ATTENTION: PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS TOPIC IS ALREADY SAYING THE VICTIM IS 100% INNOCENT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T WANT VICTIM INNOCENCE DISCUSSION HERE. ALSO, PLEASE NOTE THIS TOPIC MAY BE OFFENSIVE. IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY THE THOUGHT OF A RAPIST BEING INNOCENT, PLEASE LEAVE THIS THREAD TO AVOID PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM TO YOURSELF. IF YOU READ PAST THIS POINT, YOU AGREE TO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT BEING OFFENDED. ALSO, PLEASE BE OPEN TO PEOPLE'S SUGGESTIONS. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN OPINION. ATTACK THE IDEAS THEMSELVES IF YOU WANT, DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ATTACK ANOTHER USER FOR HAVING THOSE IDEAS. LET'S TRY TO KEEP THIS DISCUSSION AS FRIENDLY AND INTELLIGENT AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ENJOY THE CONVERSATION.

This topic will be used to discuss whether or not, under certain hypothetical situations, rapists can be considered either partly guilty only or not even guilty at all. For the most part, I think the majority of us can agree that the victims are not ever at fault, but can we under certain circumstances consider the rapist innocent? Please consider the following examples and tell me your opinions as well: Mental Disorder, Possession, and Brainwashing. Feel free to add more examples as well.

Also, please note: Guilty does not mean incarceration. Please do not interchange the two terms. By guilty, I mean personally morally accountable, not separated from society due to conviction by society’s limited views for society’s and the rapists own safety.

Note 2: Please do not stereotype rape. I have noticed that several people like to say that forced intercourse must be premeditated, and also must be executed completely out of a need to control (ie: powerplay.) This can mostly be found in my example of bipolar disorder in which someone can rape someone even though they have no need to be in power of that person. I believe that rape (forced intercourse,) is possible without it being the intention ‘to rape,’ being the stereotypical meaning the Western Society gives it.

A couple diseases that come to mind are multiple personality disorder/bipolarity/schizophrenia. MPD is a mental disorder that causes the person to literally become someone else entirely. Speculation can be made about how these personalities come to exist...most occur after being traumatized to an extent that they can no longer function without separating the pain from the rest of themselves. The pain can include a personality consisting of completely negative aspects such as hurt/anger/vengeance/greed/etc. If someone who has MPD does this act in their alternate state, which hypothetically speaking...happens maybe a mere 10% of their life at random times whereas the normal state happens 90%. (something they cannot control physically as it is done on a subconscious level,) should the normal personality state be condemned to the life of a convicted rapist? To add more thought to this...what if the MPD person has gone to several sessions of therapy and done everything they can to resolve their inner conflicting personalities so they can merge and choice becomes a factor once more? Should they be held accountable for the actions that are done...even if that personality that they cannot control only comes into effect...say once every ten years or so?

Bipolarity is not as good of an excuse but can still be thought as viable since major mood swings can and do happen and sexual hormones fluctuate dangerously. If a woman is being a tease or leading someone on intentionally only to say no...(Before anyone tells me this does not happen, I ask that you cease from being ignorant and know that there is such a thing that is called victimization where humans will do something intentionally to provoke another human into making the first human some kind of a victim.) In any case, this teasing and sexual hormone fluctuation combined can possibly cause a trigger to occur that will lead to violent retaliation and/or rape.

Schizophrenia, for the most part is the most credible mental disorder, but probably has the least effect on causing a rape out of the three listed. Schizophrenics will hallucinate among other things and this may cause them to be sexually violent. Most cases of schizophrenia are usually treated before they get this bad or they are under careful watch if they cannot be treated successfully. However, in all three cases...I do not see the rapist as being fully at fault and can view them as a sort of victim as well.

Impulses by themselves are indeed controllable, but it takes a lot of will power to do so. Almost like an addiction, it can be overcome, but not many accomplish it. Chances are that someone that 'tries' to stop smoking who then walks into a room of smokers, breathes in the smoke, etc, will once again light up a cigarette and let their will power crumble. Not everyone's willpower fails...but most do.
We can look at rapists that have an innate impulse (Impulsive control disorder) to do the same thing. They have the urge, the impulse to commit the act. An addiction to power and control, but they are able to subdue it since they realize it is wrong. However, if you bring in a 'seductress' or someone who is looking to tease or lead on a man for her own sadistic need. Again, not all women do this, but I have seen women do this so it is therefore a possible situation. If you bring a woman like this into the equation, add that to the already existing impulse and then deny him that impulse, is it truly the rapist's fault that he wasn't able to control his actions from that point forward? Also, I am not saying it is the woman's fault for leading him on...so no one better question me about that. This whole discussion is already saying the victim is 100% innocent, and trying to determine just how much at fault the rapist really is in certain hypothetical situations.

