternity gone too far, may not make the same mistakes.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    NO. If I get raped, I don't want a fucking apology. I want the asshole in prison. "Sorry" doesn't get you shit. If a guy hurts me during sex and apologizes months down the road, it's worthless. It's a hollow gesture.

    You think someone who'd do this to a woman is going to be so touched by a press conference where they say they're sorry that a guy will go, "Well, I WAS going to sexually use and abuse a woman, but this tugs right at the old heartstrings,"?

    I don't think you believe your idealistic crap anymore than anyone else.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    based on the fact that even though the media has surported her compleatly but there has been zero evidence of guilt i personally think SHE owes THEM an apology and probably ak.large chunk of all the money peopld have paid her for her "story". if a full blown police investigation interviewing 80 witnesses and is confident enought to say not that they didnt find anything but that there is nothing to find then im sure she CHOSE to be there
     
  8. EmmZ It's an animal thing Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Imagine your daughter/wife/mother/sister is the woman in this scenario. Is your answer still that she must apologise to a group of men she feels acted in a way she was led to feel suicidal about?
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,737
    Asguard:

    The basic outline of what went on is, I think, universally agreed by all the people involved (although, of course, we haven't had most of the football players own up to their involvement).

    Given that there is some doubt as to whether she consented to sex with the team, I'd say that leaves the issue of consent an open question. Wouldn't you agree? And yet, strangely, you seem to be assuming that she did consent - and you have no evidence of that.

    No chance of a successful prosecution, you mean. That's not the same thing.

    I'd say that her statements that she went back to her room with two people, then before she knew it there were 13 people in the room are fairly damning. And that's not in dispute from the football players, either.

    So, why do you claim there is "zero evidence"? Everybody involved agrees about what happened. Do you have a different story?

    How much money has she been paid? And how do you know that? Or are you making assumptions again, Asguard?

    You're not looking at the detail. She chose to go back to a room with two players. Then another 10 or 12 turned up. Did she choose for that to happen? What do you think?
     
  10. EmmZ It's an animal thing Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Some things here just don't correlate. Johns' wife says she was disgusted by what had happened, but that she thought it was consensual. Is that because he was married with two sons at the time? She said it was completely out of character and yet he was having sex with a young girl with other men involved. This makes me think her appraisal of his character is probably skewed and she's unable to judge if he'd rape her, let alone have an extra marital affair with a young girl and a group of other men.

    The investigating policeman says he's confident a crime wasn't committed but that he's unable to comment on the morals of the situation since police only deal with the law. Well, surely the law is an enforcement of a society's morals? How else are laws made?
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,737
    Criminal laws may stem from moral rules, but they are applied according to how they are written. A lot of places these days have codified criminal laws, which means that the crimes are defined solely by what is written in the relevant legislation. So, if the legislation says that the prosecutor must show A, B and C in order to convict somebody of crime X, then that's it. There's no wiggle room to say "Well, A and B are present, but we're not too sure about C in this case. But clearly this was an immoral act, so can't we convict the perpetrator of crime X anyway, even without showing C?"

    This is actually a good thing, most of the time. People who are subject to laws need to know where they stand in legal terms. It would be unfair to have the written law say one thing but to be convicting people under some other criteria.
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The issue here is whether she was raped. She didn't say no and it would seem that she had the ability to do so. In such cases, I think it might be wise to say she was coerced, which is not the same thing as rape.


    I think it really depends; perhaps you should ask yourself, what's the point of putting people in prison? I would argue that the most important point is that they learn their lesson; to be rehabilitated, as some officials say. This is the only good thing about some revenges; it can teach the person who wronged someone that there are consequences. To just put the person in prison to make them 'suffer' serves no purpose. The laws are fairly strict concerning rape, but when it comes to 'she didn't say no, but it seems she could have', things get much, much more complicated. You ever read anything from Edward Greenspan? Great Canadian Lawyer. He educated me concerning canadian law on 'passes'. Here's a statement he made in a book he wrote called "The Case for the Defense", with George Jonas concerning cases he defended:
    Touching, kissing, or putting one's arms around a person is not a crime, whether it is done at the first encounter or after the thousandth (provided the person is not underage or feebleminded). When done with sexual undertones, such acts have always been regarded as a "pass", which could be welcomed or rebuffed by the recipient.

    Only if someone persisted after a rejection did a pass run the risk of becoming sexual assault.
    [emphasis mine]

    The issue here is whether the girl made it clear that she was rejecting anyone. It's for this reason that the term coersion may fit better than rape; because while she does appear to have been pressured, I have seen no evidence that she engaged in any outright rejection. I believe this type of thing happens at fraternities and college parties as well; the line between consensual and coercive becomes pretty blurry.


    It'd be a start. But I also mentioned the idea that they be asked to explain why they did what they did and to try to ensure that they understand why what they did was wrong. At present, I believe the guys are free men, without apologizes or explanations; one would hope that they've atleast learned something with the bad press associated with the event. As I mentioned, it seems that some did show some remorse by certain statements they made, such as the 'she's had enough' statement and the feeling they thought that this would eventually get back to them.


    I don't believe my views are 'crap'.
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Perhaps it's best to say that laws in a more or less democratic society are the ethics or morals that majorities, by way of their (hopefully) elected representatives, can agree on.
     
  14. grimace Banned Banned

    Messages:
    172
    throughout the whole ordeal she never said no? i dont see how you know that and that one word does not necessarily mean a person was not taken advantage of.

    could be too afraid, could be too intoxicated. btw, intoxication is not an excuse to rape someone. if i go out and roll an intoxicated individual who cannot say anything due to being intoxicated i still committed the crime of robbery.
     
  15. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    I'm not the law expert in my own family, but certainly some rape charges are defined by coersion.

    No. Sexually harming someone means you took someone's dignity and right to feel safe. Someone doesn't get a free pass and an ankle bracelet and daily therapy and the comfort of home. You forfeit your rights the second you take someone else's on such a base level.

    Yes, it does. It stops it from reoccurring and it punishes the son of a bitch who thought it was their right to hurt someone. It's a consequence. Prison is not always going to fix people, and that isn't my fault.

    Don't give a damn, Scarlett. Don't care how he feels about raping retards or children or guinea pigs. Don't care if he thinks it doesn't count if you just bully a boy into a blowjob. What Eddy thinks doesn't matter. Nancy Grace probably agrees with me, and she's a big lawyer. Who cares?

    If she got a dick in her she didn't feel she could refuse because of the setting, she was raped. End of story. I never had a party in college that had a gangbang. Maybe I was just a square.

    Gee, I'm sure no one had the brilliant idea of asking them before you.


    Glad someone doesn't.
     
  16. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    395
    Ok, one more shot, then I'll leave it alone after I read your reply, assuming there is one.

    I didn't say she was after a gangbang. I did say it was highly probable she was on a mission.
    You're reading more into what I've said than I've actually said, and taking me out of context - that's a bad habit.

    Same thing.
    You're the one throwing in the word gangbang here, I'm not.
    I was saying that plenty of girls go after high profile celebrities, rich guys, what have you, just so they can say they've had them.

    And that's all. The point being, that there did not have to be a past history at all, and most of the "evidence" would suggest there was not.
    But that is something neither of us can possibly know for sure.

    Just got a sudden image of a pack of Porsches humping each other. Just think, the exhaust pipes would have to soften up and get all flexible.

    It's a question of degree.
    I still think that most female sexual predators are "Looking for Mr Goodbar" in the eyes of society.

    Had to Google this.
    Nope. No male involved, no opportunity for her to say she was coerced. Different situation. Besides which, any average middle class American family isn't going to think much of this girl - http://hubpages.com/hub/caseyanthony once they saw these - which, apparently, were outed during the event.
    You have to get out of the habit of thinking of how you view things, and observe instead how the majority do.

