Norway woman convicted for rape

kasintahan

Wicknight wrote:

What if a priest is caught with the boys genitals in his mouth and if he is caught penetrating the boy. Technically they are different actions, but I think you would be a long time trying to convince people that the first action is not as bad as the second.

Both cases involve a more dominant aggressor...

koneko wrote:

So if your mother or little sister woke up to find some man sucking their vagina, or fingering them, this wouldn't be a problem?

And again, more dominant aggressor...

rubadub wrote:

Reminds me of the female schoolteacher cases where they molest male pupils, "jesus the lucky little bastard"

And again, more dominant aggressor... You've all comparing apples and oranges

koneko wrote:

If she rammed a dildo up his behind would that have made it okay? Or if he woke up to find a man with his penis in the victims mouth? Where do you draw the line exactly? Or is it acceptable to you because the victim is a man and the rapist a woman, and he's supposed to love it anyway?

Double standards indeed.

... Complete misinterpretation, I never said what she did was okay...

koneko wrote:

What difference does that make? Does that mean that if a woman manages to get a rapist off her while he's doing it (by spraying mace in his eyes or whatever) - it's okay? She should just run along home and forget about it, because he didn't get to finish what he started?

Given the choice, would you rather be attacked by a 4 foot 50 pound imp or a 7 foot 250 pound gorilla. Surely you recognise the balance of power as something which modifies the trauma to the injured party?

koneko

kasintahan wrote:

Given the choice, would you rather be attacked by a 4 foot 50 pound imp or a 7 foot 250 pound gorilla. Surely you recognise the balance of power as something which modifies the trauma to the injured party?

It's rape. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter to me if he's heavier than she is or not. He was unconscious and she decided FOR him what was going to happen.

Would it make you feel better if she was really fat and he was a skinny frail little man? You're condoning rape.

uberwolf

rape is often about power. Removing someones right to decide is an exercise in power. Fear is a different thing altogether.

you're arguing over shades of gray here in IMO. You made a flippant remark, one which betrayed an indefensible attitude prevalent in society. You're now struggling to defend that remark to save face rather than due to convictions you hold.

kasintahan

uberwolf wrote:

rape is often about power. Removing someones right to decide is an exercise in power. Fear is a different thing altogether.

you're arguing over shades of gray here in IMO. You made a flippant remark, one which betrayed an indefensible attitude prevalent in society. You're now struggling to defend that remark to save face rather than due to convictions you hold.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said it wasn't rape - because technically it was.

But I do not for one instant think it was as bad as a man penetratively raping a woman. Not for one instant.
However, it was a crime.

Shades of grey? Of course, but that's what the law is, shades of grey.

kasintahan

koneko wrote:

You're condoning rape.

Condoning? :rolleyes: I have repeatedly said it was wrong, just not as bad.

koneko

kasintahan wrote:

Poor guy :rolleyes:

Your initial reaction. It really conveys how sorry you feel for this man who was raped.

Actually, wow... reading it again, it almost seems like he should have been enjoying it instead of crying "rape" like he did. What a stupid man!

Zombrex

kasintahan wrote:

But I do not for one instant think it was as bad as a man penetratively raping a woman. Not for one instant.
However, it was a crime.

How "bad" the action is is decide by how it effects the victim. A woman who is penetrative raped can turn her life around (Torri Amos) while a woman who is merely sexually assaulted can commit suicide.

You have absolutly no idea how this effect the man. You rather disgustingly assumed he didn't actually mind that much.

rubadub

kasintahan wrote:

Given the choice, would you rather be attacked by a 4 foot 50 pound imp or a 7 foot 250 pound gorilla. Surely you recognise the balance of power as something which modifies the trauma to the injured party?

