• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there a "rape culture" in the US?

"This"? I think before agreeing so readily to that statement it would probably be good to get some stats on the number of rapes carried out during more, uh...moralistic...periods in our history. Of course, as attitudes toward women have changed through the decades so too does the rate of rape victims reporting those rapes. Essentially, Digsbe's comment is impossible to verify and came straight out of his ass.

I also should have read more than two sentences in that post, but ain't my style, bruh!


...Ow, I think typing that out might have fried a couple of synapses. Ow. Anybody taste blood and grey matter right now?
 
Teenagers know about sex. Now answer the question.

Ok, you don't know what informed consent means. It has nothing to do with "teenagers knowing about sex."

And I answered your ridiculously stupid question in post 41.
 
Ok, you don't know what informed consent means. It has nothing to do with "teenagers knowing about sex."

And I answered your ridiculously stupid question in post 41.

I'm not following you down this "consent isn't consent" rabbit hole.

Answer again, now that you've been educated regarding what makes rape rape.
 
I'm not following you down this "consent isn't consent" rabbit hole.

Answer again, now that you've been educated regarding why makes rape rape.

Lol "educated." Says the guy whose own links proved him wrong.
 
Teenagers can consent to sex, if by consent you mean we always mean by consent when talking about anything other than sex. Wisely, the law does not take consent into account in rape cases, but only whether force was used, or whether the victim was a minor or incompetent.

Now again, if a victim asked to be raped, is she responsible?

Can you please clarify the underlined?

How exactly does one "ask" to be raped?
 
To a certain extent, it's common sense. Prior to the era of "hook-up bars" and loose sexual morality, there simply wouldn't have been as much opportunity for rape (at least of the kind that the discussion of 'rape culture' tends to focus around) to occur. Young men and women just wouldn't have been alone together unattended all that often.

By way of contrast, a massive, massive portion of social interaction in modern youth culture is either devoted to, or centered around, casual sex, and casual sex under unsupervised circumstances while incredibly intoxicated at that. Unfortunately, a certain degree of trouble in that environment is simply inevitable.

Yes, I do think that the modern "slut empowerment" culture plays a role in putting women at risk in this regard by encouraging them to enter those environments, while often downplaying the dangers that go along with them, or spreading the ridiculous idea that restrained and responsible behavior is a male responsibility alone. Modern sexual attitudes also cause trouble by encouraging young men to view women as sex objects, and often placing them under an inordinate amount of pressure to "score" at all costs.

Put simply, throwing aggressive young men, naive young women, and perception altering substances together unsupervised, while simultaneously encouraging "uninhibited" behavior, is simply a recipe for disaster all the way around.

Somewhere, somehow, someone is going to run afoul of a misunderstanding. If that misunderstanding is with just the wrong person, in just the wrong state of mind, someone is going to get hurt.

"Common sense" is a terrible barometer when dealing with such things, especially seeing as it demands subtracting the entire shift in attitudes toward women from the equation. Keep in mind that 133 years into the history of a nation that deemed that all men were created equal women were finally given the right to vote. I'm sure it was widely, and dryly, noted that the "men" part was not intended to be metaphorical.

Here's something else to consider: in 1960 there were 17,190 reported rapes. By 1992 there were 109,600. Even accounting for an additional 70 million people, does it seem credulous to you that actual occurrences of rapes increased by 637%, or is it more possible that as feminism became a force that women felt more confident to report those rapes? Remember that even now, in this thread, there exists a mindset that women are at least somewhat culpable for their rapes, and that the further back in time you go the more objectified women were viewed.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2013
 
I answered it in post 41. The answer doesn't change just because you don't know anything.

I've shown you that consent is not a defense. If you wish to remain ignorant then that's your problem.

Can you please clarify the underlined?

How exactly does one "ask" to be raped?

If one asked another to use force to fornicate.
 
I've shown you that consent is not a defense.

All you've illustrated is that you don't know, among many other things, what consent means in a legal sense.
 
All you've illustrated is that you don't know, among many other things, what consent means in a legal sense.

Consent is irrelevant.
 
