Should a potential rape wictim be allowed to use deadly force?

[Draka]

It may be foolish to ask this but it is possible:
Would you still say yes they can kill the rapist if the rapist is the female and the male is being raped?

This has been covered. Gender doesn't matter. A violent sexual attack is a violent sexual attack. A victim should defend themselves by whatever means they have at hand and can use.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This has been covered. Gender doesn't matter. A violent sexual attack is a violent sexual attack. A victim should defend themselves by whatever means they have at hand and can use.

Okay, just wondering.

That is your opinion though, that she has the right to end another.

 

[beenie]

Okay, just wondering.

That is your opinion though, that she has the right to end another.

Have you read through this thread? Most (if not all) members who have posted are pretty clear on their stances. Sometime the Cliff Notes aren't a substitute.

 

[Draka]

Okay, just wondering.

That is your opinion though, that she has the right to end another.

It is my opinion that if someone is violently sexually attacked that they have every right to defend themselves in whatever way is readily available to them. Rapists sometimes kill their victims. One doesn't know how far the crime will go and one must have the right to defense. In the course of this defense, in the course of trying to escape, if something they do happens to take the life of their attacker then so be it. The victim's right to life and safety is the utmost importance, not the safety and life of the attacker. That is not what the victim should be worrying about in the heat of the moment. How careful to be in order not to seriously hurt their attacker in order to save themselves is not what should be running through their mind, and in the heat of the moment, will not be running through anyone's mind. Escape and getting away is what they need to do. That's the only thing they should be expected to worry about.

 

[Archer]

For the three that voted no. What should a 110 pound woman do if she is captured? Lay there and enjoy it? Sure it is just rough sex; she can get off on that. Women (men) should carry a condom and breath mints so they can have a pleasant and enjoyable rape.

A woman never has the right to defend herself? Buy your reckoning there is never a case for self defense because there is always the poor criminal could die even if it was their intent to kill.

 

[MoonWater]

I read it years ago. I can find something else for you though using the power of google!

Attracting Assault - Victims Nonverbal Cues - Grayson Stein

This is not the article I read, but it is the study that article was about, so it's better.

awesome, thanks

 

[Me Myself]

It may be foolish to ask this but it is possible:
Would you still say yes they can kill the rapist if the rapist is the female and the male is being raped?

Only if she is not hot can a man kill the women. Otherwise he must have sex with her.

If the man in question had a wife, he must just go crying home and tell her he was rapped and needs to have sex with her so he feels okay, and will need further sexual service from her until the thrauma goes away.

the second part can be overlooked if his wife is not hot.

If the ugly wife IS the one trying to rape the husband he should be allowed to kill her and get along with his life with his children and the other hot rapist of him normally after his rightfull self-deffense.

that´s my stand on it at least.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only if she is not hot can a man kill the women. Otherwise he must have sex with her.
If the man in question had a wife, he must just go crying home and tell her he was rapped.....

Rapping is the worst. One can't have enuf good clean sex or take enuf showers to get the stench of rap off.

 

[Alceste]

For the three that voted no. What should a 110 pound woman do if she is captured? Lay there and enjoy it? Sure it is just rough sex; she can get off on that. Women (men) should carry a condom and breath mints so they can have a pleasant and enjoyable rape.

A woman never has the right to defend herself? Buy your reckoning there is never a case for self defense because there is always the poor criminal could die even if it was their intent to kill.

"captured"? By her boyfriend? I don't know what victims SHOULD do, but I can tell you what they generally do - protest, resist and / or cry, hate the entire experience and then feel ashamed and powerless, particularly when they hear people who have never been sexually assaulted banging on about how they could probably have avoided it if they'd only dressed differently / been better judges of character / fought harder / etc.

 

[Songbird]

Rapping is the worst. One can't have enuf good clean sex or take enuf showers to get the stench of rap off.

Hey now, some rap is alright!

 

[Archer]

"captured"? By her boyfriend? I don't know what victims SHOULD do, but I can tell you what they generally do - protest, resist and / or cry, hate the entire experience and then feel ashamed and powerless, particularly when they hear people who have never been sexually assaulted banging on about how they could probably have avoided it if they'd only dressed differently / been better judges of character / fought harder / etc.