If I was asleep and a woman dropped a brick on my head or a 20 stone wrestler dropped it, it would cause me the same trauma.
A man who, say, ties up a sleeping woman and causes extreme anal tearing by sodomising her with a dildo will usually get more than the 9 months she got. A woman who does the same to a man should get the same sentence in my book. The "power" in this case is the same as the victim is helpless, the trauma is also the same, physically and mentally.

the "poor guy :rolleyes:" comment was the flippant sexist remark people took offence to. I doubt very much you would have made a "poor girl :rolleyes: " remark if you heard something similar happening to your sister

MrPudding

kasintahan wrote:

And again, more dominant aggressor... You've all comparing apples and oranges



... Complete misinterpretation, I never said what she did was okay...


Given the choice, would you rather be attacked by a 4 foot 50 pound imp or a 7 foot 250 pound gorilla. Surely you recognise the balance of power as something which modifies the trauma to the injured party?

I haven't seen any pictures of either the victim or the rapist. Do you have information to suggest that he was much bigger than her and coul dhave easily pushed her off or are you assuming he was bigger "cos most blokes are?"

MrP

kasintahan

koneko wrote:

Your initial reaction. It really conveys how sorry you feel for this man who was raped.

Actually, wow... reading it again, it almost seems like he should have been enjoying it instead of crying "rape" like he did. What a stupid man!

:rolleyes:

Wicknight wrote:

How "bad" the action is is decide by how it effects the victim. A woman who is penetrative raped can turn her life around (Torri Amos) while a woman who is merely sexually assaulted can commit suicide.

You have absolutly no idea how this effect the man. You rather disgustingly assumed he didn't actually mind that much.

A man who wife cheats on him may commit suicide too. It doesn't mean what she did was worse than cheating.

rubadub wrote:

If I was asleep and a woman dropped a brick on my head or a 20 stone wrestler dropped it, it would cause me the same trauma.

The the victim in your example had no defence against the brick no matter who released it. A better example would be a pebble or a brick, one causing minor pain the other major damage.

rubadub wrote:

A man who, say, ties up a sleeping woman and causes extreme anal tearing by sodomising her with a dildo will usually get more than the 9 months she got. A woman who does the same to a man should get the same sentence in my book. The "power" in this case is the same as the victim is helpless, the trauma is also the same, physically and mentally.

I agree. But that wasn't the case here.

rubadub wrote:

the "poor guy :rolleyes:" comment was the flippant sexist remark people took offence to. I doubt very much you would have made a "poor girl :rolleyes: " remark if you heard something similar happening to your sister

My sister isn't male.

MrPudding wrote:

I haven't seen any pictures of either the victim or the rapist. Do you have information to suggest that he was much bigger than her and coul dhave easily pushed her off or are you assuming he was bigger "cos most blokes are?"

MrP

That's fair enough. I am making that assumption. It is generally accepted that men are stroger than women, in our particular example he may not have been.

Bri

kasintahan wrote:

That's fair enough. I am making that assumption.

Indeed, you've been making assumptions from the start...it's pretty much flawed your argument throughout. I'm not going to bore with the potential "what ifs" to undermine what your saying - just consider the fact that you can't know them and for that very reason the law needs to be egalitarian.

Actually I can't resist - what if the guy had been raped in the same manner as a child?

kasintahan

Bri wrote:

an't resist - what if the guy had been raped in the same manner as a child?

Elaborate further

uberwolf

one party made significant sexual contact with another whilst they weren't in a position to prevent it happening. His situation was such that it mattered not a damn if she were 400 lbs - he couldn't stop her - he was unconcious.

Now to be completely honest with you, if it were me and I were single, and she wasn't a destitute death-whore of some description I'd probably be happy enough with the scenario. But he wasn't happy, so didn't forgive her minor oversight in failing to alert him to her interfering with him. So it was rape.

Any form of argument about victim impact is utterly irrelevant. You're not in a position, thankfully, to gauge how he felt after it. Hell some women cum during being raped, does that mean they enjoy the experience?

BuffyBot

more dominant aggressor

Do tell us how you know that the woman wasn't the more dominant aggressor in this case?

rubadub

kasintahan wrote:

:The the victim in your example had no defence against the brick no matter who released it. A better example would be a pebble or a brick, one causing minor pain the other major damage.

