World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
[Article answers second paragraph]
Interesting. The situation really puts into perspective how both genders have it difficult. It can really rule out anything, if the man really raped her, the woman caused a fake accusation or it was just a big misunderstanding.
Firstly, the woman who was suspected to have sexsomnia, did she really have sexsomnia? And what evidence did the research facility produce?
Secondly, the man who is blamed to have raped her, if consent was given while she was deemed as fully awake, then why is this situation occurring? Did he fail to realise she is not fully awake?
Thanks for highlighting the parts of the article. Certainly answers some questions I had. The thing that can be said is that there isn't clinical proof of the sexsomnia. So there is a low chance of her having it.
The man may have raped her. however, why didn't he run away sooner? Usually perpetrators escape after the abuse (asking a question).
How about you believe women rather than come up with convoluted reasons for why they might not have been raped?
I do believe she feels raped, and I do feel the sexsomnia excuse is BS especially since other experts say that sexomnia exists only in papers used to defend rapists. There should've been a fair trial to determine if the rape indeed occured according to the rules of law (that does not mean she cannot feel violated if that's ruled out though). But to say that you just blindly need to believe her, or the accused is a but too much for my taste.
I will probably not be liked for this opinion but I hope we don't fall into the trap of always believing one or the other side without critical thinking. The victim deserves to be believed so that there will be an investigation and a court ruling and the accused deserves to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The judicialsystem is not flawless (see this example) and the negatives from those flaws have impact on both the accused and the victim. Only not always in the same amount or in the same time.
It exists, my wife has told me I’ve done it multiple times. It wasn’t to completion, I fell fully back asleep half way through, but sex was initiated. I was not conscious for the experience.
I have no opinion on this case but the phenomenon does exist.
Sorry... "feels" raped?
What the fuck?
“With the sense she has been raped wile she slept”
Seems to me an appropriate short hand to what was written. And i also believe that in rape cases, like all criminal cases, the victim should be trusted but verified. And the accused is innocent until proven guilty. And that the names of both parties should be sealed until the matter is resolved.
Hi, to answer your question I'd like to ask what convoluted reason did I state?
It's nice to see you replied to my comment, and the last part of my comment was just a question which I am confused about.
And sorry for coming across as not believing. You could consider that serious accusations shouldn't be based on beliefs - but facts.
This part. Where you came up for a ridiculous reason why it might not have been rape:
Oh sorry forgot the question mark there. My bad.
No, they don't. Statistically the majority of rapes are by people who know the victim personally. In cases of intimate partner rape the perpetrator does not typically "run away from" his wife or girlfriend etc afterwards.
Thanks for replying. I do see that there is some incompatibility with both our proof. However, I do realise that you're talking about perpetrators which are close to the victim - and that may yield a different response to that of a random person/ newly met person.
Suffice to say, it does make sense that persons closest to the victim would be the perpetrator.
He did run away when confronted.
The question was why he didn't do it sooner. Not when confronted.
If he knew he did something wrong, illegal, and immoral then why did he stay and wait until the victim wakes up.
You think rapists are perfectly rational actors? They only make good decisions?
There are tons of reasons rapists think they can get away with rape. He clearly had one in mind until she confronted him directly.
To answer this, no they are not perfectly rational. However they are not dumb, anyone can be a rapist, it is a mental disorder which doesn't correlate with their IQ.
The 'tons of reasons' statement would be interesting to read about, as usually a perpetrators focus is rape and escape. Not befriending the victim - i might suggest how inconsistent this sounds.
Unless the victim has other mental problems then this could occur. However, I was simply seeking an answer, not an explosive statement.
Thought that an exclaimer will work for some ignorant people but that's how stuff works.
And I am also interested of why are you so deliberated of calling this 'stupid shit', and 'awful take'? I know I have put it in words wrong and next time I'll do it better, but I assure you fail to read and understand my comment first.
I'll refrain from deleting this as I know there are people who understand what I wrote.