"Stanford students complain that rape stats are too low"

[Mormolyce]

other California universities use the affirmative consent standard.

that basically means affirmative consent.

No... it means what it says.

[Deleted]

... If the law doesn't meet what people think of it as, then the law is what should be changed, most people think of rape as sex against your will, not that you have to be beaten for it to be rape.

the problem here is that in the Swedish context, the EHRC outlines the specific due process that must be used - Swedish politicians simply do not have the ability to do the shit they pretend they do a lot of the time.
Like a consent law, cant practically be done, because the EHCR would be in conflict.

"Taken by force". Not violence + well. It's a backward law that we have in sweden.

its a name, but no, its Violence, + a well or a mine, or oil or gas deposits.

- - - Updated - - -

No... it means what it says.

yes, that unless she explicitly consented, regardless of other things she did, it can be counted as rape.

[Deleted]

the problem here is that in the Swedish context, the EHRC outlines the specific due process that must be used - Swedish politicians simply do not have the ability to do the shit they pretend they do a lot of the time.
Like a consent law, cant practically be done, because the EHCR would be in conflict.

There would be no conflict with EHCR, other countries that have signed the EHCR charts has consent-based laws, such as the UK.

its a name, but no, its Violence, + a well or a mine, or oil or gas deposits.

No, it's a term. Våldtagen is "taken by force" if translated in that manner, våldtäkt is what the crime is called, it's from "tagen", which means taken. Taken by force. You should pay more attention to it, for it to be what you said it has to be våld täkt. It isn't.

[Slant]

That really depends on your definition of rape. Let's just, for the sake of a meaningful conversation, stop using the word "rape" and use the term sexual misconduct (SM because it's easier to type) instead, because then people can't duck out of doing horrid things to other people and then claim that "technically" it wasn't rape. In the end that is what the article posted by the OP is about anyway - not some strict definition of the word rape, but about SM which harms a lot of people (mostly women, but also men). That is where the 1/5 number comes from, because whether or not people like you call it rape, that is the number of people who have been victims of horrible and inexcusable SM acts by other people.

What the 1/5 figure illustrates is that a lot of what guys like you believe should be perfectly fine is not considered fine by the other party involved. Ultimately it's not about your opinion. You get to decide what is acceptable when it is done to you, not when you do it to someone else. Consent means two willing parties, not one willing party with the authority to judge whether the other party's opinion is valid or not.



It seems to me that your viewpoint flies in the faith of all these things. Although you do seem to like myths like that feminism is an evil movement out to get all men, and that rape culture doesn't exist etc.



Again, that is nicely "convenient" for people like you. You have a system which historically has punished the vast majority of women who have tried to report any form of SM, and yet when society tries to move to a fairer system, you block it because, surprise, surprise, reporting rates on SM has been historically low.



Like I have said, this isn't just about "rape" as in your definition thereof. It's about sexual misconduct in general, as in, from the perspective of the victims.

Couple things, first, it's not about sexual misconduct, as that is already an existing crime that is being punished by law. So no, you cannot just remove rape from the discussion. And a "personal" definition of rape, as someone already pointed out, is not useful in a legal context, either. What you want in legal discussions is a firm definition everyone understands and can interpret and apply onto real situations. The goal is to be as narrow as possible while still encompassing all possible cases you'd like to punish.

In addition, you need to be careful about reversing the adage "innocent until proven guilty". What you call victim blaming (albeit in a veiled manner) is really not what you think it is. Unfortunately, it's in the nature of the crime that proving it is difficult. That is a problem, but you cannot solve it by opening up another front and remove one of the fundamental rules of western justice, that you cannot be sentenced without proof of your guilt. The proper approach would be to help victims prove what happened to them. This includes actual work and actually dealing with the victims. This is a tedious task, but it has to be done. And just because some people don't want to do the hard work or don't want to deal with the victim's anguish and frustration doesn't mean you get to take the shortcut and put the burden of proof on the accused. This is a two party legal system. One side opposes another. And it is natural that the one doing the accusing will have to back it up. If you remove that, I could go to your local police station, claim you're a rapist and there's nothing you could do about it. And if you happen to have a bad alibi, you're fucked. This would destabilise the whole legal system or demand high, very high punishments for false accusations... which opens up another whole box of pandorra when dealing with people that think they were justified in their accusations but in truth just made a simple mistake in assessing a situation. And so on and so forth.