There was no mention of force at all. It says "The woman argued the man had been awake and consented", sounds like he woke up and asked her to stop.

kasintahan wrote:

My sister isn't male.

Hmmm great answer... No doubt you understood the question but didnt want to answer.
What if your sister said she woke up to find some puny defenceless guy with 2 broken arms and 2 broken legs giving her oral sex, she wakes up and asks him to stop and he does immediately, apologising saying he thought she was awake and consented. No force, she is obviously able to push him off if he tried to continue. Would you think "poor girl :rolleyes:"

Talliesin

kasintahan wrote:

1. Men and women regard sex differently (with regards to the separation of the physical and emotional aspects of it). There is no getting away from this.

Since I know and have known more than one man and more than one woman well enough to discuss how they emotionally view their sexuality I'd have to say, yes men and women regard sex differently, and so do different men and different women.

There are women that are quite happy to go to swinger clubs and there are men who couldn't imagine having sex outside of a context of a long-term loving monogamous relationship based on mutal love and respect. None of which makes a damn bit of difference if somebody rapes them.

While men getting raped by women are rare men getting raped by men isn't (though still rarer than women getting raped by men). Do you seriously suggest that this is somehow okay, or only not okay because it's same-sex?

kasintahan wrote:

2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will. I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.

Consent is not a difficult concept to understand. Get a ****ing clue.

kasintahan wrote:

3. It was only oral (still rape yes, but less so).

Under Irish law performing oral sex on someone who does not consent would be sexual assault rather than rape, but that's really not getting the point.

Without knowing the specifics of the case I'm not going to comment on what actually happened in this case (though the fact that such a case is almost unheard of whereas men raping women is horrifically common is noteworthy in itself) but your argument really comes down to constructing male sexuality as nothing beyond a simplistic drive to ejaculate into any human body they can manage to do so, unattached from any other emotion or thought, which is essentially the same ****ed up concept of male sexuality used to justify the actions of those men who commit rape.

The Corinthian

Priceless, you just can’t make up idiocy like this:

kasintahan wrote:

2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will.

“Your honour, she was out cold on the couch so I couldn’t really ask her if she fancied doing anal, but she didn’t object either, so it can’t really be rape...”

I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.

“Your honour, they’re all asking for it, the little sluts”

:rolleyes:

Syth

Men have gotten raped by women. It usually involves objects.

spudington16

If rape is considered (rightfully) to be wrong and evil is a man does it to a woman then, by the equality laws that women campaigned so hard for, and indeed, by common sense, the woman who performs said act to a man must be made an example and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That there is any division over the clarity of this issue is just foolishness.

Thrasher

kasintahan wrote:

I don't condone it but it's not rape IMO.

1. Men and women regard sex differently (with regards to the separation of the physical and emotional aspects of it). There is no getting away from this.
2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will. I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.
3. It was only oral (still rape yes, but less so).

My goodness. Three arguments. Nul points.

1. Yes there is. It's called equality in the eyes of the law. If you enjoy random acts of unwanted sex thrust upon you, tell your girlfriend.

2. Possibly against his will, because you are a bloke and you'd love it to happen to you? Reverse the genders and see how ridiculous that argument is. ("She wasn't protesting, my lord, she was asleep....")

3. I'm not sure if she could have done something more degrading, if he wasn't up for it. ("only oral" indeed. In some cultures it's still outlawed. Don't transpose your own values onto what is clearly a legal milestone).

/T

WhiteWashMan

kasintahan wrote:

1. Men and women regard sex differently (with regards to the separation of the physical and emotional aspects of it). There is no getting away from this..

thankfully, the law doesnt, and is treated as a heinous crime no matter who is the victim.

there is no getting away from this...

Sleepy

What surprises me most about the brevity of the sentence for a rapist.

Kell

kasintahan wrote:

Surely you recognise the balance of power as something which modifies the trauma to the injured party?

Somebody ban this schmuck for plain stupidity. Jeez.

Lessening the trauma if someone doesnt penetrate or be aggressive? What fúcking planet are you on mate? As TC said, priceless idiocy.

K-

Boston

On the oral sex, Hiv issue. You don't have to be dripping blood to contract HIV. Even the smallest of cuts will do, might not even be noticable. Also there are other STI's which would be much more easly tranmitted through oral sex.

Secondly, If I woke up to find a random guy giving me oral sex, I'd hit the roof. So all your arguements about guys being different to women in this reguard are bla bla bla.

Talliesin

Sleepy wrote:

What surprises me most about the brevity of the sentence for a rapist.

That's not that surprising in the least.

I don't know what it's like in Norway, but considering that this would be considered sexual assault rather than rape in Ireland the maximum prison sentence for commiting sexual assault on an adult was increased from 5 to 10 years in 2001, and that's still the extreme end of the range.

The old maximum 5 years is what has been sentenced for someone who videotaped himself raping a baby and another who committe rape combined with a physical assault that left the victim in such a state that medical personel couldn't make a rough estimate as to her age to give two cases (the video-taping baby rapist had his sentence increased to 8 years on appeal).

Even in the case of what was reported at the time as "the longest sentence in Irish legal history" of 238 years for systematic sexual and physical abuse of 4 of the perpetrators own children over the course of two decades was actually 26 sentences that ran concurrently and so was a sentence of 12 years which allowed him to be released on remission after 9.

Another case: sexually assaulting a boy daily from the age of 10 to the age of 14 (the act was buggery, but the charge was sexual assault); 18 months, reduced to 12 months on review, 9 months served.

A 2002 conviction of rape; a suspended with the judge commenting that "no actual injury was inflicted on the victim other than rape".

Same year, sexual assault on a 7 year old girl; 2 months suspended.

And these cases were after the 1988 Supreme Court decision that the normal sentence for a case of sexual assault should be a "substantial" prison sentence.

Compared to that the 9 months sentence in this case was quite severe, again I don't know about Norway, but a suspended sentence wouldn't be unheard of for a comparable case in Ireland.

Talliesin

Kell wrote:

Lessening the trauma if someone doesnt penetrate or be aggressive? What fúcking planet are you on mate?

The same planet as a lot of judges

Kell

Talliesin wrote:

The same planet as a lot of judges

I read an article some time back in a reputable broad sheet with the reporter talking to a high court judge who oversees a lot of sexual assault charges. He did mention that where there was a gray area, say girl locked out of her head or something, that what he regards sometimes as a leniant sentence, the court of criminal appeals will likely deem any decision he makes as being to harsh.

That I think is the conundrum in this country. Not only do we have one system trying to put the fúckers down for damage to society, we have another bunch of seemingly mindless fúckwits trying to get them a lighter sentence. Some of these judges should really spend time in a session between a victim and a therapist. Might open their eyes a tad.

K-

DrIndy

All I can say to this is - Only In Norway would this happen. As a norwegian, people are very conformist, the law is harsh but fair and there is no leeway in such events as this. You might even say everyone there is very PC.

Another example is that anyone caught drink driving or with a blade over 3" in public gets an automatic jail sentence, rising proportional to how high over the limit they were or the intent of carrying the knife was......

rsynnott

kjt wrote:

Jeez Thats damn harsh, he probably was consious for some of it...
and really, its not like it hurt or he's going to have scaring memories of this.

Over the top!!

Depends. I'd be rather horrified if it happened to me (tho I'm gay so it's a little different).

Shabadu

I'm bloody delighted she got sent to jail. It doesn't matter a fig what gender you are, you don't take advantage of vulnerable people.

Also, 'Dominant Agressor'? She had his soft bits between her teeth, I'd say he was scared sh!tless.

While this is a nice way to wake up your boyfriend, it is not the sort of thing you do to a stranger and expect to get away with. If I woke up with a strange man's head betwen my legs I would not be impressed.