    That's a nice ass she's got there, though.

    Immature... An interesting subject. But not for this thread.

    Bit more to it than that, don't you think?
    Do you think Harvey Keitel's character would have been so willing to take into account extenuating circumstances had they been men? He was the embodiment of the "man as protector of woman in trouble" mindset.
    Do you think audiences would have flocked in the same numbers to see it if they'd been male?

    I'm bored with this now. We're not going to agree anyway.

    A parting thought, though.
    No one bothered to comment on the reporter.
    7 years, was it? after the fact. The girl had probably moved on by then. If she was raped, then perhaps not healed, as such, but she would have moved on. To have it all brought out into the open again for public scrutiny would certainly not have eased her pain at all.
    Johns' career is in tatters. On what evidence? None. Only public outrage whipped up by a woman with an agenda thinly disguised as sympathy for the victim. He has been tried, convicted and sentenced based on nothing more than public opinion.
    And you wonder why the others don't reveal themselves? I've got no sympathy for them whatsoever. But neither do I like seeing people thrown to the wolves over a media frenzy.
    Which is pretty much what they'd be doing. No hope for a fair hearing.

    It's this sort of mentality that once saw suspected cattle rustlers swinging from trees without a trial.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Alright, but I believe that at some point, the party makes it clear that they don't want to before they're persuaded, right? The thing is that I haven't seen any point where she verbally communicates that she doesn't want to do it. Now if it were spelled out that someone has to verbally ask if someone wants to have sex with someone they don't know before doing so, that'd be one thing; but I don't believe this is written into law as of yet anyway.


    There are many who believe that too many people are already incarcerated in U.S. and elsewhere; I'm one of them. The issue should be whether the person in question is still reasonably dangerous to society; only if this is the case should incarceration be considered.


    Suffering for the sake of punishment alone helps no one; however, if the person is still reasonably threatening to societal members, they definitely should be confined, whether it be a prison or a mental ward.


    Scarlett?


    Alright, perhaps you don't care, but he's a lawyer, and a very well respected one at that. And though you may not always agree with the law (I don't either), the law is the law, and you can't just define what's legal based on your point of view.


    Society cares; I can certainly agree that there are disagreements between lawyers. However, if the issue is controversial with lawyers, I think it's a safe bet to say that laymen are even more confused as to what's legal and moral.


    This can get fairly complicated. Someone else in this forum brought up the issue that she may have wanted it then but was later persuaded that she shouldn't have and that it was rape. I personally don't believe that this was the case in this particular scenario, because of the things that some of the guys that did it to her said, but I certainly believe that the scenario I describe has been played out. There are also scenarios wherein a woman will make false allegations in attempts for monetary or other gain; Eddie Greenspan describes a case in his book The Case for the Defense wherein a woman attempted to do just this. In the case he mentions, the guy didn't even make a pass, but she laid charges anyway, clearly hoping for monetary gain.


    I'm sure I was squarer than you; I never even went to a college party. However, I have heard of one case where such a party occurred (it's from a documentary that I've actually only been told about, concerning 2 girls who get tested for AIDS). There's also a site called College F*** Fest that records parties that engage in sexual activities; sure porn stars are at times brought in, but I don't think they're all porn stars. Admittedly, the events are usually 1 on 1, but there are frequently crowds and I have a feeling that peer pressure can be strong at times. I heard of one couple who broke up after being filmed in one of these events.


    Perhaps you're right; but I have yet to hear their answers. The bottom line here is, would they do the same again? If they would, I think we have a problem. If not, I think progress has been made.


    tak, I'm certainly not the only person here who has had doubts about classifying what occurred to her as rape; while you may like to see things like this in black and white, I really don't; for me, there is a very wide spectrum of states between completely consensual sex and hard rape. To lump it all into 2 categories, consensual sex or rape, is not doing justice to reality.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009
  18. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    395
    O'Hara, you nanger.
     
