Attitudes to rape

[James R]

dragon:

AND NO I DO NOT HATE WOMEN. I AM AFRAID OF WOMEN ACCUSING ME OF ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ACCUSE ME OF.

There's no need to be afraid. Read my post to Prince_James, above, where I carefully explain the concept of onus of proof in criminal cases.

[redarmy11]

Utterly absurd is the deliberate obtuseness though their fooling no one but convincing themselves of what leniency they want to keep plugging.

Its rape if you don't stop when she says no, so simple ain't it? Those who keep bypassing this simple and obvious reality are just fooling themselves. Give me a fuking break! What dumbshits

To be charitable I think some are starting on page 8.

mountainhare: back to page 1, please.

Although why I'm being charitable to a holocaust denier... god only knows.

But that's another story.

[mountainhare]

What's on page one?

And since when was I a Holocaust denier?

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

I remember in college being told that the only way to have sex without it being rape was to specifically ask permision before each "escalation" of intimate contact. May I kiss you? May I fondle your left breast? How about the right one? May I remove your panties? May I touch your vagina.

Clearly, that is stupid. But it's also very clearly not what we're dealing with in this thread.

All these examples of how it's rape if the woman consents and then says no just before you cum. Is it the equivalent of the woman being jumped by a stranger in the park?

It is exactly equivalent if you continue to force yourself on the woman once she has given you a clear indication that further activity is unwelcome.

Do you really think it is different?

Or how it's rape if a couple on a date gets drunk. They told us that in college too. "An intoxicated woman can not give consent." Give me a fricken break. If that rule were followed, ninety-nine percent of premarital sex would be rape. I mean, that's pretty much the whole dating process. Take her out, ply her with alcohol and entertainment, and hope you'll get lucky. The difference is the rapist won't accept no for an answer.

Exactly. So, you are aware that there is a very fine line, even for a drunken college kid. He must be careful that he accepts "no" when it is given. He must realise that, often, "No" really means no and not just "playing hard to get".

Some guys never seem to get that message.

They believe that no girl would actually want to resist their fatal charms.

[redarmy11]

What's on page one?

The beginning of enlightenment.

And since when was I a Holocaust denier?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....78#post1186778

sam:

Zionists, Republicans and their ilk will do anything to justify the butchery of Muslims, or anyone who opposes their Imperialistic attitudes. You should know this by now. It is their nature to act like sub-human filth.

Perhaps someone should point out to these people that perhaps the German society reached the 'limits of their tolerance' for the Jewish people prior to the Holohoax?

My my, wouldn't that provoke a nasty reaction?

Any other questions?

[mountainhare]

Again, what's on page one?

And since when was I a Holocaust denier? (Hint: There is a subtle difference between 'denial' and 'diminishment')

[redarmy11]

Oh shut the fuck up.

[madanthonywayne]

It is exactly equivalent if you continue to force yourself on the woman once she has given you a clear indication that further activity is unwelcome.

Do you really think it is different?



Exactly. So, you are aware that there is a very fine line, even for a drunken college kid. He must be careful that he accepts "no" when it is given. He must realise that, often, "No" really means no and not just "playing hard to get".

If I were on a jury, I would regard a stranger accused of jumping some woman and raping her as an animal that should be severly dealt with. If the man and woman knew each other and the only issue was whether or not she gave concent that particular time or if she, at some point, withdrew consent... I'd be thinking, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." and would be very suspicious of the woman.

Honestly, I'd probably assume the stranger was guilty; but assume the "friend/boyfriend/spouse/date" was innocent without overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Things like evidence of physical abuse, a previous restraining order, something more than he said/she said.

I think rape shield laws have gone too far and shouldn't apply in cases of date rape since all you have to go by is the credibility of the witness.

If it's a stranger, then of course the womans history/morals/whatever have no bearing. But if he says she said yes, and she says she didn't; how do you decide? Since I know that no damaging evidence about the female is allowed, I would probably never vote for conviction in such a case.

I believe some big sports anouncer who wears a wig was convicted of date rape-I can't remember his name, Marv Albert, maybe. The public soon found out the woman had cryed rape many times, and was generally an untrustworthy person. None of this was admitted into court under the rape shield laws and he was convicted, many believe, unjustly.

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

You're getting into shady territory now. In general, I'm inclined to agree with you - up to a point.

If I were on a jury, I would regard a stranger accused of jumping some woman and raping her as an animal that should be severly dealt with. If the man and woman knew each other and the only issue was whether or not she gave concent that particular time or if she, at some point, withdrew consent... I'd be thinking, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." and would be very suspicious of the woman.

That's perfectly reasonable. You have to more carefully look at all the circumstances where there was an existing relationship than where there wasn't. But that is a factual problem, not a legal one.

Honestly, I'd probably assume the stranger was guilty; but assume the "friend/boyfriend/spouse/date" was innocent without overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Things like evidence of physical abuse, a previous restraining order, something more than he said/she said.

In cases that get to court, there most often is evidence other than "he said/she said". For example, in many spouse-rape cases, there is often evidence of a history of abusive behaviour and violence.

I think rape shield laws have gone too far and shouldn't apply in cases of date rape since all you have to go by is the credibility of the witness.

What rape shield laws are you thinking of, specifically? Explain.

If it's a stranger, then of course the womans history/morals/whatever have no bearing. But if he says she said yes, and she says she didn't; how do you decide? Since I know that no damaging evidence about the female is allowed, I would probably never vote for conviction in such a case.

You realise that no evidence of the accused's "priors" can be led in such a case, either. He may have previous rape convictions, but if you're on the jury you won't hear about them. Why would you automatically side with the man rather than the woman? That would be irrational.

I believe some big sports anouncer who wears a wig was convicted of date rape-I can't remember his name, Marv Albert, maybe. The public soon found out the woman had cryed rape many times, and was generally an untrustworthy person. None of this was admitted into court under the rape shield laws and he was convicted, many believe, unjustly.

I agree that this sometimes happens. Sometimes people are wrongly convicted of murder too. This is a shame. But it doesn't justify putting victims on trial.

[iam]

i don't understand that men believe there are hordes of women crying rape falsely. AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO CONVICT NOW. ITS ALWAYS BEEN HARDER FOR THE WOMAN AS ITS THE WOMAN WHO IS/ AND HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY SCRUTINIZED OR UNDER SUSPICION OF BEING A 'SLUT' NOT THE MAN..SCRUTINIZED. HELLOOOOOOOO? WHY THESE OBSCURE AND RARE EXAMPLES? BECAUSE THESE ARE SENSATIONALIZED. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY WOMEN DO NOT GET JUSTICE? YOU'LL NEVER HEAR OF IT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T!!

[draqon]

iam:
ummm...like caps-lock-on for one small sentence or two...not for a paragraph.

[Theoryofrelativity]

pj

You say hetero rape is not same as homo rape

actually it is identical except for one lss orrifice

in hetero rape

A MAN inserts his cock by force into the females orrifices

IN Homosexual rape

A MAN inserts his cock by force into the males orrifices

The fact you choose to 'observe' a difference is actually welcoming because it shows that in fact you are aware of the horror of having a man force himself upon you. You just choose to imagine a difference between the victims orrifices to ensure you have no sympathy for a woman in this situation. It does show a lack of respect for women PJ.

Forced entry is NOT sex, it is violent assault, male or female makes zero difference, it involves an orrifice that is being subjected to a violent assault.

I assure you your mouth and anus are no more unappealing to a rapist male than a womans. In prison you would swiftly find that out.


Note:
before any attempt is made (by you or others) to again compare a man raping a woman or another man to that of a woman raping a man let me clarify the difference

For a woman to rape a man, the man has to be sexually aroused, thus already there is NO similarity at all between that and that of a man raping either male or female. AS NO SEXUAL aorusal is present in the victim of male rapist. Now if the man being 'raped' by the female was 'afraid, experiencing trauma' etc an erection would be impossible to maintain or even induce. So the presence of an erection in the 'victim' is evidence that emotional trauma was not present at the time of the said 'rape'.

When the man is aroused the woman will then sit on him. There is no pain to the penis in doing this, no bruising and no damage, presumably significantly less emotional trauma as a result.

For any similarity to exist the male rapist would need to aoruse his female victim first then merely put a jam donut on one of her fingers. No forced penetration of any orrifce must take place.

Thus there is NO similarity between the act of male/female being raped by another male to a male being 'raped' by a female. NONE.

BUT every similarity between man raping man and man raping female.

[James R]

Update on the poll:

Notice that two thirds of responses have been "None of the above" up to this point. This is another clear signal to the people with alternate views that they are out of touch with modern society.

[Oniw17]

ToR

No such thing as a women raping a man I take it? Possibly while tied to a chair and force fed viagra?

[Theoryofrelativity]

Update on the poll:

Notice that two thirds of responses have been "None of the above" up to this point. This is another clear signal to the people with alternate views that they are out of touch with modern society.

1/3 of the population James is a worrying 'minority' thus education of these issues is required. Not just condemnation.

[Baron Max]

Notice that two thirds of responses have been "None of the above" up to this point. This is another clear signal to the people with alternate views that they are out of touch with modern society.

Hmm, one third of the population is a pretty substantial number, James. I'm not so sure that you can just dismiss that as easily as you've done.

Baron Max

[Baron Max]

1/3 of the population James is a worrying 'minority' thus education of these issues is required. Not just condemnation.

It always worries me when someone says/claims something like "...thus education is required..." I.e., that one group can feel so confident as to try to "force" the minority into believing as they do. Does that strike you as "right"?

No, I'm not saying that rape is okay ...I'm just saying that too many people make the claim of "education" as a fix-all for all of the problems in the world. They've been trying such things for decades and we still have the problems ...so what does that say about the idea of "education"?

I'm firmly convinced that no matter what a society does, there's always going to be a criminal element that will not conform to the "norm". Those individuals should be dealt with, not coddled and pampered, and excuses made for their behavior. If a man violently rapes a woman, he should be eliminated from society. If a person commits a violent crime, they should be eliminated from society. Unless we take such a stand, the crime rate is going to continue to climb ...as it's been doing for a long, long time.

Baron Max

[Prince_James]

James R:

I merely set down what the current law is. I made it very clear as to your options, just to let you know. You can either accept the laws made by people more enlightened than yourself, or try to get the laws changed.

You appeal to the law as a superior authority in the manner, as if a law - a fallible declaration of a specific culture's socially accepted beliefs - amounted to vindication. It does not, James R. You should know this.

Moreover, I'd have you define how they are more "enlightened" and why anyone should accept such "enlightenment"? Upon what foundations do you affirm there is "greater morality" or some other principle in these "enlightened" laws?

Sounds like you want to work to change them, then.

Actually, my charge was against all laws, those which I agree with and disagree with.

No. They are bigotted because they are degrading to women. They treat women as lower class citizens, and blame them for things which are the acts of evil men.

In what way do they degrade women? I have never said anyone ill of women thi sentire time. Similarly, in what way would they be second class citizens?

And once again, where have I blamed anyone? I have never charged any woman with immorality here.

Clearly, lawyers and lawmakers in the United States disagree with you, because they work hard to eliminate laws that are contrary to one another.

United States and Europe and Australia and any other civilized nation that premises innocence until proven guilt. But legal systems - fallible as they are - are not always corrected.

The prosecution must show that there was sex and that there was no consent.

Yet you claimed just earlier that one must prove consent?

In his defence, an accused person may try to establish that he had the consent of the accuser. In doing so, if he introduces sufficient evidence to provoke a "reasonable doubt" that there was consent, then he will get off scott free.

What would be considered valid proof of consent?

Please explain what is absurd about my views. "Absurd" means non-sensicle. If I have not made sense somewhere, please point it out for me.

Hopefully in our debate (although it seems you are not willing to address this on a rational level) such shall be demonstrated.

Sorry PJ, but I can't respect you while you continue to hold the views you are espousing and refuse to make any effort to educate yourself or take on board new information that is provided to you. Sticking your head in the sand displays a lack of integrity that I personally find quite galling.

So be it. A lack of civility only speaks ill on your part. I will, however, charge you on the same close mindedness you declare here, as well as basing your viewpoints on what seems to be an arbitrary sense of superiority of one's moral beliefs regardless of foundations for such.

It is mostly a common-sense thing. If a women is actively participating in the sexual act, expressing enjoyment and so on, then it will usually be obvious that consent is present. On the other hand, if she lies stiffly, won't look at her attacker, takes no active role in the act, then chances are consent is not present. This is a question of fact in any particular case.

So therefore you accept that there can be non-verbal consent?

Moreover, it is said that some women - specifically women bored in bed - are not wont to express themselves extensively in bed. Should that be considered as a lack of consent? Also, how can this be proven?

My advice to you is that if you cannot tell whether a woman is consenting to sex, you should ask her verbally, just to make sure. For example, you could ask "Would you like to have sex with me?" If the answer is "yes", you can safely assume you have consent.

Impossible to prove in court if she later decides to lie, is it not? Unless a man has a recorder on his person.

Read Bells post above. This is nonsense. Head in the sand doesn't cut it here, PJ.

Consider this scenario:

A man approaches a woman, they talk, blahblahblahblah, things get romantic. He kisses her. She doesn't respond. Oblivious to this, he begins to unaddress her - never threatening her, nor showing any other signs of harm - and she never says a word. Then still oblivious to her lack of response, he begins to have sex with her and throughout the whole time, she is quiet and doesn't fight back. Again, not threatening her whatsoever. When done she shows no outward signs of distress, but is perhaps a bit quiet. He leaves and not a hair on her head was harmed.

Is that rape?

Moreover, people who are "paralyzed by fear" do not cut it. Those who are met with threats and other situations, routinely show shock, fear, and other such things. They also tend to struggle as much as they can and may perhaps (but not necessarily needed -if- the other things are there) say no.

Then you ought to work to change the laws. At present, you are out of touch with mainstream society. You should become active in your community. Perhaps you should campaign for regressive sex laws.

Perhaps I shall.

Then don't bother getting married, PJ. You can have sex without being married, and there's no other reason you'd get married, right?

That is why the system exists socially.

Yeah, and if you were raped and then had $100 thrown at you, that would be a business deal too.

I'm not a prostitute.

Read my post to Absane, above, regarding fantasies vs. reality. Once again, head in the sand just doesn't cut the mustard here, PJ. You're living in a mental Disneyland. Re-read Bells post for a reality check.

I'm sure she has a rigorous psychoanalysis of me presented that implies she knows what I'd find sexually appealing or ambivalent.

After they have been convicted and fairly sentenced for their crimes, then they can get therapy.

And we can educate women to protect themselves from rape.

We teach people caution around dangerous animals. Why not around humans?

Or, better yet, we can take people with attitudes such as yours and attempt to educate them, so they never commit rape in the first place.

You will note I do not have a "rapist attitude". I believe rape to be appalling immoral.

You don't seem to realise that reducing the penalty a rapist gets because of the woman's dress is equivalent to assigning fault to the woman. Think about it.

I never affirmed support for this. My votes were for the four I listed in my initial reply. I -never- claimed that any reduction of sentence was owed in this circumstance.

You mischaracterize or misunderstand me.

Which evolutionary psychologists?

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...oughgarden.htm
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/rape.html
http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/P...htm#whymenrape

Care for more?

Well, I'm sure there was a first person to write down the idea. But the idea is now commonly held by most people with an appropriate education about the issues.

Considering it is a question related to the humanities, which are notorious for having a new theory every twenty or so years, I am sure that in time such things shall be construed differently. Moreover, Feminism (as well as many other philosophies) tend to warp data for their own ends. Feminism is also quite fond of affirming that all sex is rape.

You didn't answer the question, but stuck your head in the sand and tried to avoid it again. Want to try again?

Is one conscious when one is drunk? Yes. Is one capable of making decisions? Yes. Is one capable of initiating sexual contact whilst drunk? Yes. Is one capable of doing so when unconscious? No. Is one conscious when unconscious? No. Can one initiate sexual contact whilst unconscious? No.

Why do you draw such a black-and-white line between consciousness and unconsciousness? Don't you think rape is potentially worse when you're conscious and aware of everything that is happening, compared to if you're unconscious?

One cannot render consent or show non-consent when unconscious. One at least has the opportunity to show either when conscious. But yes, one could make a claim that no rape occurred if someone was unharmed and unconscious during the experience.

That's what you're constantly claiming. You're in denial. Read your own posts.

Funny that apparently you are capable of telling me when I am saying.

You have a naive view of criminals. Don't you think a criminal will say anything to get himself off the hook or make himself look better to a judge or jury?

Of course. But we'd have to prove that the reasons he gave for any action are real until shown otherwise, wouldn't we? And also, this would be an invalid defense.

Nobody "normally" goes about getting raped.

People normally have sex.

TheoryOfRelativity:

A MAN inserts his cock by force into the females orrifices

IN Homosexual rape

A MAN inserts his cock by force into the males orrifices

One can be legitimately disturbed by the sex of one's sexual partner. Even in the case of the extremely promiscious, non-bisexual, non-homosexual, homosexual activities would not be invited.

The fact you choose to 'observe' a difference is actually welcoming because it shows that in fact you are aware of the horror of having a man force himself upon you. You just choose to imagine a difference between the victims orrifices to ensure you have no sympathy for a woman in this situation. It does show a lack of respect for women PJ.

My horror of the act is rooted in my love of women and my sexual apathy towards males. I'd imagine a promiscious straight woman would not want to be subjected to lesbian rape.

I assure you your mouth and anus are no more unappealing to a rapist male than a womans. In prison you would swiftly find that out.

Unlikely, as I am a rather strong man who is unlikely to be targetted for rape in prison. Although I am also unlikely to go to priso to begin with.

Also, that is very unlikely. Rapists of women are not rapists of men necessarily.

For a woman to rape a man, the man has to be sexually aroused, thus already there is NO similarity at all between that and that of a man raping either male or female. AS NO SEXUAL aorusal is present in the victim of male rapist. Now if the man being 'raped' by the female was 'afraid, experiencing trauma' etc an erection would be impossible to maintain or even induce. So the presence of an erection in the 'victim' is evidence that emotional trauma was not present at the time of the said 'rape'.

Actually, that isn't so. As most men will tell you, we get erections pretty much at any time. It is a very physical process.

Barring a lack of blood flow, I cannot think of any time where I'd personally be incapable of getting an erection. Moreover, women can be turned on by rape.

When the man is aroused the woman will then sit on him. There is no pain to the penis in doing this, no bruising and no damage, presumably significantly less emotional trauma as a result. The number of males reporting 'rape' by a male/female and a woman raping a man.

I thought the "violation" is what counts?

Moreover, it is likely because men are generally stronger and capable of fending off a woman that they don't experience rape.

Here's a question: What about a woman using a strap-on dildo to rape a man? Or making him perform cunnlingus or analingus?

[Theoryofrelativity]

PJ,

I would not be traumatised by a lesbian raping me in the same way as a man, not remotely the same. Women have a natural fear of men, regardless of their sexual preference, thus forced penetration is a confirmation and reinforcement of a fear that already exists.

I also do not have sex with women so having sex with my partner would not bring back memories of the female encounter in quite the same way. It also rarely happens except perhaps in prison. Thus the only real rape threat in society is men against women and men against other men (young boys).

Men

I am wondering presently PJ if the reason you defend rape of a promiscous female because you yourself know someone guilty of such a crime personally, do you?

(Also men experiencing fear and trauma do not get erections)

[Prince_James]

TheoryOfRelativity:

I would not be traumatised by a lesbian raping me in the same way as a man, not remotely the same. Women have a natural fear of men, regardless of their sexual preference, thus forced penetration is a confirmation and reinforcement of a fear that already exists.

So if a lesbian shoved her fist up your vagina and anus and made you lick her and suck on her anus and vagina, you would not be "traumatized" by this? What about if she used sex toys?

Moreover, what sort of fear are you speaking of in regards to men?

I also do not have sex with women so having sex with my partner would not bring back memories of the female encounter in quite the same way. It also rarely happens except perhaps in prison. Thus the only real rape threat in society is men against women and men against other men (young boys).

This I will admit. It is rare.

I am wondering presently PJ if the reason you defend rape of a promiscous female because you yourself know someone guilty of such a crime personally, do you?

No. And I will note that I do not -defend- rape against a promiscious woman. I have affirmed several times that I find it immoral. Only that I cannot understand why a promiscious woman would care.

(Also men experiencing fear and trauma do not get erections)

If I ever am afraid and I can recall this, I shall try to arouse myself.