Full possession of mind and body has the possibility to exist. If it does truly exist and someone is truly possessed, are they held accountable for the actions the possessor made the person do? Remember this line of thinking is completely hypothetical in an attempt to think outside the box and find a logistical situation where the rapist cannot be completely blamed for the violent act committed. In other words, it is highly unlikely that most of these situations will happen. However, if they somehow did...should the rapist be held 100% accountable?

Brainwashing is a very tricky subject. In order to properly assess the term one must define what brainwashing actually means. Is it hypnotism? Is it being forced to do something a certain way for many months/years until it becomes that of a natural thing without question? Is it implanting so much pain, terror, torture, and hurt into the brainwashed person that they commit to you out of complete fear? Or even go the other way and say the person who has brainwashed you has actually used a side of logic that you are incapable of arguing and after years and years of learning said way of doing things, you follow it without question since you respect completely the lessons your 'teacher' taught you. There are other forms of brainwashing as well, but I think you get the idea that because of all the different variations there will also be various answers regarding the innocence of the rapist. I will go into one in detail, but feel free to use any of the examples above or anything else that may be brainwashing that I did not list in your arguments for supporting or fighting the stance that rapists can be considered innocent in their act.

I will be discussing the fear aspect and will write out a perfectly viable situation. A little boy (age 6) is playing by the side of the road on his parent's lawn. The kid gets picked up by a passing car (kidnapped) and taken to an isolated place where the kidnappers reside. Kidnappers explain to the boy that he is now living under their house and will follow their rules from now on. Little boy is scared and agrees because he is forced to agree. The kidnappers decide to sexually molest and rape the little boy say...three times a week. If the boy struggles, he is whipped mercilessly until he submits. The kidnappers also have a little girl the same age who they also rape mercilessly and make the boy watch every time. Three days a week for lets say 8 years this goes on. The boy and girl are now 14 or 15 years old. All of a sudden, one day...the kidnappers tell the boy to rape the girl and to enjoy doing it. To laugh at her pain, to control her completely, to ignore her screams and smile as he intruded inside of her protesting body. The boy is appalled by the request and refuses since he knows the girl doesn't like it and neither does he. The more he refuses, the more he is whipped. He finally submits and does to the girl what the rapists did to him. For the first year he is uncomfortable and whipped and beaten for every hesitant thought he has about it. This goes on for say 5 years, three times a day. It soon becomes natural to ignore the screams and enjoy the act as he has been told to do relentlessly and for the last 3 years the kidnappers are no longer forced to beat or whip him as he does it completely out of command. Proud of the monster they created, the kidnappers release him into society telling him to continue his actions to other women out there.

I understand that is very extreme, however it is also very possible, so if the guy, who now rapes as a natural thing due to 14 years of brainwashing, decides to rape another victim outside the control of his original kidnappers...does this make him at fault?

A society, in my opinion, is also a form of brainwashing. Basically, a society raising a whole group of people to follow a certain way of life is in essence brainwashing a mass amount of people at once to suit society’s needs as a whole. If a society hypothetically brainwashes a mass amount of people that rape is an accepted way of life, and one of those “rapists” rapes someone outside the society’s boundaries, should the person be personally accountable or should the society be to blame? Furthermore is the society in the wrong just because other society’s are not in agreement with it?

Please discuss your thoughts on this matter, I look forward to everyone’s reply.

I think the most relevant and possible is a scenario in which someone (A) drugs a person (B) and then convinces another person (C) that B wants to have sex with them. C is unaware that B has been drugged and believes B is willing. Is C at fault?

Originally Posted by Feral Fantom

I think the most relevant and possible is a scenario in which someone (A) drugs a person (B) and then convinces another person (C) that B wants to have sex with them. C is unaware that B has been drugged and believes B is willing. Is C at fault?

Yes. Someone being drugged is extremely obvious. You shouldn't ever have sex with someone unless YOU'VE actually talked to them about it. That's just a duh. Because you didn't take to find out from the actual GIRL you were having sex with if she wanted it, you are 100% liable in my book.

I couldn't really blame someone who had been raised to think this is natural. I just couldn't see myself blaming that person.

Originally Posted by Shalandriel

Yes. Someone being drugged is extremely obvious. You shouldn't ever have sex with someone unless YOU'VE actually talked to them about it. That's just a duh. Because you didn't take to find out from the actual GIRL you were having sex with if she wanted it, you are 100% liable in my book.

I couldn't really blame someone who had been raised to think this is natural. I just couldn't see myself blaming that person.