But they should not even do that according to some people because they could inadvertently hurt their attacker. What if they pick something up while resisting and kill the poor rapist? They have murdered that person. This seems to be how some people view this.

So in a world ruled by the no voters all people should lay down, give their attacker a breath mint and ask if they mind using a condom because any resistance could kill the attacker.

 

[MoonWater]

Only if she is not hot can a man kill the women. Otherwise he must have sex with her.

If the man in question had a wife, he must just go crying home and tell her he was rapped and needs to have sex with her so he feels okay, and will need further sexual service from her until the thrauma goes away.

the second part can be overlooked if his wife is not hot.

If the ugly wife IS the one trying to rape the husband he should be allowed to kill her and get along with his life with his children and the other hot rapist of him normally after his rightfull self-deffense.

that´s my stand on it at least.

I do hope this was meant as a joke

 

[Me Myself]

I do hope this was meant as a joke

Auw come on, not even a giggle? I have laugh at feminist jokes

Honestly I beleive that both males and females should have right to defend themselves against rape by whatever means they can and if the rapist gets killed in the process s/he indeed should have thought better before.

 

[Acim]

For the three that voted no. What should a 110 pound woman do if she is captured? Lay there and enjoy it? Sure it is just rough sex; she can get off on that. Women (men) should carry a condom and breath mints so they can have a pleasant and enjoyable rape.

A woman never has the right to defend herself? Buy your reckoning there is never a case for self defense because there is always the poor criminal could die even if it was their intent to kill.

First, I agree with Alceste on "should" language. It is found in this post above and in poll. I didn't just respond to poll. I responded to reasoning brought up in OP, and then submitted my "no" on the poll.

Secondly, I think the no side allows a lot more leeway in what a rape victim could do than what other side is suggesting. It's a nice little insult to insinuate that us who said no are advocating that the victim just lie there and enjoy it, because apparently that is epitome of our position. I'm sure that BS logic works for you, but let's be clear on where the BS lies.

You're essentially saying a woman should fight if in that position. Physically fight and resist. And with a 'should' statement in there, the logic is, if she doesn't, well then that's her own damn fault. She should've known better, done better. Fighting is only option that could work. She should fight. She has to.

I think fighting is one option and it could lead to escape. I don't think it ought to be ignored or ruled out completely, but if included, I think it needs to be understood that it carries repercussions. And I do think we get this, but to advocate this as "best way, and let's be done with this charade" is very poor reasoning. I also think because of the mind**** that violence is, it gets to be a position that if you disagree with it, you are somewhere in vein of, weak, pathetic, loser type who simply doesn't understand way the world (really) works.

As a theist, I do ultimately think an appeal to God / Inner Spirit is something to at least consider if that situation ought to present itself. And therefore be advocated for in debate like this. We can sit here going back and forth, and in hypothetical give and take, I do understand that perceived actions speak louder than 'other.' Meaning, even if you otherwise believe in God, an example such as rape can be presented in hypothetical fashion where one can, rather easily conclude, that 'invisible God' will have absolutely no effect on that situation. I disagree and will have that debate, up to point. If the hypothetical is being pushed in such a way where 'there is no other way to look at situation but way one person wants things to be seen,' then in that hypothetical, perhaps God will have absolutely no impact.

For the people not so sure a God exists, or feel almost confident that She doesn't exist, then the alternatives to fighting rape victim become matter of psychology. I could see using these strategies first, as way to escape. Akin to presenting front where victim is like, "yes, I absolutely want this to happen" only to enable sense of control and then create outlet in opportune time later on. That would be alternative option, that may utterly fail, but if it did succeed would be possible non violent solution to otherwise violent situation. I do think there are other options, where God doesn't even need to be considered and could lead to escape / resolution.

As theist, I do think appeal to God would lead to invisible transaction which would potentially be made visible where rapist is 'suddenly not into it.' Not magically apologetic and wanting to seek redemption and light a candle vigil. But something realistic where rapist say vents anger on inanimate object, or two, and leaves situation on his (or her) own volition. This may happen without victim making the appeal, but I think a plausible defense mechanism would be this sort of appeal. And I think the more genuine it is, the more conviction it has, the better the chance of success. If say thought is, well I have that gun in the drawer downstairs, so just need to get to that, so I can plug this ******* with a few rounds to his chest, but in meantime, I'll appeal to God, in short order. Wait 3 seconds, oh well, that didn't work, so now violence is my only resort -- this to me would be poor way of appealing to God. And reality would show that mind was already made up, God will be ineffective while gun in drawer will be effective.