However you want to talk about it, the entire legal system is based around the principle that the accused doesn't have to prove his innocence.

[Deleted]

There would be no conflict with EHCR, other countries that have signed the EHCR charts has consent-based laws, such as the UK.

Problem is, this doesn't alter anything changing Swedish law to a consent based model wont alter anything.
it wont become easier to prove, because, the standards for proof are in the ECHR - its a pointless superficial change, primarily designed to placate idiots who don't even remotely understand law.

No, it's a term. Våldtagen is "taken by force" if translated in that manner, våldtäkt is what the crime is called, it's from "tagen", which means taken. Taken by force. You should pay more attention to it, for it to be what you said it has to be våld täkt. It isn't.

okay this will probably interest no one who is not Swedish but here goes:
Våld+täkt.

Täkt är beteckningen på en plats eller fyndighet som utnyttjas för utvinning, brytning eller insamling av grus, morän, berg, torv, blocksten, lera, sand, kalksten, vatten, jord, eller annat material från fastighet i avsikt att nyttiggöra det uttagna materialet genom försäljning eller egen användning.

So no, it is usage of a 'well' by force.
that's the fucking basis for the word, the female vagina in this context is the 'täkt'.

[Deleted]

Problem is, this doesn't alter anything changing Swedish law to a consent based model wont alter anything.
it wont become easier to prove, because, the standards for proof are in the ECHR - its a pointless superficial change, primarily designed to placate idiots who don't even remotely understand law.

You have no clue, you're just some archaic guy that's the reason criminals go unpunished in sweden. When we have judges that are saying that a woman could very well have said no but that doesn't make it rape, that means there would be a huge change with a consent based law.

okay this will probably interest no one who is not Swedish but here goes:
Våld+täkt.

So no, it is usage of a 'well' by force.
that's the fucking basis for the word, the female vagina in this context is the 'täkt'.

No, that's not how swedish works, which you should know. This is as absurd as claiming that gatlopp equals to running down a street because of the words gat + lopp meaning street running separately and not the penalty that gatlopp actually is.

Etymology > you. It stems from "taga". Våldtäkt stems from Våldtaga. Taga which means to take. So, yes, it is "To take by force". Don't come trying to bullshit your way here, you're probably some uneducated right-winger who didn't even listen in school but that doesn't mean you get to ignore the etymology behind våldtäkt.

[Deleted]

You have no clue, you're just some archaic guy that's the reason criminals go unpunished in sweden. When we have judges that are saying that a woman could very well have said no but that doesn't make it rape, that means there would be a huge change with a consent based law.

No it wouldn't - Proving rape, requires a high burden of proof, like every other crime - and sorry if the victim have the ability to end the sexual encounter, its ludicrous to suggest its rape - none of this will change if we have a consent based law, to quote RFSU:

”Fokuset är ensidigt inriktat på att införa ny lagstiftning som i praktiken inte skulle göra skillnad i antalet fällande domar. I stället riskerar en sådan lagstiftning att rikta ljuset än mer mot målsägande än vad som är fallet i dag. Att bevisa frånvaro av samtycke är inte lättare än att bevisa att samtycke förelegat. Det är fortfarande ofta ord mot ord-situationer som domstolen har att bedöma.”

No, that's not how swedish works, which you should know. This is as absurd as claiming that gatlopp equals to running down a street because of the words gat + lopp meaning street running separately and not the penalty that gatlopp actually is.

A, that is how Swedish works, B, do you need me to explain how compound words works? and C, you seem to be confused about etymology and the meaning of words, those things are different.

Etymology > you. It stems from "taga". Våldtäkt stems from Våldtaga. Taga which means to take. So, yes, it is "To take by force". Don't come trying to bullshit your way here, you're probably some uneducated right-winger who didn't even listen in school but that doesn't mean you get to ignore the etymology behind våldtäkt.

The etymology behind våldtäkt is violence + täkt - that is fucking reality - 'våld-taga' does not need to refer to rape, it can be used for any violence.
Do you know what the word 'Täkt' fucking means? its a specific delineation.