Who's to say the female didn't rape the male while he was drugged? But let's not get carried away with sexist ramblings...

I disagree. It depends on the drugs. And you're opinion that you shouldn't have sex with someone you haven't talked to about it with (Ah! confusing uses of pronouns and whatnot) isn't the social norm anymore, especially in college. Or at least, some of the colleges I've been to, but my point is, it was an opinionated assertion...

Originally Posted by Shtona

Who's to say the female didn't rape the male while he was drugged? But let's not get carried away with sexist ramblings...

I disagree. It depends on the drugs. And you're opinion that you shouldn't have sex with someone you haven't talked to about it with (Ah! confusing uses of pronouns and whatnot) isn't the social norm anymore, especially in college. Or at least, some of the colleges I've been to, but my point is, it was an opinionated assertion...

I also found that comment to be opinionated and completely out of touch with the one night stand culture. I have had numerous friends who enjoy having one night stands with people, yet I am quite sure they did not try to build a relationship prior to said one night stand. Indeed from what they told me, a one night stand is much more awkward and troublesome when you know the person.

Originally Posted by Shtona

Who's to say the female didn't rape the male while he was drugged? But let's not get carried away with sexist ramblings...

I disagree. It depends on the drugs. And you're opinion that you shouldn't have sex with someone you haven't talked to about it with (Ah! confusing uses of pronouns and whatnot) isn't the social norm anymore, especially in college. Or at least, some of the colleges I've been to, but my point is, it was an opinionated assertion...

They aren't sexist ramblings, I wasn't rambling at all. The situation given to us by the OP is about a MAN, so I used that as my example. I am well aware that men can be raped and that it DOES happen. It's an extremely rare case though, and is not the situation that was given.

Well, seeing as rape is having sex with someone without their consent, I feel that when you have sex with someone who never says "ok" or "yes" that it's rape. I'm sorry, but I quite thought I was up to date on the "social norm" seeing as I just turned 21 myself and take part in different sexual environments (not sure if that's the word I'm looking for or not). I've never once heard of someone NOT finding out if it was ok to have sex with the person before they actually did. I've never once seen someone just go and have sex with a person without getting SOME sort of indication from THAT person that it was ok. I've been to colleges in Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Tampa, I've seen quite a good share myself! I also have quite a few friends who are swingers (some couples), I've been to orgy parties, and quite a lot more. Not once have I ever seen what you claim to be the "social norm" of people have sex without the explicit consent of the other person, because, well, that's rape. If that person never says yes, or gives no kind of actual invitation, and you have sex with them, that person can then go and file a rape charge. That's not an opinion, that is the law.

Originally Posted by Shtona

And you're opinion that you shouldn't have sex with someone you haven't talked to about it with (Ah! confusing uses of pronouns and whatnot) isn't the social norm anymore, especially in college. Or at least, some of the colleges I've been to, but my point is, it was an opinionated assertion...

No, it's not opinion. Rape is sex with a lack of consent. If you have sex with someone who's unconscious, it's rape. If you have sex with someone who hasn't stated "no" but makes it quite obvious that they don't want to, it's rape. If you have sex with someone who is under the influence of a drug and cannot truly decide for themselves whether or not they want to have sex, voiding any consent they may give, it's rape. That's why having sex with children is considered rape -- because most psychologists agree that children cannot properly give consent, them saying "yes" doesn't mean anything, consent was not truly given, and thus, it is rape. This is the way the law works.

I would agree however that rape is somewhat the norm in college settings.

(Sorry for hijacking the thread for a moment, I just felt this needed to be addressed :P)

Concerning your last example; It doesn't matter if that's what they were raised to do. They're still guilty for something they've done wrong, even if they don't think it's wrong.

If someone was raised to torture, maim and slowly kill small animals like cats, puppies, gerbils, squirrels or any number of animals, would it make them guiltless if they did it?

If someone was raised to kill anyone that upset them, would they be considered guiltless because that's what they were taught?

How you were raised is not a mental disability ( therefore partially incapable of being accountable for their own crimes ) and never will be considered as such. If it was, you'd have to fine nearly every single religious person in this world for hate crimes and discrimination.

Just because one deviant's 'normal' is normal to them, they're not exempt from the rest of the world's rules. Rape is rape, and they're guilty no matter what they were raised to believe.

Yes, they are guilty, we never said they weren't, I don't believe. We said that they weren't to blame. In a court of law, yes, they are guilty of the ACT, but personally, I cannot blame them, that is MY choice. Also, your logic is slightly flawed because you assume that the person in question has no mental disorders. If someone were to be treated and raised to think rape is ok there is a high possibility that person also suffers from other mental issues.

