He Won’t Reverse the Decision

[Mark H]

...
But there's a big difference between using Rohypnol and drink/cocaine.
Regards

If you woke up with a sore bottom, you'd care which type of drug you'd been given?

[drab]

If you don't appreciate the difference....

[Mark H]

It feels like you are implying that someone who is extremely drunk has contributed to his/her own demise? Or do you think that plying someone with booze is less wrong (even though the intent may be the same) than administering a drug?

For me, the method does not matter, the intend does.

[510bhan]

 . . . and of course convicted rapists are freed after they've served their time and often reoffend.

This was deliberately meant to challenge fundamental issues so folk could explore avenues of thought they perhaps might not have considered before. Each of us has our own set of values and we do make judgements . . .

Mark -- I think you've nailed the point.

It feels like you are implying that someone who is extremely drunk has contributed to his/her own demise? Or do you think that plying someone with booze is less wrong (even though the intent may be the same) than administering a drug?

For me, the method does not matter, the intend does.

[drab]

The point I'm making is simply that using a strong drug to rape is a crime.
It takes time to get drunk and the woman (unless she's stupid) has time to say no/leave or whatever. Most women know that they are more likely to have sex when drunk, they can see what's happening. Slipping a drug into her drink....
So yes Mark, I'm absolutely saying that giving someone (adult) drink is less wrong than giving them Rohypnol. A woman can choose not to drink to excess, she has no choice if one drink is spiked.
 
5,
 'but is alcohol, or a lie, cocaine or cannabis any less pleasant a way for a woman to be conned and bedded? Grey areas.'
I would have thought Rohypnol is a less pleasant way, for the above reasons. Being a man, I can only assume.

[510bhan]

I really don't know what the reaction would be -- guess it's like whether rape by a stranger is worse than rape by someone you know.

[Mark T]

Going back to the poem, I think its actually a positive take on a scenario - so the MC has committed some kind of sexual predator offence, got caught and punished/treated and is now just a swinger of a different sort, ha.
The positive is that instead becoming frustrated and I dunno, turning to lighting matches and beheading chickens or something, he finds a new methodology and becomes an unselfish lover to express his diminished sexuality which has various practical benefits. If the chemical castration isn't permanent, some those women will doubtless return for the cherry on top. All seems a bit unlikely but certainly possible.    

[Mark H]

The point I'm making is simply that using a strong drug to rape is a crime.

I understand what you are saying, but it is the rape that is the crime irrespective of the method used. Interestingly, in the UK (I am aware you are Irish) aggravating factors affect sentencing and in this context the law bundles the use of drugs or alcohol (as facilitators) together. So in the UK at least your moral point of view is contrary to the legal position.

M

[heidi52]

giving someone (adult) drink is less wrong than giving them Rohypnol. A woman can choose not to drink to excess, she has no choice if one drink is spiked.
 

Totally agree with drab here. I'm not blaming the victims but as a woman you have to be aware that if you get intoxicated to the point of passing out, there are men out there who will take advantage and abuse you. At some point in your drinking  before you get to the stage of passing out you are aware you have had enough. Continuing to drink at that point is a stupid mistake, but at least you have a choice.

A woman who is given a drink spiked with Rohypnol has no choice. That's the difference. They are both rape though.

It's like the difference between using a gun or not when robbing someone. The end result is the same, you robbed them, but the law sees the gun as aggravating.

And personally I think castration is an excellent idea for convicted sex offenders, but the old fashioned way would be better.   

Back to the poem,  I find it a little hard to believe your MC would actually make that kind of character 180. I get the whole power substitution, but it just doesn't seem like human nature.

Just my take on it, I don't know any sex offenders to know what kind of change they are capable of. 

 

[duck]

Hi 510
I love this as poetry - the deliberate liberty to tell and to do so with such economy and style. Your ability to kick start a debate without pressing for it and indeed the view expressed here, which is singulary so female that few men have the 'balls' to really get it. I wish there was more female bravery out there to counter simple male urges.
Duck

[510bhan]

Thanks everybody, I'm really delighted at the discussion it's generated and the views you have expressed without this turning into a squabble. Poets win! Hurrah!

Thank you all for reading, and your kind comments -- even if belief is suspended on the subject matter.

[Victor]

Contentwise, this is unconvincing at best- if not, positively sophistic. The implication is that a rapist is driven by his sex drive  - he was a ruthless "beast" when he could get it up, then turned into a sensitive mystic once he couldn't get it up- which isn't just uninformed, but bespeaks of a provincial femininity and an ingenuous androphobia, and echoes of such adages that superannuated spinsters use to caution their wards about men : Men are such pigs; a stiff dick has no conscience; and so forth. With a little bit of thought anyone can see that rape or any act of interpersonal violence has for its triggers a wide spectrum of psychological anomalies including hatred, sadism, personal inadequacy, cultural conditioning etc. A rapist isn't motivated by his dick anymore than a murderer is motivated by his gun or an artist by his sable.  

Executionwise, it is overwritten and barely imaginative, and seems less to show and more to shout. Phallic penetration, tongue licks, enforced celibacy are all highly redundant word combinations and grate on your intelligence. In a way, they reflect the overall anxiety of the piece to sell the reader on an improbable premise by bashing him over the head with a gushing of such repetitive ideas as : a monster, a beast, an addict, a bachelor; spilling seeds, masturbation, bathroom privacy, less mess; desire to please, focus on her pleasure, satisfied partners. On a slightly closer analysis, this just reads like a wistful, sublimated fantasy of a woman who yearns for men to do more to her in bed than hump and walk out - but alas the solution of that lies elsewhere.

[510bhan]

Cheers Victor -- appreciate your comments. You've missed the point and misinterpreted my intention, but that's okay, everyone has their own opinion. Rather than a rapist driven by his sex drive it was the 'power' or the ego that was implied in his conquests. Certain beliefs uphold the idea of losing ego to find oneself, and harmony, in the world.

The over-writing, as you call it, was meant to express a particular opinion, sorry if it hurt your ears with its shouting. Subtlety was not the primary concern. I do believe the word choices are correct as there could be misunderstandings regarding what might be regarded as penetration [laws have changed to reflect that] and enforced celibacy rather than elected celibacy [as some people choose for whatever reasons].

Not all women's fantasies are the same.

[Mark H]

5

There's a consensus I believe that the premise is unbelievable, but did you not hint at one point that it is based on fact?

M

[510bhan]

The only facts are that sometimes chemical castration is used as a punishment for those convicted of sex crimes and that rohypnol is sometimes used as a drug to overcome partners for sex.

The rest is hyperbole and wild speculation more of a metaphor for 'what if people could change' set in a highly unlikely scenario. The subject matter obviously stirs responses and reactions people make either as a knee jerk or after some consideration . . . just interesting to see how willing we are to explore the possibility. Some replies have focused on the content as if it were fact or a true account of an event.

He won't reverse the decision is the man's choice once he has seen the 'power' he has, [evidenced by the increased number of notches on his bedpost -- still the currency of his 'worth' in his mind] that it didn't rely solely on his dick as he had imagined it had before. Hey, maybe he still eats babies and skins puppies alive, who knows. Maybe he was always a choir boy who helped old ladies across the road and just hadn't acquired any sexual finesse yet.    

Can people change? Would we accept they have if their actions show such?