[Deleted]

'våld-taga' does not need to refer to rape, it can be used for any violence.

NOPE.jpg

våldtaga

ålderdomlig variant av våldta

våldta

tvinga en annan person till sexuella handlingar, ofta samlag och ofta med en själv
Efter att förövaren våldtagit Lisa flydde han i en röd skåpbil.

I'll just put you on ignore since you not only insist on pushing uneducated right-wing bullshit, but you also don't know what the words means in swedish.

[Deleted]

NOPE.jpg

våldtaga

ålderdomlig variant av våldta

våldta

tvinga en annan person till sexuella handlingar, ofta samlag och ofta med en själv
Efter att förövaren våldtagit Lisa flydde han i en röd skåpbil.

Here, i know its latin and not swedish, but trust me, its the same:

Det latinska ordet för våldtäkt, rapere betyder att beslagta eller ta med våld. Ordet hade ursprungligen ingen koppling till just sexuella övergrepp.

Some words just command special deference, like rape, it consumes all other possible meanings, until it only means that thing.

I'll just put you on ignore since you not only insist on pushing uneducated right-wing bullshit, but you also don't know what the words means in swedish.

RFSU is a rightwing organisation? - Oh my the hilarity.
Ah again, the hilarity - we are talking about the etymology of words, not the meaning of words.
But do go on believing your nonsense.

[Mormolyce]

yes, that unless she explicitly consented, regardless of other things she did, it can be counted as rape.

No, again you're ignoring the words on the page and inserting different ones.

[Deleted]

No, again you're ignoring the words on the page and inserting different ones.

This means, the Huffington Post explains, that if a person is sexually penetrated without consent, but is not incapacitated and is not subjected to real or threatened force or violence, then the instance does not constitute sexual assault

the only delineation here is the subjective lack of consent - In effect, a affirmative consent standard, as any sex, that the putative victim says wasn't consensual, counts.

[Tempguy]

This is what happens when everyone demands the government to step into their personal life.

I will say this. You can't teach men to not rape when rape is defined different by each woman. A better solution would be to teach women to say no and stop before or during sex. Anything that happens after (if he continues) is rape. Everything before is not.

That will put an end to the claiming rape after the fact, as well as women giving no sign at all they didn't want to have sex and expecting a guy to be a fucking mind reader.

But that would severely cut down on what constitutes rape and feminists can't have that. Things like teaching women self defense and streamlining what counts as rape to something that reflects real life as apposed to a lame sitcom is a no go.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn. This thread isn't even in English anymore I see

Where are th English forums for me to post thoughts? I don't speak Sweden.

[omfgreally]

So, Basically TL;DR they are pissed off that everyone "ISN'T" raping more?

Talk about mixed signals. Also I guess they have to maintain a quota to keep the feminist happy and bitching?.

[Mormolyce]

the only delineation here is the subjective lack of consent - In effect, a affirmative consent standard, as any sex, that the putative victim says wasn't consensual, counts.

Or, like I said several times, the key is that it requires force to be used. Like it says right there in plain English.

[ellieg]

Fuck that! Make it 10 in in 1 women must be victim!

Fuck that. How about 10 men in 1 women.

[Tempguy]

Fuck that. How about 10 men in 1 women.

That's sexist. A better way is "10 Intersex in 1 Genderqueer"?

[ellieg]

That's sexist. A better way is "10 Intersex in 1 Genderqueer"?

id film that.

[Deleted]

So, Basically TL;DR they are pissed off that everyone "ISN'T" raping more?

Talk about mixed signals. Also I guess they have to maintain a quota to keep the feminist happy and bitching?.

Pretty much. They cant be proffesional victims when nothing bad happens.

[Deleted]

Or, like I said several times, the key is that it requires force to be used. Like it says right there in plain English.

No it actually says the opposite.

This means, the Huffington Post explains, that if a person is sexually penetrated without consent, but is not incapacitated
and is not subjected to real or threatened force or violence, then the instance does not constitute sexual assault

Is not - Is Not.

[Mormolyce]

No it actually says the opposite.

Is not - Is Not.

It requires force to be used to count as sexual assault.

If force is not used, it does NOT count as sexual assault.

I realise English isn't your first language but surely you are aware that those statements are equivalent.