You also need to do a bit more legal research Lore. When being charged for a crime, if the defendant does NOT understand what they are being charged for, they are usually given a different sort of trial, often leading to an insanity plea. If they do not understand what they are on trial for or what it is they did wrong, I think that IS a sort of insanity/mental disorder. They cannot properly function in society (for reasons NOT their own), so in the eyes of the court, it IS a disorder.

Originally Posted by Lore

Concerning your last example; It doesn't matter if that's what they were raised to do. They're still guilty for something they've done wrong, even if they don't think it's wrong.

If someone was raised to torture, maim and slowly kill small animals like cats, puppies, gerbils, squirrels or any number of animals, would it make them guiltless if they did it?

If someone was raised to kill anyone that upset them, would they be considered guiltless because that's what they were taught?

How you were raised is not a mental disability ( therefore partially incapable of being accountable for their own crimes ) and never will be considered as such. If it was, you'd have to fine nearly every single religious person in this world for hate crimes and discrimination.

Just because one deviant's 'normal' is normal to them, they're not exempt from the rest of the world's rules. Rape is rape, and they're guilty no matter what they were raised to believe.

Originally Posted by Shalandriel

Yes, they are guilty, we never said they weren't, I don't believe. We said that they weren't to blame. In a court of law, yes, they are guilty of the ACT, but personally, I cannot blame them, that is MY choice. Also, your logic is slightly flawed because you assume that the person in question has no mental disorders. If someone were to be treated and raised to think rape is ok there is a high possibility that person also suffers from other mental issues.

You also need to do a bit more legal research Lore. When being charged for a crime, if the defendant does NOT understand what they are being charged for, they are usually given a different sort of trial, often leading to an insanity plea. If they do not understand what they are on trial for or what it is they did wrong, I think that IS a sort of insanity/mental disorder. They cannot properly function in society (for reasons NOT their own), so in the eyes of the court, it IS a disorder.

Great responses so far. I will have a much more in depth reply later when I am able to. However, I would like to point something oout. Societal brainwashing and non acceptance from another culture can be described with two words:

Culture Clash

An example regarding this could be described with Native Americans meet Europeans. Not an example of rape, but it is an example of clashing traditions and values as Europeans so happily called the Native Americans heathens and savages due to their way of life. I am hypothetically giving an example of a society whose culture teaches that rape is acceptable and a different culture that doesn't support this ideal gets involved. That is my argument of innocence. Who is to say what culture is correct?

@Shalandriel: As you've clarified your statement, I agree with you. You weren't very clear in your original comment...no need to get snippy.

if the boy didn't think it was right before he was raped and he didn't like it, then why did he end up enjoying raping others? just wondering...it's a little i dunno, not understandable?

Originally Posted by stephstar101

if the boy didn't think it was right before he was raped and he didn't like it, then why did he end up enjoying raping others? just wondering...it's a little i dunno, not understandable?

Are you referring to my example of brainwashing? If not, clarify your question please.

yeah, so basically he was brainwashed into thinking that rape is good?

Originally Posted by stephstar101

yeah, so basically he was brainwashed into thinking that rape is good?

Good cannot be universally defined as it is based 100% off subjectivity. I am saying that through the years of brainwashing he was taught that rape is required to avoid pain. Humans, by their very nature wish to survive and do not wish to endure pain, every time he refused to rape while he was being brainwashed he was beaten mercilessly. So now, he has associated pain with the action of declining to rape. In order to not feel pain, he must rape. That is what the brainwashing example is explaining.

oh I get it...>.< those are some pretty messed up people...why must this world be so corrupt? and who came up with these rapist acts anyways?? someone with a twisted mind I bet...

Originally Posted by stephstar101

oh I get it...>.< those are some pretty messed up people...why must this world be so corrupt? and who came up with these rapist acts anyways?? someone with a twisted mind I bet...

You only believe the world is corrupt because that is what you have been taught. Corruptness is a biased idea as well as "messed up" is as well.

What do you mean...who came up with the rapist acts? I am confused. Rape is forced intercourse without consent. Humans did not come up with intercourse, and forcing someone to partake in the joys of reproductive fluid exchanging is not an idea one single human can come up with. It is simply an action that some people choose to do.

The person committed the act so they can not be a hundred percent innocent even if they were not accountable for their actions. Being psychotic does not erase the act of rape. In these unique circumstances the rapist should be given leniency because they were not aware of what they were doing.
The boy who was conditioned to rape should be given leniency as well. He spent the first six years of his life in normal society and the next fourteen in incarceration being raped and being forced to rape. He wouldn't know how to function in society properly.

If a rapist is mentally ill, they are still guilty of a crime, as in they did it, but they should be treated rather than incarcerated.