  19. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    Hey, what makes you think I'd EVER shut up?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Okay. I thought it was implied. She was on a mission. No doubt.

    Of course, but what's that got to do with justifying badgering a girl into a sex act she doesn't want to do? I don't mean regular badgering of, "Come on, quit being a bitch and give me deepthroat, please." We're talking about partner after partner with no way to exit other than coming unhinged.

    It just seems very weird if there's no past history. I'm a pretty wild person, but sex with a bunch of guys where tissues WILL get bruised/damaged seems to scream STD at me. I'd think there at least would have to be a guy she knew to vouch.

    That's not special. That happens to men.

    No male coersion although she had male lovers who wanted her full attention. I mean, why would we not paint this girl as a victim?

    I don't think I'm doing that. I don't want to think Casey Anthony did it, and I don't know about the case.

    Pig.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    She's a pretty girl.

    Oh, I could go off about Spivakian theory and dominant paradigms and Dworkin themes, but who am I to bore you?

    And we agree here.

    I think when there's physical exhaustion/injury and someone's clenching their pussy out of pain, it's a clear sign to stop. If a rapist tells me he'll kill me or has a gun nearby, I may not say no. If I'm worried about preserving my life, I may not say no, especially if I am a stupid 19 year old.

    I think we incarcerate too many marijuana dealers. Rape's a violent crime. Don't be obtuse. Are you saying having this many male partners isn't violent? It's violent by nature of the vagina. It's not meant to take that many. You will hurt probably to the point of crying. It's WORSE than anal because that's simply more durable, although that much sex would also risk huge infection and I'd discourage my son or daughter from that activity for their health. Your vagina can't do that. Ever seen a gangbang porn? Those are filmed over DAYS and those women still frequently end up sick, but at least they make a few thousand and know exactly what they're getting per a written contract, have body guards/managers around (or pimps, let's be honest).

    A vagina can hurt after sex with one man.

    No. It teaches you can't humiliate and hurt someone and just get away with it.


    Don't tell me my point of view in a poorly worded sentence now or ever. Lots of respected lawyers would take my side about this. Ten million red Chinese don't give a shit.

    And you're saying you know better as a relatively sexually inexperienced man who amazes dozens of people with his ignorance? At least I have enough medical and psychological knowledge and emotional intelligence to be useful.

    Scott, because one or two guys said she had enough doesn't mean it wasn't rape.

    That's preposterous to assert that happened here. Women who aren't certifiably retarded are going to be so humiliated they got drawn into such slutty behavior like going back to a hotel with a bunch of men. She was obviously trolling and any juror is going to see through that. She's not going to get a bunch of money because we award money to good girls, not sluts.

    Well, if there's a porn site devoted to it and someone told you about it, it must happen at every college party.

    Oh, well, that's great! As long as YOU'RE satisfied they won't do it again, I'm sure the problem is solved. We don't jail people for what they might do. We jail them for what they did, or we'd REALLY have a prison overpop problem.


    You and reading comprehension should hang out sometime. That's what I've been saying. I've had experiences that entered that gray area, but I know it wasn't rape. I've explained why I think this is rape. I am not saying all forceful sex is rape. You're the one with the very rigid definition of rape here.

    We agree on something...
     
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    TJ don't mind Scott you know how he loves to apologize for predators and then turn them into victims

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    If that happened, I wasn't aware of it. A guy did eventually say to stop and you know that I think the whole thing was probably wrong; I just think that we should differentiate between coersion and rape, that's all.


    I would classify the above as rape, because most people wouldn't say no at that point. This didn't happen in this case, however.


    Was she worried that these guys might kill her? If so, on what grounds?


    On this we agree atleast.


    That's the way most people define it. The question is whether this fits the bill or if it was something lighter.


