Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 December 17

= December 17 =

Identify a literary work where a male teenager fights all night before leaves home and goes to a sea adventure.
I'm trying to identify a literary work I read when I was in elementary school. The time: First half of twentieth century. The place: A city on west coast, USA. The main character: A male teenager.

In the first part, the main character goes to a bad neighborhood trying to buy some goods and must fist fight his way back home. Then, he leaves home and aboard a ship. He spends a long time at sea.

I would appreciate any reference. 200.55.136.228 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The second part reminds me of Captains Courageous. But I doubt that's it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The Cruise of the Dazzler by Jack London? --Amble (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Provocative clothing
Hi, what is the law called when a woman gets raped and the defence is that she didn't have enough clothes on to prevent rape at the time? ~ R.T.G 15:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a law, far from it, but it sounds like a form of victim blaming. --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It's usually sexist judges who cite those non-existent laws. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If you mean implied consent by not "enough clothes on to prevent rape at the time", it is not a statutory law:"Because clothing conveys messages to observers which are inaccurate reflections of the wearer's actual intent, attitudes,and personality characteristics, clothing is not relevant to the issue of consent. The popular belief, however, is that clothing does accurately reflect attitude and intent. Because judges are not immune to inaccurate perceptions and because they may adhere to stereotypical beliefs, they are likely to find that clothing is probative of consent and thus admit the victim's clothing as evidence pursuant to the rules of evidence."


 * this was before the 1994 Violence Against Women Act and federal (or state) evidentiary rules may have changed. If you mean a law against asserting such a defense, that may be covered by some rape shield laws. Also see the articles: rape myth, Denim Day. Links: &mdash;eric 16:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any such law that states that women who don't have enough clothes on are legally allowed to be raped. I have never heard of, nor do I believe, you will find any such law.  Can you refer us to where you received information that led you to believe such a law was a real thing?  If we can read your original sources for such information, perhaps we can better answer your questions about it.  -- Jayron 32 16:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was covered in the newspaper The Euclidean Plane Dealer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like the questioner might have been thinking of a defense in common law systems, which could be raised at trial by a defendant accused of rape. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * A pertinent recent case was in the Republic of Ireland: 'Irish outcry over teenager's underwear used in rape trial. In the trial, the defence lawyer told the jury: "You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front." The 27-year-old man was found not guilty of rape shortly afterwards.' (14 November 2018)   Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is true, and does happen alarmingly so. But that isn't the question the OP asked.  The question was not "Do juries sometimes decide someone is not guilty of rape because of what the victim was wearing", the question was "what is the law called..." that says that such assailants are allowed to commit such rapes.  There is no such law.  -- Jayron 32 18:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re Alansplodge, you have to be careful with media reporting of cases. That comment was not criticised for having produced an inappropriate verdict, just for being inappropriate. Which is bad enough, but not what we're talking about here. Yes, the lawyer made that awful comment, and yes, he was acquitted, but it's not been suggested that one led to the other. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it seems that many journalists and politicians are making that exact connection: Lawyer in Rape Trial Links Thong With Consent and Irish MP held up thong in parliament to protest victim blaming in rape cases. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, neither lawyers nor journalists nor politicians are particularly well known for making coherent arguments about anything. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that.  -- Jayron 32 17:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, I read both articles completely. No where do I actually see either a journalist or a politician making that exact connection. They mention things like "victim blaming", the low conviction rate for rape case, that what someone is wearing should not be taken as a sign as consent, how it makes a rape victim or woman feel etc. But none actually say that in this particular case, it's known or even that it's likely that the thong defence was part of the reason for the acquittal. They don't even really say it may be the case. This makes sense since AFAIK in Ireland, as in a lot of well what can be called the Commonwealth, jurors are supposed to maintain confidentiality [//www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courtroom/jury.html]. So we don't and will likely never actually know. And smart politicians and journalists will not actually make a connection they know cannot be proven, and so will likely serve as a needless distraction when they can talk about the stuff without making a connection. (Loosely similar to the way it's possible to talk about the connection between climate change and extreme weather events or massive wildfires, even in relation to specific events, without claiming that climate change was a contributing factor to that specific event.) P.S. Yes I'm aware that Ireland isn't actually part of the Commonwealth for a variety of reasons, but in many ways they are more connected than many places that are. Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As a point of further clarification, lets say you were on that jury. Maybe you found the comment disgusting. I would hope we'd all agree that despite that, it wouldn't be completely inappropriate for you to decide to convict the defendant even though you don't think the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt simply because their lawyer said something disgusting. I don't think you can even make inferences about the character of the defendant from it. I'd also note that there is another reason why journalists and politicians (at least outside parliament) would want to take with what they say beyond risking needless diversion. Defamation.  Media organisations in particular tend to be careful about not actually saying someone is guilty, especially after they have been not guilty, no matter if they may question aspects of the case. There are exceptions, e.g. the famous Daily Mail Murderer's headline in the Stephen Lawrence case but those are special cases.  And Irish defamation law, while maybe not quite as plaintiff friendly as it was before, is still I believe far closer to that in England and Wales than the US. E.g. [//www.rte.ie/news/2019/0503/1047207-world-press-freedom-day/]. Although frankly even in the US, I think in most cases, most media is not going to claim someone is guilty after they've been acquitted.  Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you mean you hope we agree that it would be completely inappropriate?&mdash;eric 14:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)