So near end of this post, I would just say for sake of debate / understanding reality of situation, realize that there is possibly several solutions that could resolve the situation, and in general there is the one that says, "violence of some sort here is answer," and one that understands, "this doesn't need to end violently, and I am empowered to effect that sort of change."

I realize violence / defense of physical self seems like the hypothetical best and/or most realistic way to resolve the situation, but I strongly believe it is likely to exacerbate the underlying problem and is also a call to weakness. Self defense (of the physical) kind is a call to weakness. I don't expect someone hearing this perhaps for first time to understand this, but the reality is you are already making your mind up if this is only way 'defense' looks to you. Only way you think 'strength' can be found. You are free to do it, free to go in that direction. Human made laws won't stop you, nor will human made consequences (or lack thereof) do anything of real consequence in relation to such a decision. If the mind is made up that the body or some other physical object is your best defense going into that situation, then so be it, and the consequences of that may not show up anytime soon, given the veil that has been pulled over actual seeing. At that level of 'sight' you can justify a whole bunch of violence and really, who the hell is going to stop you?

Other than your Self.

 

[Puddle Duck]

Of course a woman should use any means necessary. A woman, or anyone being attacked in such a manner, cannot take the time to contemplate the attackers intent before determining if she/he should make it a knock-down drag-out kind of fight or if she/he should stomp a foot and try to run. She/he is going to swing, kick, spit, claw, use any weapons at her/his disposal to get the attacker away from her/him, even if that means grabbing the attackers weapon and turning it on them.

 

[Me Myself]

Of course a woman should use any means necessary. A woman, or anyone being attacked in such a manner, cannot take the time to contemplate the attackers intent before determining if she/he should make it a knock-down drag-out kind of fight or if she/he should stomp a foot and try to run. She/he is going to swing, kick, spit, claw, use any weapons at her/his disposal to get the attacker away from her/him, even if that means grabbing the attackers weapon and turning it on them.

I agree with Puddle Duck the pagan.

(Okay, I mostly wanted to say that, but I still agree )

 

[Father Heathen]

FH, every woman knows women who have been a victim of rape. (Every man does too). Three of my closest female friends have all been raped. Two by boyfriends and one by a brother. Their interests are not well served by this type of discussion. Arguing that rape victims ought to have perpetrated extreme violence on their assailants to prevent the rape dovetails quite nicely with the widespread mentality of blaming the victim.

I have some close friends and an ex girlfriend who have been sexually assaulted, and I find it absolutely repulsive that anyone would try to downplay something as traumatic and brutal as rape. You try to dismiss someone beating, biting and forcing themselves upon a screaming, struggling victim as an "uncomfortable misunderstanding". Seriously, what's wrong with your head? But if she managed to suggestively defend herself, and the attacker happened to die as a result, that's "horrible" because you think it's better for a woman to endure a lifetime of emotional and psychological scars than it is for some worthless lowlife scumbag to die? Why should the arbitrary and undue value you place on their lives mean anything to anyone else? There is no justification for preventing a woman from defending herself or for punishing her for doing so. Your argument makes no rational sense. Why on earth should emphasis be placed on the assailant's well being above that of the victim's?

 

[waitasec]

One can be trained to use a firearm so as to injure / subdue the attacking person rather than to kill.

If person in your hypothetical was shot 18 times, would you have absolutely no issue with this? And call it 'reasonable self defense?'

not at all.

but you see, the person being rapped didn't plan it, the rapist did.
are you not aware that people have emotional responses when being violated in a violent manner?

guess not...
jeeeez, some people need a :slap:

 

[MoonWater]

Auw come on, not even a giggle? I have laugh at feminist jokes

I was half asleep when I read it so that may have contributed

Honestly I beleive that both males and females should have right to defend themselves against rape by whatever means they can and if the rapist gets killed in the process s/he indeed should have thought better before.

 

[Acim]

are you not aware that people have emotional responses when being violated in a violent manner?

guess not...
jeeeez, some people need a :slap:

Cause violence is sometimes a good solution, yes?