    I take it you haven't seen the porn star who did 300 men in a sitting...


    I've heard the reverse, that the anal cavity has much less skin cells than the vaginal one; there is also the issue that it doesn't have as much lubrication.


    I wish I had seen the video I described (the 300 one) a bit more recently, but I believe it was all in one sitting. Nevertheless, I certainly consider it to be the upper limit.


    Ok.


    I always said there should learn their lesson in some way; I'm just not so hot on the 'always incarcerate' option.


    Easy tak, it's a sentence, not an assault. Actually, if we get right down to it, I think you've been far more hostile then me in this exchange.


    Do you have evidence to back up that claim? If we want to go into conjecture, perhaps lots would take the other side as well. In any case, the fact remains that these men are free men; I think that speaks quite eloquently to my point.


    Be that as it may be, what's your point here?


    I'm saying this issue is complicated. If you want to score points from my relative inexperience with sex, fine.


    You lack a little in the psychological area; your hostile approach with me isn't helping your case.


    I agree. The main problem in defining it as rape is that at no point did she make it clear that she didn't want to engage in sex with these men. As I stated in my last post, I'm amenable to there being a law that if you don't ask a woman you don't know if she'd like to have sex with you before doing it, it's rape. But barring this, I see this act as coersion, not as rape. To do otherwise could result in a ton of cases where women claim they've been raped when they were willing at the time but later had second thoughts, as I think someone else has mentioned here.


    I'm not asserting that happened here. I'm trying to show you the consequences of being so quick to call what happened rape; while it may help some women, it could also lead to others using it for monetary gain.


    Was she trolling? Makes me want to go back to the original story and learn more...


    I've already said that gang bangs are rare. The situations I describe are generally one on one affairs, although, in the College site I mentioned, there are frequently crowds involved as spectators.


    Where did I say that my view was the one that mattered here? I said if they have learned their lesson, "I think progress has been made". If they haven't, "we have a problem".


    Ask yourself this; why do we jail people for what they did? Despite the fact that they frequently actually worsen the problem, they don't call them correctional facilities for nothing. If the people have already been corrected, there's no need to send them to a place that may just make them worse now.


    As a general rule, I think that my reading comprehension is pretty good

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . However, I haven't been reading everything that you've said in this thread, so perhaps I missed something. Anyway, I'm glad we agree here.


    And yet I still don't really understand your logic, atleast in terms of the legal aspect. You can define rape any way you like, but the measure I'm going by here is the legal one.


    I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that if a man or woman doesn't make a reasonable attempt to explain that they don't want to have sex, saying that it's rape is stretching it, atleast from a legal perspective. Ethically speaking, I think she probably gave a lot of body language making it clear that she'd had enough long before some guy said it. But there are no laws on body language as of yet that I know of.
     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Your language reveals your mindset. Even people who are definitely mentally disturbed deserve sympathy. I think of them as having a contagious disease- rabies, say. You have to confine them, as they can't go around spreading it, but by no means does this mean that we should think of them as 'evil', in the conventional meaning of the term.

    I personally see evil to be best defined as innefficiency. Whether's it's inneficiency with how we treat our environment or how we relate to others, it amounts to the same thing. Note that there are some inneficiencies that are more important to deal with than others. As an example, Hitler was very efficient at creating a war machine, but he was terribly inneficient in something far more important, that is, how to interact with others.
     
  23. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Besides the fact that you grate on ones intellect...

    You really disgust me Scott. Only you would defend a predator when they prey and then if they are held accountable say they are akin to the 'mentally ill'. I never use the word 'evil' to describe someone in any serious discussion. If someone knows an act to be wrong and does it anyway then they are sound enough to be accountable, you know like jeffery Dahmer. All you ever do is make excuses for them. I say this shows YOUR mindset. Excuse me if I hold my sympathy for victims and not predators. I do agree with you though that they should be locked up like forever.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009

Share This Page