Consent, or rather the lack of it, it central to the charge.

Cue convoluted dissembling.......
 
Ahahaha, that's a good one. Now tell us the one about the Jew, the Priest and Chinaman.

Under the law I cited, all that matters is whether force was used, and whether the victim was a minor or incompetent.
 
Under the law I cited, all that matters is whether force was used, and whether the victim was a minor or incompetent.

No.

......
 
If force was used, the law defines it as rape.


I don't think "force" in the legal sense is meant the way you're interpreting it...

"Asking" for sex-- even "forceful" sex-- would be consensual.

Not even remotely the same thing.
 
I don't think "force" in the legal sense is meant the way you're interpreting it...

"Asking" for sex-- even "forceful" sex-- would be consensual.

Not even remotely the same thing.

"Forcible compulsion" means physical force or a threat, express or implied, of death or physical injury to or kidnapping of any person;
 
Kids have been sufficiently scared into thinking all men are molesters, so now it is the woman's turn to be scared.

I just don't see who wins from this.
 
You fail to grasp the basic notion that a person's appearance is not based on how they want you to react, but rather how they want to appear to themselves. No one is dressing for you. They're dressing for themselves. It's not "displaying" anything.

As to the rest of your post, if you don't understand what is or isn't rape, then I'll bet that some of your "seduction" has definitely been against some women's consent.

You are most definitely part of the rape culture.

You are correct but you aren't dealing with the entire picture

many rapes involve disputes over whether there was "consent" or "buyers' remorse" i.e. "date rape cases

in those cases, how someone can dress may be relevant to a jury

one of the reasons why William Kennedy Smith was acquitted of raping Patricia Bowman was that WKS said they had consensual sex on a beach and she claimed he forced himself on her. She also claimed that she had not intended to pick up a man that night but rather intended to visit a friend who had a new born baby and then she and her friend (Ann Mercer IIRC) decided to go out to a club where she went with WKS to the Kennedy estate. But the jury thought she was lying because as one juror later noted, "you don't' get dressed up in a black mini dress and expensive black pantyhose to go visit a new born baby, you dress that way when you want to attract men"

as the jurors later noted, every confirmable fact backed up WKS including his claim he put a towel down before sex-she claimed he threw her down yet there was no grass stains on her dress

and rape, like racism, has been overused to the point that real offenders are merged with non-offenders, and real victims' harm is cheapened by being pigeon holed with whiners
 
"Common sense" is a terrible barometer when dealing with such things, especially seeing as it demands subtracting the entire shift in attitudes toward women from the equation. Keep in mind that 133 years into the history of a nation that deemed that all men were created equal women were finally given the right to vote. I'm sure it was widely, and dryly, noted that the "men" part was not intended to be metaphorical.

Here's something else to consider: in 1960 there were 17,190 reported rapes. By 1992 there were 109,600. Even accounting for an additional 70 million people, does it seem credulous to you that actual occurrences of rapes increased by 637%, or is it more possible that as feminism became a force that women felt more confident to report those rapes? Remember that even now, in this thread, there exists a mindset that women are at least somewhat culpable for their rapes, and that the further back in time you go the more objectified women were viewed.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2013
I'm not necessarily sure if I agree that the "objectification" of women is quite so linear as you seem to think. In many regards, I'd actually argue that it's worse now than it's ever been in recent memory, simply because everyone is encouraged to be so much more overtly sexual both in their mindsets and in their aims.

However, I would agree that rapes in the past likely would have gone unreported more often than not. I'm simply pointing out that they most often would have been of a different type than the "he said/she said" rainbow of gray variety which is under discussion here.

"Date rape" kind of requires actual "dating" - i.e. young men and women interacting with obvious sexual, or, at the very least, amorous, intent outside of an "official" union, and without outside supervision. Simply speaking, that very concept really isn't much older than a century at most.

(Assuming that we're not talking about marital rape, incest, or some "Jack the Ripper" type knocking off prostitutes) Past rapists would have had to have been of the more "dedicated" variety if they wanted to go after any kind of reasonably well off woman.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom