Tripping over the red carpet

It means "The Goonish Shive."

Moderators: DarkShive, corran_star, Berk

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Tenebrais on Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:57 pm

Worth pointing out that Blackmail is a crime itself. But then so is threatening someone's life, I suppose.
Image
User avatar
Tenebrais
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:23 am
Location: Britland

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Illusionist on Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:04 am

Tenebrais wrote:I don't disagree, but at what point do you distinguish between that and what Ellen did? You don't have to threaten someone's life to coerce them into having sex with you. But between that and simply playing on someone's sympathy is a broad spectrum of grey, and finding a cut-off point between "this is rape" and "this is not rape" will leave a lot of people unsatisfied wherever you put it.


Archie had a choice. He always had the option simply to say no, and no harm would have come of it. The way I see it, that's the cutoff point. If he couldn't have said no for fear of harm, or if saying no would have been useless, it would have been rape.

And Forkbomb, we seem to disagree. I'd much rather get raped than beaten then raped. I like my wounds salt-free, no matter how big they are.
The book is almost always better than the movie. You could have no better case in point than FROM HELL, Alan Moore's best graphic novel to date, brilliantly illustrated by Eddie Campbell. It's hard to describe just how much better the book is. It's like, "If the movie was an episode of Battlestar Galactica with a guest appearance by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is Citizen Kane with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone in the world you ever hated dies at the end." That's how much better it is. - Warren Ellis.

Nobody ever told Picard that "Ye cannae change the laws of Physics!". They just DID it. - Vampiress Kat.
User avatar
Illusionist
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:26 am
Location: Probably not where I'm supposed to be

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Tenebrais on Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:09 am

Illusionist wrote:
Tenebrais wrote:I don't disagree, but at what point do you distinguish between that and what Ellen did? You don't have to threaten someone's life to coerce them into having sex with you. But between that and simply playing on someone's sympathy is a broad spectrum of grey, and finding a cut-off point between "this is rape" and "this is not rape" will leave a lot of people unsatisfied wherever you put it.


Archie had a choice. He always had the option simply to say no, and no harm would have come of it. The way I see it, that's the cutoff point. If he couldn't have said no for fear of harm, or if saying no would have been useless, it would have been rape.


Does guilt count as harm?

I'm not really trying to prove you wrong. I'm just trying to demonstrate how hard it is to define a good standard.
Image
User avatar
Tenebrais
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:23 am
Location: Britland

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Illusionist on Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:05 pm

It's harder than I thought.

And no, I wouldn't count guilt as harm. On the other hand, blackmail counts. So "Sleep with me or you'll ruin my life", not rape. "Sleep with me or I'll ruin your life", rape.
The book is almost always better than the movie. You could have no better case in point than FROM HELL, Alan Moore's best graphic novel to date, brilliantly illustrated by Eddie Campbell. It's hard to describe just how much better the book is. It's like, "If the movie was an episode of Battlestar Galactica with a guest appearance by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is Citizen Kane with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone in the world you ever hated dies at the end." That's how much better it is. - Warren Ellis.

Nobody ever told Picard that "Ye cannae change the laws of Physics!". They just DID it. - Vampiress Kat.
User avatar
Illusionist
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:26 am
Location: Probably not where I'm supposed to be

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby ForkBomb on Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:34 pm

Define "ruin your life"?
If you mean physical harm etc, then sure. But "sleep with me or get you fired"? "make your SO dump you"? Where's the line get drawn?
And then of course, "show these photos to the world", where you have no right to expect those photos to not be shown?

If I have every right to do something (release some photos) then I fail to see how someone could argue that its a real and viable threat.
In the case of blackmail, its blackmail plain and simple. The sex doesn't factor in anywhere.
User avatar
ForkBomb
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Melvar on Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:48 pm

About photos, I think it is illegal at least in some places to release photos with a human subject without consent of the subject (or, in the case of minors, their legal guardian). It does not apply with non-subject humans or "human scenery".
There goes not getting involved... :-|
||,'\'/=|,'|ıı|-|;-/;|,'|-y,',V;\_¯ıı=|;-|-|,¯\','/¦||ıı=_¯|;/;(-=|!==ıı|.|
User avatar
Melvar
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:08 am
Location: A huge data wave - isn't that where we all are? I mean, we're all surfing, right?

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Raging Mouse on Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:18 pm

Perhaps this might be a reductionist definition of the components that make a rape:

1) Sexual intercourse. (Using "an act that has sexual meaning to the perpetrator" would lead to a lot of problems with both definition and proof)

2) An unconsented reduction of, or infringement upon, the freedom of choice, through whatever means, of the victim -with the purpose of achieving point 1).
User avatar
Raging Mouse
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:17 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby ForkBomb on Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:45 pm

Both are way too wolly and based feelings and motives, none of which can be proven. And define "sexual intercourse".
It has to be something concrete, something that can be "proven beyond all reasonable doubt".

"A sexual act (involving the genitalia of one or both parties) without the consent of one (or both) parties".
The first bit covers everything (I think) but is too lax, would also cover grabbing someone's balls. (Dropping rape for a catch-all "sexual assault" would solve that though)
The second half however fails due to "implied consent". You don't explicitly say "do you want sex" it more often build up (foreplay etc).
I believe the current laws require you to either expressly say no / otherwise show you don't want it, or be unable to do so (drugged/gagged etc). Said system has its flaws, but thats even more OT.

(I believe in some northern-European country a woman was prosecuted for raping a man who was asleep (or trying to, I think he woke up).
I can't remember the outcome, but that was based on the "unable to object" clause, and as the woman was getting done for rape so there laws must be more sane.
User avatar
ForkBomb
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby nitpicking on Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:02 pm

We didn't see it, but in my mind the "pressure" nosebeep-Ellen applied was something like, "If you don't sleep with me I'll be miserable and hate you forever."

This isn't remotely similar to rape.
nitpicking
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: Long Island

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Raging Mouse on Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:36 am

ForkBomb wrote:define "sexual intercourse".


I don't have to; it's in the dictionary.

I left the second part intentionally wide. Without going too much into specifics that would break the forum's PG-13, can you come up with a scenario that would break it?
User avatar
Raging Mouse
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:17 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby ForkBomb on Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:44 am

the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm

So if the rapist gets interrupted and flees pre-orgasm?

An unconsented reduction of, or infringement upon, the freedom of choice, through whatever means, of the victim -with the purpose of achieving point 1).

Intentions and purposes can never be proven. I drugged you for the purpose of robbing you, the sex was just an impulse thing... Its extremely hard to prove intention beyond reasonable doubt.
And more importantly, the first bit is bad for two reasons. Firstly, define consent. If they don't say yes, don't say no? Is inviting someone in for "coffee" consent? If you're fooling around etc, where is the line drawn for "implied consent"? Or do we have to both sign a pre-sex contract? (Some politician suggested that a while back, got laughed at a lot...)
And then the bigest problem of all: "reduction of". My mental capacity is currently reduced, because I'm tired. Thus not thinking straight, so my "freedom of choice" is "reduced". I could probably argue for most situations that its "reduced" by some amount.
While rapists should be covered, people should be able to have consensual sex without the fear of being unduly persecuted.
User avatar
ForkBomb
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Raging Mouse on Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:32 am

ForkBomb wrote:
the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm

So if the rapist gets interrupted and flees pre-orgasm?


That's the natural progression of intercourse. Grading any punishment based on how far along it has progressed once it has started would be ludicrous (I think). It might be that this part has to be vaguer still; without going into details (This is quite hard to discuss in a PG-13 forum -I am not sure the entire subject is appropriate) I can think of scenarios outside this "textbook definition" of intercourse that would still, in my book, be rape.

An unconsented reduction of, or infringement upon, the freedom of choice, through whatever means, of the victim -with the purpose of achieving point 1).

Intentions and purposes can never be proven. I drugged you for the purpose of robbing you, the sex was just an impulse thing... Its extremely hard to prove intention beyond reasonable doubt.


This is a law-technical argument rather than an argument against the definition. Proving intent has always been difficult, not only for rape, but it does matter, at least according to the U S courts. See how many gradations there are in the law regarding killing someone, for another example.

And more importantly, the first bit is bad for two reasons. Firstly, define consent. If they don't say yes, don't say no? Is inviting someone in for "coffee" consent? If you're fooling around etc, where is the line drawn for "implied consent"? Or do we have to both sign a pre-sex contract? (Some politician suggested that a while back, got laughed at a lot...)


There will always be gray zones like that. It's why we have humans, rather than computers, presiding as judge and jury. I don't reasonably see how we could drop the non-consent from the definition without making it vaguer. Trying to define it further immediately risks excluding some cases where logic says it's rape but the wording of the law does not.

And then the bigest problem of all: "reduction of". My mental capacity is currently reduced, because I'm tired. Thus not thinking straight, so my "freedom of choice" is "reduced". I could probably argue for most situations that its "reduced" by some amount.


I am not sure why you say that part is problematic. I deliberately went for an as wide definition as possible, to make sure it would include as many situations as possible.

While rapists should be covered, people should be able to have consensual sex without the fear of being unduly persecuted.


Which is why the consent part is in my proposal. In fact, it must be there. Many consentual acts include a reduction of one participant's freedom of choice in some manner -entirely voluntarily. There will always be gray zones here too, of course, but that is for the courts to brood over (and be frustrated by).
User avatar
Raging Mouse
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:17 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Illusionist on Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:04 am

Maybe alter "reduction of" to "serious and/or unnatural reduction of". It's still woolly, but it discounts being a bit tired, or distracted by something shiny.
The book is almost always better than the movie. You could have no better case in point than FROM HELL, Alan Moore's best graphic novel to date, brilliantly illustrated by Eddie Campbell. It's hard to describe just how much better the book is. It's like, "If the movie was an episode of Battlestar Galactica with a guest appearance by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is Citizen Kane with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone in the world you ever hated dies at the end." That's how much better it is. - Warren Ellis.

Nobody ever told Picard that "Ye cannae change the laws of Physics!". They just DID it. - Vampiress Kat.
User avatar
Illusionist
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:26 am
Location: Probably not where I'm supposed to be

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby raekuul on Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:07 am

I get the strangest feeling that former President Clinton is very interested in this discussion, if only for all the loopholes we might end up giving him.
The News wrote:As those who saw the original version of today's comic are well aware, an edit has taken place. In the original upload, the second panel was completely uncensored. Boy, was THAT embarrassing!

raekuul's thoughts wrote:http://www.egscomics.com/d/20031128.html, last panel.
http://www.egscomics.com/d/20080819.html, fourth panel.

Leave it to a dormant witch to have access to knowledge magic.
User avatar
raekuul
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:06 am

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby azrael_2001 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:34 am

Pardon, but who is the rapist (legally speaking) if some person kidnaps two or more others and forces them to have sex with each other (but not the kidnapper) at gun point? Are there even any rape laws that would cover such a situation as worded?


P.S. I have deliberately left out any indications of gender here, so don't start making assumptions people.
User avatar
azrael_2001
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 12:00 am
Location: several higher planes

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Aeg'air on Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:54 am

Well according to the laws... wouldn't that be the two commiting the act?!
ImageMy devart page now has stuff!
Inventory
I will soon upload an avvy I have made. Until then I will use this Namin'e avvy for the sake of confusion and the text.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Aeg'air
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:06 pm
Location: fingers typing on the keyboard!

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Illusionist on Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:54 am

azrael_2001 wrote:Pardon, but who is the rapist (legally speaking) if some person kidnaps two or more others and forces them to have sex with each other (but not the kidnapper) at gun point? Are there even any rape laws that would cover such a situation as worded?


P.S. I have deliberately left out any indications of gender here, so don't start making assumptions people.


Technically, the two people actually having the sex, but no jury in the world would convict them.

The person doing the forcing would get done for kidnapping, imprisonment, etc. but probably not rape.
The book is almost always better than the movie. You could have no better case in point than FROM HELL, Alan Moore's best graphic novel to date, brilliantly illustrated by Eddie Campbell. It's hard to describe just how much better the book is. It's like, "If the movie was an episode of Battlestar Galactica with a guest appearance by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is Citizen Kane with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone in the world you ever hated dies at the end." That's how much better it is. - Warren Ellis.

Nobody ever told Picard that "Ye cannae change the laws of Physics!". They just DID it. - Vampiress Kat.
User avatar
Illusionist
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:26 am
Location: Probably not where I'm supposed to be

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby azrael_2001 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:18 pm

Illusionist wrote:
azrael_2001 wrote:Pardon, but who is the rapist (legally speaking) if some person kidnaps two or more others and forces them to have sex with each other (but not the kidnapper) at gun point? Are there even any rape laws that would cover such a situation as worded?


P.S. I have deliberately left out any indications of gender here, so don't start making assumptions people.


Technically, the two people actually having the sex, but no jury in the world would convict them.

The person doing the forcing would get done for kidnapping, imprisonment, etc. but probably not rape.

So they raped each other somehow?
As for conviction, I'd like to think that no prosecuting authority in the world would even press the charge(s), but then I remember that these places tend to be run by humans...
“Onward to Victory!”
Azrael, Colony Leader, Victory Colony.
Resident Evil Chocolatier and Mad Geneticist.
Bearer of the Ring of Creativity and of the Ring of Intelligence.
Pre-pre-orders for Felis jeremiah specimens now closed! Sorry folks!
There is no DGMP conspiracy. And I am certainly not member #1427.
Image
User avatar
azrael_2001
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 12:00 am
Location: several higher planes

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby DemonicAngel on Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:47 pm

Why can't things ever be simple?

Here's how I see it:

Person 1: Wants sex + Person 2: Says no + Sex happens anyway = rape.

Person 1: Says no + Person 2: Want's sex + Sex happens anyway = rape.

Person 1: Wants sex + Person 2: Reluctant for whatever reason, but says yes = not rape.

Person 1: Reluctant for whatever reason, but says yes + Person 2: Wants sex = not rape.

Whether perpetrator is male or female, or victim is male or female, makes no difference.

Besides, having read the comic again, I've drawn the conclusion that Ellen really wanted to have sex with Archie. Archie was reluctant, due to his Uryuom side, but agreed out of friendship for Ellen. He wanted her to be happy. If it had gone any other way, then the two remaining friends after breaking up would seem very unlikely.

In conclusion:
If one person says no, then rape, if both say yes, then not rape. The whole thing is consent. If it's given, no matter how reluctantly, it's not rape.



Of course, then you get into the grey area, where people can't decide how much persuasion, or reluctance, is acceptable, if at all, but for the purposes of defining rape, that isn't important.
Image
DemonicAngela - Gender changed bunny
Warning: Read this, and lose the game.
User avatar
DemonicAngel
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:59 am

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Illusionist on Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:32 am

Your definition fails to take date rape into account, not to mention the grey area you mentioned being pretty damn big and important.

Looks like Occam's razor needs sharpening.
The book is almost always better than the movie. You could have no better case in point than FROM HELL, Alan Moore's best graphic novel to date, brilliantly illustrated by Eddie Campbell. It's hard to describe just how much better the book is. It's like, "If the movie was an episode of Battlestar Galactica with a guest appearance by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is Citizen Kane with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone in the world you ever hated dies at the end." That's how much better it is. - Warren Ellis.

Nobody ever told Picard that "Ye cannae change the laws of Physics!". They just DID it. - Vampiress Kat.
User avatar
Illusionist
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:26 am
Location: Probably not where I'm supposed to be

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby DemonicAngel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:08 am

It is important, yes. Very. But, what I said was, it's not important for the purposes of defining rape. Which is what I was attempting to do. As the victim eventually says yes, that doesn't count, despite it still being morally wrong. As for date rape, I forgot about that one. Probably my thing above should read "Person says no, or is otherwise incapable of resisting = rape"
Image
DemonicAngela - Gender changed bunny
Warning: Read this, and lose the game.
User avatar
DemonicAngel
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:59 am

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Illusionist on Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:14 am

I disagree. Saying yes when you want to say no, or it's the only way to prevent something even worse from happening shouldn't count as consent, because you're still having sex you don't want.
The book is almost always better than the movie. You could have no better case in point than FROM HELL, Alan Moore's best graphic novel to date, brilliantly illustrated by Eddie Campbell. It's hard to describe just how much better the book is. It's like, "If the movie was an episode of Battlestar Galactica with a guest appearance by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is Citizen Kane with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone in the world you ever hated dies at the end." That's how much better it is. - Warren Ellis.

Nobody ever told Picard that "Ye cannae change the laws of Physics!". They just DID it. - Vampiress Kat.
User avatar
Illusionist
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:26 am
Location: Probably not where I'm supposed to be

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby DemonicAngel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:24 am

Yeah, I see your point. I guess something like this is hard to define.
Image
DemonicAngela - Gender changed bunny
Warning: Read this, and lose the game.
User avatar
DemonicAngel
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:59 am

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Illusionist on Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:24 am

I've been trying all week, and I can't get anywhere.
The book is almost always better than the movie. You could have no better case in point than FROM HELL, Alan Moore's best graphic novel to date, brilliantly illustrated by Eddie Campbell. It's hard to describe just how much better the book is. It's like, "If the movie was an episode of Battlestar Galactica with a guest appearance by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is Citizen Kane with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone in the world you ever hated dies at the end." That's how much better it is. - Warren Ellis.

Nobody ever told Picard that "Ye cannae change the laws of Physics!". They just DID it. - Vampiress Kat.
User avatar
Illusionist
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:26 am
Location: Probably not where I'm supposed to be

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

Postby Raging Mouse on Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:47 am

That is why there is room to interpret the events in Ellen's second life as rape. Of course, I consider such an interpretation stretching and twisting what has been shown of the event unto the breaking point and beyond, but I do see that if you wanted to, you could make such an interpretation. I repeat, if you wanted to.
User avatar
Raging Mouse
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:17 pm
Location: Finland

 
PreviousNext

Return to El Goonish Shive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests